PC12 Glide Approach

[Nil defects]

Reported in the West Australian last night that a PC12 had a total power failure and managed to make a successful glide approach into Derby.

Was it a RFDS aircraft.

Anyone have any more info?

[tmpffisch]

RFDS PC12, Pan was initially called, followed by a mayday. Oil sprayed over the windscreen, followed by a shutdown or failure.

[aseanaero]

It seems the advertised statistics for single engined turbines rarely failing or shutting down in flight doesn't bare out the reality , it seems this is happening with a caravan or now PC-12 at least 3 or 4 times a year in Oz alone ?

[VH-XXX]

It certainly seems like the season for single engine turbines dropping their bundle, that's for sure!

[Josh Cox]

Well done to the Captain !!!.

[PyroTek]

It seems the advertised statistics for single engined turbines rarely failing or shutting down in flight doesn't bare out the reality , it seems this is happening with a caravan or now PC-12 at least 3 or 4 times a year in Oz alone ?Is it a common cause? - such as maintenance, coincidence, or age etc.?

Also, great work to the capt for getting it down almost blindly - due oil apparently! :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

"JC" I concur, well done Capt:D Me takes me hat off to ya!
And no I won't be brought in kicking & screaming about single V twin, those who know me know my feelings on that subject. The PC would kill the old Beech in every area.....bar 1 !!!!:}

Wmk2..............love the sound of out of sync props:}

[The Strez]

RFDS PC12 NWO suffered a total engine failure about 20nm out of Derby, heading to Kununurra then onto Darwin. Doc, nurse and patient on board at the time. Pilot did an awesome job and got the plane back on the ground in one piece. I tip my hat to her as she kept calm under very stressful situation.

[FourBalls]

Congratulations to the skipper - good effort. Anyone know if she had to use the dv window to see or is an oiled up windshield not as bad as it sounds? We are taught to use this window (open it) as required in such instances but have I often giggled in wonder at how TF you could see anything through it. Sideslip down final? :confused:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

It seems the advertised statistics for single engined turbines rarely failing or shutting down in flight doesn't bare out the reality , it seems this is happening with a caravan or now PC-12 at least 3 or 4 times a year in Oz alone ?

Compared to how many hours being flown?????
If you want to look at the PT6A, start including King Airs, TBM's, PC9's...
Does it really seem that often?

That's like saying there are hundreds of accidents involving commodores and falcons. Should they be investigated?

[Joker 10]

OK how many in flight shut downs due FAILURE, not precautionary, on King airs in same time periods ??

Is this the start of a trend with this type of engine ?? as they become more widely dispersed in the < 5700 kg fleet .

[Jabawocky]

I doubt it, in the 90's the manager of P&WC who was a good friend of ours living here in BNE at the time would often show me around teh workshop over a cup of coffee and they would have the odd failed PT6 from Otters and Bandits and King Airs, there was never a flood of them but they happened just like any other turbine I guess.

The difference today is and in particular on this forum you hear about them all and quickly. Just like rapes and murders, the news travels much faster these days.

If anyone knows Peter that worked during Red's days at P&WC ask him about failure rates and the causes, he would surely know.

J:ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Point is, as usage increases, proportionally, there are going to me more occurences.

Questioning whether they are "still" a safe powerplant was like the media suggesting there should be an investigation into the safety of PA-31's due to the Whyalla, Hotham and similar accidents.:hmm:

[SM227]

Out of interest, does an endorsment on say a caravan, PC12, TBM etc. go over and practice a couple glide approaches? And are the pilots always looking round for a spot to put them down?

[Whitey63]

My endorsement included quite a few forced landings without power. One from FL140 thirty miles out, one from 5000 feet five miles out and lots on downwind in the circuit. The book (from memory) says you should be able to achieve a forced landing without power from 79 miles out (nil wind) from FL300.

[VH-XXX]

If you are not looking around for a spot to land SM27 you are not much of a pilot in my books!

[FourBalls]

They do glide very well. You can achieve 2:1 comfortably from most altitudes and even 2.5:1 if minimal curcuit work required ie straight in approach.
are the pilots always looking round for a spot to put them down?
We set range rings on the ehsi according to altitude (eg 40nm @ FL200 ) and so any suitable landing sites on the screen are fair game.

Turnbacks from >1000' are easily achieved - a common error in training is underestimating glide ability and a tendency to over-run. With zero thrust set they just keep floating down the runway! At airfields wiith cross strips, even an engine failure turning crosswind usually means you can continue the turn and land on the adjacent runway.

Cloud breaks are fun too - 1:1 descent from 7nm just below vne giving max inertia for arrival in the curcuit - once again plenty of options (if visual:sad:)

This is all well and good in training that I hope to never use.

[scarediecat]

It sounds like a good glider to me and well done to the captain, outstanding effort. Me personally, if an engine fails I want to be diverting to the most suitable aerodrome, not any suitable landing site :sad:. Two donk's are much more fun. Just out of interest, AD-PLC is the PC12 always within a gliding distance of somewhere safe to land? Just curious is all.

[Pin37]

Is 2:1 a good glide??? does not sound to good to me. From 20000' doesnt that mean you can only go about 8 NM??. 2.5:1 is not much better.I would have thought a PC12 would have a glide around, say, 6-7.5:1 I could be wrong ofcourse.

[rcoight]

Just out of interest, AD-PLC is the PC12 always within a gliding distance of somewhere safe to land? Just curious is all.

Yes. From FL180, glide range is re 40-45nm. ie. 80nm between suitable sites is fine.
YMLD (Maitland) - YSPY (Spilsby Island) is 69nm, with YPLC a further 23nm away. And there are plenty of perfectly acceptable landing areas on Yorke Peninsula that would be closer than that.

Just to get Wally excited, one of our aircraft went YPAD - YWYY (Wynyard, TAS) earlier this week. From FL270 / 280 the aircraft is always within glide range of an airport or suitable site, even on that flight.

:}

[Brian Abraham]

Pin, what he is saying is that from ten thousand you can glide 20 miles ie a ratio of 1:2 if you forget about everything but the raw number. Pilots like to keep maths simple.

[Pin37]

Thanks for that info Brian, I understand what he is saying now:ok:

[FourBalls]

Sorry Pin. What I mean is 2nm/1000' ie 12:1 using same scale - a safe number to make the field. Actual glide is more likeley to be 15:1.

From FL200, you have around 22min till you land. Enough time for a cuppa:ok:

[Tidbinbilla]

What about IMC? Can you glide an RNAV or similar approach when it's dark and stormy?

[goldypilot]

jebbbusssss i can think of 3 single engine turbine AC in Australia with failures this month now. This is makes me wonder what is happening to PT6 this year. Everyone get ready to hear about the pt6 pro's and con's.....

[FourBalls]

What about IMC? Can you glide an RNAV or similar approach when it's dark and stormy?

This is why we have the cloud-break. 1:1 descent profile is designed to avoid the rocks at most places in oz. The normal glide is maintained until 7nm then point it at the field. Altitude alert set at 1200agl and radalt set at 700' - level off height. Puts you near vne - then circling approach if visual. If not, gear, flap, bring it down at 80kt, try to miss obstacles and nail the 64kt stall onto the deck. Easier said than done.

I like the sound of the RNAV option too.

[Pin37]

Thanks for that explanation Fourballs, Wow that thing is almost a glider.I never realized they were so good. I think if I was ever a patient I would feel fairly safe in the hands of the RFDS:ok:
PS. Can you thermal those things? (only kidding)

[Mainframe]

fourballs (furr balls?)

In the event of engine failure the PC-12 has two significant advantages over the van.

1. Its cruising in the flight levels, so has altitude to play with.
The van is usually 10,000' or lower, less options

2. It has a typical TAS of 240 kts, plenty of penetration speed for gliding and a huge margin above best glide speed.
The van is typically 160 kts with a pod, and a bit slower with floats.

Height plus speed are good things to have in your bag of luck and definitely increase your options.

The van does glide beautifully, especially when feathered, the PC-12 even better.

The van in IFR RPT ops (for which it should never have been approved) has to meet ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) requirements.

RFDS has a working engine failure in IMC (dont even think about night) procedure for the PC-12.

Vans operated to ASETPA criteria in RPT need a means of carrying out a dead stick instrument approach to a forced landing.

One method is to use a database of surveyed ALA's such that the aircraft arrives over the top and continues to descend in a pseudo LLZ/DME runway aligned approach.

Quite an exciting procedure and if flown correctly can be a great confidence booster.

Will post a diagram when I work how to include a PDF.

The following is part of the procedure based on a King KLN89B / KLN90

4-2 ASETPA - Initial Procedures

♦
Initiate after positively identifying that engine has failed

Secure Engine

1 Airspeed 85 - 95 kts
2 Power Lever Idle
3 Propeller Feather
4 Fuel Condition Lever Cutoff
5 Flaps Up
6 Fuel Boost Off
7 Fuel Shutoff Off - Pull Out
8 Ignition Normal
9 Stanby Power Off
10 Electical Load Reduce

GPS
11 NRST Press
12 Airfield type - Rotate Outer Knob ENT Press
13 D Press
14 ENT Press
15 Track & Distance to Airfield Displayed
16 Heading Turn to Track
17 HSI Course bar Turn to Track

CDI Scale (setting to .3 nm)
18 CRSR Press
19 CLR Press Button x 2
20 Rotate Inner Knob .3 nm
21 CLR Press

Airfield Information (If required)
22 Outer Knob Rotate Counter clockwise
23 Cursor ACT
24 Inner Knob In Rotate Counter clockwise
25 Rotate Outer Knob clockwise Cursor at NAV

26 Track to Airfield
27 Airspeed Best Glide for weight ~ 700 fpm (refer placard)
28 Mayday Transmit intentions

Cessna 208 - Emergency Checklist Part B

Page two graphics still to come when I learn how to paste it

4-3 ASETPA - Approach Procedures
♦ Check Height above Airfield and decide which approach to carry out

♦ Optional - Right Hand Circuit may be used


Type of Approach

1 > 5000' above GPS Reference High Holding Approach



2 > 2500' " GPS " Mid Level Approach

3 < 2500' " GPS " Abbreviated Approach to FAF


High Holding Approach > 5000' Mid Level Approach > 2500'

1 2 1
Overhead GPS Reference



IAP

4 OBS Mode Select

5 Course bar Runway Direction

6 Heading 45° to Runway Direction for 1 nm

7 Turn Left Rate 1 (15°)

8 Intercept Course bar & Inbound Track

9 Track to Final 600' @ 1 nm

10Flap As required

28Landing → 4-4 Power Off Forced Landing



Cessna 208 - Emergency Checklist Part B 01 July 2003

(This procedure is based on the King KLN89B GPS)



Chart iconsΔ IAF > 5000'



Δ IAF FAF 600' FAF
* GPS Ref Pt

* GPS Ref Pt 1 nm
Δ IAF > 2500'

Δ IAF FAF 600' FAF
* GPS Ref Pt

* GPS Ref Pt 1 nm

[Grogmonster]

Lets not get into that old chestnut of twin versus single. How about considering that PT6 turbines, like all engines, have an overhaul at TBO regardless of what hours that may be. Now have a think about how long they have been in service. The PT6 can be overhauled a number of times. It may well be that some of these failures might have occured in engines that have been reworked 3 or 4 times and that work may not have been done in the PWC factory approved work shop. I am not pointing anywhere in particular but there are overhauls and there are overhauls. What we may possibly be seeing is the result of overhauls not quite up to scratch on an engine that has in excess of 10,000 hours since new. Just a thought!!!!!!

Groggy

[Arnold E]

Groggy
Are you suggesting that CASA would approve a workshop that is not up to"scratch"??:eek:

:E

[PyroTek]

Mainframe, (or anyone else who wants to answer)

So am I correct in assuming, based off those checklists that there are no trouble checks/attempts to restart the engine - like a piston engine? Or did you omit that from the checklist?
Come to think of it,
Example: PT6 Has a flame out, attempt to restart or perform said checklist and find nearest suitable aerodrome?

Sorry for being ignorant (if I have been)

:ok:Pyro

[Dixons Cider]

Decision... engine start attempt(s)=less time remaining on Batts should relight not occur.

From what I've read here, thats along time on Batt only if its a flameout/IFS from the high levels.

Just pointing out a consideration when considering restart attempts.

Gotta say I'm way impressed with glide/cloudbreak procedure. Kudos to anybody who performs that! Great thread by the way :ok:

[FourBalls]

Dixons Cider is correct - pc12 restart attempts are limited to one with the single battery installed. Use up all your power and you lose efis+gyro instruments and flap - flapless landing uses 80% more runway than flaps 40. Gear is ok - it will fall out below 110kts.

Pyro
So am I correct in assuming, based off those checklists that there are no trouble checks/attempts to restart the engine - like a piston engine?
The POH has trouble checks (time permitting) for Power Control Lever failure (eg due bleed air leak) and the use of the Manual Override Lever - which basically acts directly on the fuel metering valve and is very touchy - you lose torque and Ng governing and landing distance required doubles! There are also airstart procedures.

Of course this is of no use with an oily windscreen as is the case here. Your only option is feather it and glide. At least you know your option.

Mainframe - thanks for the 208 info. You did, however forget the third advantage of the pc12 - it isn't fugly. Swiss and sweet
(not to be confused with the wamby-pamby who just won the tennis)

[PyroTek]

Of course this is of no use with an oily windscreen as is the case here. Your only option is feather it and glide. At least you know your option.

Obviously, in this case. When the oil comes out, something has clearly had a major issue.
Thanks for the info :ok:

[Nil defects]

So what about if you are half way between Wyndham and Derby at 2am in the morning and this scenario occurs. There is nothing that has lights and within gliding distance and you, nurse and unfortunate pax are probably dead.

The RFDS management are more than happy to risk the life of their crews flying around in single engine aeroplanes at night because it is cheaper.

If they are going to operate them at night then they should always plan to be within a gliding distance of a suitable and available landing strip or fly the King Air.

It's time they had bit of a re-think about the safety of their crews!

[goldypilot]

i dunno eco. I flew over some flat terrain the other day but i still recon if i went in i wouldn't have high chances of walking away. i guess we will never know unless it happens to us and if its out time its out time.

[Arnold E]

Maybe its worth noting that the last major accident that occurred in the RFDS (central section), and it was fatal, was in a King Air.

[morno]

It's funny that those who think the PC-12 is dangerous, are in most cases those who know very little about the aircraft.

If you are endorsed, have experience on the things, know their capabilities and have some knowledge of the design of the machine in regards to it's crash worthiness, then you are normally one to take back any words you said about the PC-12 before, being dangerous.

Job very well done to the crew onboard.

morno

[Hans Solo]

With respect Morno,
Its not that the aircraft is inherently dangerous, on the contrary it has its good points and its bad points like any aircraft, HOWEVER, IMHO I just dont think it is the right aircraft for RFDS.
I have several reasons for taking this opinion, but probably the most critical one is the large amount of night flying in very remote areas.
Just my two cents worth.
(BTW, my opinion is garnered from years of operating said aircraft and not that of an armchair expert).

Hans

[Jabawocky]

Didn't a dood do it in Townsville recently??

That may have been the Qld Police C208 with a prisoner run out of TL, he/she did an excellent job there too! :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

.............ahhh I love reading all this, I think I'll take a copy of it all when next I'm out over tiger country in IMC at night trying to get those damn PROPS in sync not even thinking of where to go if one fails, well not much anyway!:}
I watch the PC's T/off from EN at times where there is nothing but built up area's & simply scratch my head & that's when the sky is clear!!:}

Now now "RC" don't stir up wally too much, am fragile ya know!:-) That particular task you mentioned WYY-AD we knocked back (thank God not wanting to get out of bed for that!!! as too many dead legs to be economical, yr welcome to it in the PC!!.............sheeez yr brave buddy:} They glide a loooooooong way that's for sure, fantastic, wanna glide? go fly a glider mate!:ok:


Wmk2, Oh I'm excited here feeling safe:ok:

[scarediecat]

It is true the last accident for the RFDS was a KingAir with both engines operating! Not sure if a reason has really ever been found.

I have heard that RFDS Qld section will be moving one from the PC12's. Is this true or rumuor?

[manymak]

It has been a while since i've sifted through documents and operated ASETPA approved aircraft, but don't all routes need to take you within gliding distance of airfields.

I remember there was a formula on how to work out the distance your route must be within a airfield based on your level and cruising speed.

[manymak]

Here we are...

extract from the Air Operators Certification Manual



7.23.2.5 Route Limitations
IFR departure routes should be considered in the context of engine failure/malfunction
procedures, with guidance in preferable courses of action, if any, to be followed by the
pilot. In VMC it may be preferable not to follow IFR departure tracks in which case other
procedures should be instituted in collaboration with Air Traffic Services.

RPT routes must be within ASETPA safety distance of a suitable landing area (SLA).
Procedures setting out specific route limitations must be provided.
‘ASETPA safety distance’ means the maximum still air distance travelled in 15 minutes at
the aeroplane’s normal cruise speed plus a glide to 1000 feet AGL. ASETPA safety
distances will be directly proportional to aircraft operating altitude. The 1000 feet is a
nominal SLA manoeuvring allowance.
CAAP 92.1 ‘Suitable landing area’ means an aerodrome that complies with CAAP 92-1. At night,
SLAs must either display runway lighting while the aircraft is within the ASETPA safety
distance or be equipped with reflectorised panels.

[Natit]

PIC wasn't initials RS was it?

[FourBalls]

RFDS generally fly in the AWK category. Not RPT.

[Counter-rotation]

My recollection is that CFIT was involved in the King Air accident. So the single v's twin debate is sort of irrelevant there.

Ergonomics, and thus load factor (on the pilot) - with SA outcomes however, is very relevant. How do the King Air and PC12 compare on those grounds? Not much in it, I would have thought.

But I've never flown a PC12... Those I know who have, do speak highly of 'em.

CR.

[aseanaero]

My previous comments about the number of single engine turbine failures wasn't trying to open up the single vs twin argument and I've crossed water in a PC-12 as a spare autopilot in the RHS and did a lot of time in the LHS of a PC-6 so happy to fly in them.

I can't find the statistics at the moment but when you read the factory advertising the pitch is you are more likely to win the lottery than have an engine failure , seems like a lot of potential lottery winners out there.

As a previous poster said it could also be that some of these engines are on their 3rd or 4th overhaul which could be starting to affect the statistics.

[rcoight]

I'm sure I'll be shot down as I've posted this before, but seeing someone asked, here is a summary of the stats as far as I can find them, from a study of (NTSB) accident reports 1998 - 2007.


"It was interesting to compare the safety of single and multi-engine turboprop aircraft. Their overall, engine related, and fatal accident rates were very similar. Their fatal engine related accident rates were very low.
However, the single engine turboprop aircraft had one-third of the engine related fatal accident rate compared with multi-engine turboprops. Whether that difference can be attributed to the lower stall speeds and thus lower impact speeds of single engine aircraft or attributed to the reduced pilot workload following an engine shutdown is unknown, but the effect on fatal accidents was clear."


To return to the initial thread, very well done to the crew concerned....


The cloudbreak procedure as already described is great fun to practice, but no doubt wouldn't be a lot of fun to have to do for real...

RC

Oh, and several people win the lottery every week, so I would say you are more likely to do that than suffer a turbine engine failure, whether single or twin!

:)

[Halo2nite]

Morning, I could not help myself, but read this forum. their r definitely some 12 drivers here. Yep it glide beautifully the the sound of silence was deafening though. No oil on wind shield only happens when a prop seal goes. natit u r right mate.

[Jabawocky]

the sound of silence was deafening though.

Well done :ok:

[Dixons Cider]

bravo that man :D:D

[PPRuNeUser0161]

The PC12 is a great Aeromed platform in practical terms although it is just a matter of time before an engine failure occurs where the luck is not on the side of the crew.

B200 glide ratio is 2nm per 1000ft height loss.

If you contact the ground at night anywhere other than an airfield you need a lot of luck to walk away. There are creeks, rocks, trees, ditches, hills, towers etc all waiting to greet the unfortunate.

SN

[Jabawocky]

Dixons............ Bravo that Woman :ok:

[Clearedtoreenter]

If you contact the ground at night anywhere other than an airfield you need a lot of luck to walk away. There are creeks, rocks, trees, ditches, hills, towers etc all waiting to greet the unfortunate.


Try this for luck forced landing at night in a single - or maybe divine intervention.

Untitled Page (http://www.hmhfp.info/SG_09E.html)

[multime]

Barring the political debate single VS twin.
Congrats to the pilot:D

[Deaf]

If you contact the ground at night anywhere other than an airfield you need a lot of luck to walk away. There are creeks, rocks, trees, ditches, hills, towers etc all waiting to greet the unfortunate.

Could be rephrased as

If you contact the ground anywhere other than UNDER CONTROL you need a lot of luck to walk away.

Hence the single/twin (337 which has its own problems excepted) debate.

[S.F.L.Y]

I've been practicing similar scenarios from various levels and in various conditions with a similar aircraft, and I believe it's an highly valuable training, not only for single engine operations. I finally came to experience it for real in icing IMC from FL160 and was glad to have some insights...

[Counter-rotation]

Oh, and several people win the lottery every week, so I would say you are more likely to do that than suffer a turbine engine failure, whether single or twin!

Ha ha, not the point of this thread, but relevant to some of the arguments offered...

Your statement there contradicts itself, to the trained eye. This is why statistics can be a tricky thing.
Do you think everyone playing the lottery every week is also flying an aircraft ("whether single or twin")?

Not having a go at you mate, just pointing out that stats are slippery things...

CR.

[AIREHEAD]

We've had 2 extremes of airmanship in the last couple of months. Norfolk and Derby

[Back Seat]

It's great to see a comparison to the Pel-Air Accident made in this way.:D Very well done Captain, I would be happy to be flying with her any day:ok:.

[bushy]

It's great to finally see some sensible discussion, instead of the sales talk we got for too long.
1.Turbine negines are more reliable than piston engines, but they do sometimes fail.
2. twin engined aeroplanes (even piston engined ones) can usually fly to an airfield and land safely after an engine failure, if they are flown correctly. The performance margins are usually greater for turbine powered aeroplanes.
3. single engined aeroplanes are generally simpler than twins, and so less mistakes are made in singles.
My first logbook records 5000 hours, mainly in piston singles, and I only remember two engine failures. One was finger trouble, and the other was a loose throttle cable. (in the middle of the Tanami desert) Although one (new)aircraft I used to fly did suffer a broken camshaft about 100 hours after it had flown the Pacific on it's delivery flight. I was not flying it at the time.
Engine failures occur in all types of aeroplanes, with all types of engines, big or small.
Sometimes the facts get buried under the detail and the sales talk.

[bushy]

I have never flown one, but this aircraft has some obvious advantages for airmedical work. The main one is the big, electrically operated door for loading stretcher patients on a standard ambulance stretcher, so no moving patients from one stretcher to another. And the pilot can close the door easily from the outside, and then enter via the crew door at the front. There is no need to get past the medics and patient to get up front.
This is probably a bigger factor than the economy of one engine.

[PLovett]

Hello bushy,

so no moving patients from one stretcher to another

Sorry to disillusion you but watching Central Division loading their PC12s' and they still have to transfer the patient from the ambulance to the aircraft stretcher. The aircraft stretchers have small castor wheels on the bottom to enable it to be moved sideways which the ambulance ones don't need to do.

I think they are looking for a common stretcher system though to avoid the problem.

Agree with you about the large cargo door though. So easy to operate in comparison to the B200.

[Wally Mk2]

"Plovett" as far as I know yr correct, there are no PC's or even Beechs that have an interchangeable stretcher with the roads trucks here in Oz (but am happy to be corrected). They are however working on that it's a work in progress maybe for the next contract, who knows I don't think anybody ATM on that score.
Only recently the Bell 412 low skid models are now fully interchangeable with road trucks stretchers, roll on roll off. I/we envy them!:) As I have said may times amongst these pages the PC sh1ts all over the old truck like Beech for ergonomics etc bar for one tiny detail.............NOT ENOUGH ENGINES !!!!!:}:}:}...Well not for me anyway:ok:
I was following one of these PC thingies just the other day down the slippery slide (ILS) in the poo for real. As I let the old Beech auto itself down that slide whilst trying to stay awake as the comfort of TWO engines almost puts yr feet to sleep I thought what if that single fan on the PC up ahead of me failed whilst in IMC at say 5 miles (1500 ft AGL Approx) from the rwy with nothing but built up area under it's shadow?.......... I just smiled as the drone of the TWO engines keeping me safe:ok:
Look all a bit of a stir I guess :)but we each have choices in life, I choose to stay safe, or is that safer?:ok:

Wmk2

[frigatebird]

Cleared..
Thanks for that vid link.
There is a lot of good stuff outthere..if you can find it..

[bushy]

My memory tells me that we did have that facility in the B200C, but the stretcher securing fittings in the aircraft often took some skin off your knuckles when you were locking it in.
Maybe they could not fix that, and changed it.
I don't see why they cannot have common stretchers. It's probably political.

[PLovett]

Bushy, I had the same problem with the stretcher in the C402 that I flew for a while. It had the castors so that it could be manoeuvred inside the aircraft.

The stretcher is from the same manufacturer as the ones in the ambulance but they didn't need the castors due to being able to load directly into the ambulance.

Wal, I wouldn't dare argue with you about two versus one.:} However in a recent interview for the Western Division of the RFDS I was surprised to find that pilots are expected to fly both types, at least that was the impression I gained. Whether the boys and girls in the remote bases do, I don't know, perhaps it is confined to Jandakot. Anyway, the girl in question did well and she has my respect.:ok:

[Jamair]

There are some areas that use interchangable stretchers and I envy them! Re the WestOps, didn't they recently have another engine failure, in a B200? Seem to recall an ATSB report on it....... no glide approach required on that one though:E

I fly both the PC12 and the B200 regularly and don't have any huge issues with either.... but given the choice I will plump for the B200 simply because I personally prefer its handling qualities. Would be nice to have a crew door on it though.....

[rcoight]

PLovett, sorry to have to correct you but the stretchers in Central Division's PC12's are totally interchangeable with the ambulance stretchers in SA.
We simply take the patient straight off the aircraft and they are wheeled into the ambulance, on the same stretcher that they were on in the aircraft.
We then take the empty stretcher that was in the ambulance and stick it on the plane ready for the next job.
The system is excellent and the patient stays on the same stretcher from the hospital to the aircraft and to the receiving hospital.
No transferring whatsoever.

HOWEVER, when we take a patient interstate, a transfer from one stretcher to the other is necessary as all states have different stretcher systems in their ambulances. Yes, it is stupid, but there you go.

:ok:

[bushy]

Funny that. I thought we all lived in the same country.
Sometimes I wonder.

[PLovett]

rcoight, that is perfectly alright. I only saw Central Division at work in the NT. :ok:

[Counter-rotation]

Australian gauge
Main article: Rail gauge in Australia

In the 19th century Australia's three mainland states adopted standard gauge, but due to political differences a break of gauge 30 years in the future was created. After instigating a change to 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) agreed to by all, New South Wales reverted to standard gauge while Victoria and South Australia stayed with broad gauge. Three different gauges are currently in wide use in Australia, and there is little prospect of full standardisation, though the main interstate routes are now standard gauge.

Have we any hope?! :p

CR.

(P.S. Not picking on the New South Welshies - in fact, GO THE BLUES! :ok:)

[Jamair]

Starting to drift off thread a bit, but in answer (and not detracting from the excellent performance of the RFDS PC12 pilot at the heart of this thread);
Australia has several different Ambulance service providers.

Qld has the Qld Ambulance Service (QAS) which was the first civil ambulance service anywhere, and is now a state government organisation (under Dept of Community Safety) partly funded by public levy through power bills. The QAS has recently decided on a standard fitout of Stryker stretchers for all units (200+ trucks across the state) which will be complete within 5 years.

NSW Ambulance is part of the NSW Dept of Health. They use DHS stretchers which - as part of the RFDS / Ambulance contract are interchangable with RFDS. (at least they were last time I looked). RFDS SE is moving to a new loading system which uses different stretchers.

ACT Ambulance is another state govt unit, don't know what stretchers they use, but suspect Stryker are in the mix there someplace.

Vic Ambulance is two departments - Metro Ambulance Vic (MAV) and Rural Ambulance Vic (RAV). I understand the MAV have some interchangability with the current RFDS service provider at Essendon..... maybe Wally could comment on that?

Tas Ambulance is also a govt department; I can't comment on their stretcher systems.

SA Ambulance is a relatively recent govt department; they had been using Ferno F2650 but I believe they are heading to Stryker as well.

WA ambulance is a St John Ambulance organisation, govt funded in the most part, with relatively few full-time paid staff (for the size of the state). Dont know what gear they are using now; used to be Ferno....

NT is also St John Ambulance, while the aeromed is NTAMS (Northern Territory Aeromedical Service) run by Pearl. They use Fernos in at least some of their trucks. Also there is service to the lower half of NT from the Alice Springs RFDS, and the Chartair Tennant Ck C402. The 402 has a Ferno dropwhell (F26 I think from memory) which can interchange with the local ambos; the RFDS PC12 has a loading hoist system with an Ambulance stretcher which also interchanges with some

Each of these ambulance services are completely independant of the other states; although there is a national consultative committee, each have different clinical and equipment standards; each have different staff qualifications. To unify them, they would all need to firstly agree on clinical standards, a argument that has been ongoing for at least 20 years. Some states (QAS, VIC, SA) have very high standards for clinical staff - Degree level as a starting point, 7-plus years of training and experience before they get to Intensive Care level. In some states, IC Officers manage all aeromedical transfers (FW & RW) while in others these are the province of medical officers.

If I were King for a day, I would federalise all ambulance (and health) services, standardise all equipment, clinical standards (at the highest level)and vehicles, have one national aeromedical provider.......gotta dream!:)
Reality is that we will be stuck with what we have for the foreseeable future, because there are no votes in changing it.

[Jabawocky]

Jamair.......stop thinking with common sense lad!

Its only in recent years they have shared the traffic fine/points sytem properly, and that makes money for them, what hope have we with systems that cost money, that we pay for anyway!

[Towering Q]

What was this thread about again?:confused:

[Jamair]

.....so does anyone have the gen on what made everything go quiet on this PC12?:confused: