PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Forgotten your Username/Password?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15th Dec 2008, 04:54   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the back of my falcoon
Age: 31
Posts: 111
Quote:
Tin,

The S76 is a Jayrow IFR machine with two IFR crew. It's primary role is for off-shore oil/gas support.
well I'll be...... doesn't suprise me that CHC missed out on it, chc management couldn't catch a cold....

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/11/17/16271_ntnews.html
DanArcher is offline   Reply
Old 15th Dec 2008, 05:03   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the back of my falcoon
Age: 31
Posts: 111
the report proposes 5 year contract with 2 x 1 year extensions,

is it really feasible to spend millions on brand new pc12's or kingairs for such a short period???
DanArcher is offline   Reply
Old 15th Dec 2008, 05:07   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 1,525
So did Jayrow replace the CHC S76 at Tindal for the RAAF SAR contract?
Stationair8 is offline   Reply
Old 15th Dec 2008, 05:13   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the back of my falcoon
Age: 31
Posts: 111
no thats still there, I just thought it was logical assumption that the nt guamint would seek to use an aircraft (chc 76) already stationed at tindal esp as it does stuff all flying & could easily cover both contracts with very few clashes but maybe the RAAF wasn't to keen who knows....

me & my stupid logical thoughts
DanArcher is offline   Reply
Old 15th Dec 2008, 05:16   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 1,525
No it would come down to crewing problems, who pays for the extra pliots to cover the on call night shifts etc! Thats if you want a full 24 hour service.
Stationair8 is offline   Reply
Old 15th Dec 2008, 09:40   #46 (permalink)
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,833
Strewth Wally, what happened?.
Hey, I know the Van isn't a contender. I just threw it in there for bites (and I got a couple too)
It is a capable aircraft that will do a lot of the work for a lot less than is being presently spent, but there is a mindset within the RFDS that will see it hard to ever be realized.

Last edited by the wizard of auz; 15th Dec 2008 at 10:45.
the wizard of auz is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 05:49   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 69
Can't believe I'm doing this, but anyway.... must be bored...


Quote:
As others have mentioned in here, S/L cabin is a big consideration along with safety & reliablity when it comes to medivac retrievals.....All of the above can only be achieved by one airframe that is available new & that's the B200.

Really?

Then how come Central Section has been doing exactly that with PC12's now for 13 years and re 100,000 hours?

Obviously nobody told them...


Whilst the arguments re "tiger country" in the south-east of the country have merit, I'm not sure that the NT can be put in the same boat, and as such either the PC12 or the B200 would do the job fine.

And why would the Avanti II be ruled out altogether?
It doesn't have the big door and probably isn't suitable for outback strips, but I know it has at least been "looked at" as a fast, economical option for tasks like transplant patients or pick-ups between capital cities etc.
rcoight is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 06:16   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 2,795
Wally - be careful not to get opinion mixed up with fact. It serves no other purpose than to undermine your facts.
compressor stall is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 06:45   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,114
Wally,
How many PC-12's have you seen crash due engine failure, in Australia in the last 13 years?
morno is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 07:25   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 183
How many PC-12's have you seen crash due engine failure, in Australia in the last 13 years? Today 18:39
True Morno
Just don't want to be the first to have to ditch on the way to Lord Howe.

The Dog
Under Dog is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 07:44   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Tinpis

Is the complete report in the public domain yet ?
Desert Duck is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 08:02   #52 (permalink)
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 50
Posts: 3,471
Quote:
Just don't want to be the first to have to ditch on the way to Lord Howe.
Me neither...

Quiet night UD?
Howard Hughes is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 21:57   #53 (permalink)
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
But at the end of the day if yr happy flying IMC at night in ANY single then yr my hero!
Not ANY single, but more than happy to do it in a PC12.
Towering Q is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 22:56   #54 (permalink)
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,833
Come on TQ, Me and you both flew Grasshopper in the dark..(Thats when those really big white knobs and buttons were useful)........ you going to trust that machine over any turbine single?????. I have been doing overwater ops in the van for quite a while now with 13 pax each way, and none of them ever worried about one turbine. I would shudder at the the thought of going off shore with grasshopper. (Hell, I used to have panic attacks about driving the trilander anywhere over the land in daylight, and that had three engines...but thats another story)

Last edited by the wizard of auz; 16th Dec 2008 at 23:10.
the wizard of auz is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 23:02   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,761
Safer??

If all else is the same, and at a high level, the a twin is safer than a single.
However, if the skill level of the pilots is allowed to fall, then the single is the safest machine, because it is simpler and better mannered.
It is however strange that "suicidal turnbacks" that have killed many, suddenly became safe when the single engined turboprop came along.
And the PT6 (which is a good engine) was suddenly deemed infallible even though there are known failures and forced landings in Australia and overseas.
bushy is offline   Reply
Old 16th Dec 2008, 23:22   #56 (permalink)
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,833
I certainly wouldn't deem the PT-6 infallible, but certainly less fallible the the old IO540........ and by a long shot. that would be why the TBO is 5000hrs against 1800hrs. Just because you have a pair of them doesn't make it any safer, in fact it doubles the chance of an engine failure.
I'm sure if we dig around in PPRuNe, there will be the same arguments repeated in more than one thread. I am sure that the RFDS would have done a study on the risks involved before they delved into the world of SEIFR.
Now two PT-6's would be a whole different story.
the wizard of auz is offline   Reply
Old 17th Dec 2008, 06:46   #57 (permalink)
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
I would shudder at the the thought of going off shore with grasshopper.
There was that overwater bit at 'the head of the bite' between Forrest and Ceduna, but I was always too busy enjoying the view to worry about engines stopping.
Towering Q is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2008, 09:29   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Haunted House
Posts: 293
The aircraft aren't the only problem...

A lot of talk about the aircraft here, and fair enough too - that's a big issue.

No one has said much about the crew shortage. It's pretty common to have delays for a U/S King Air, or fly a spectrum unit because the Aeromed ships are in the shed, but it's also pretty common to see delays for lack of crew. The only way to ensure dispatch (with respect to crew) is to roster 8 hour standbys. 12 into 11 DOES NOT FIT - even if you could fly "half a job" and hand off to the next crew.

Yet it has been like that most of this year, and some of the last I think.

I haven't had a chance to read the report yet.

CR.
Counter-rotation is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2008, 09:44   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 1,525
You have enough pilots to cover the roster, including the late night operations, delays with patients, training, holidays, sick leave and all the other things that can go wrong.
Stationair8 is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2008, 19:09   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 839
IMHO the PC12 is a great machine.

You do not need to search too far back into the PPRuNe archives to read all the chest beating and bravado espoused by some about the Cessna Caravan ( also a great aircraft ), people stating the aircraft was statistically not ever going to have a engine failure and subsequently take a life.

Well that has been proven incorrect a great number of time.

An engine failure in any aircraft is not an "IF" statement, it is a "WHEN" statement, granted the turbine engine is expodentially more reliable than a piston, instead of an engine failure every 10,000 hours as suggested in pistons it may be every 100,000 hours for a turbine, but it does happen.

So in 100,000 flight hours a Baron will have 20 engine failures, very very unlikely to have two fail at the same time and the single engine turbine will have one, combining good gliding range with a well trained pilot, well it may infact be a good outcome.

For a B200 it will have two engine failures in the same 100,000 hours, the likelyhood of both emgines failing at the same time is any ones guess, and a B200 will climb at max weight on one engine.

The succes in the implementation of the single engine turbine into the trusted IFR role may be a Pyrrhic victory in the long term ( in your face Wiz ), time will tell.

Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 18th Dec 2008 at 20:30. Reason: more goodera spelling
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network