Most of you know where I work and who I am, so I can expect a bit of flak. However, I do have some organisational loyalty and I guess some of the above is really beginning to grate on me. I am not going to get into the who should win debate as the government are solely responsible for that and in case you hadn't noticed - have made their decision. But I would like to answer a few critics whom are really insulting both CareFlight and LifeSaver, and by extension, the people who work there.
Before I start, let me say that each organisation is different. Trying to classify the VFR NGOs in QLD as the same animal as LifeSaver or CareFlight is like comparing an B206 tourist operation to CHC. Lets keep the huge generalisations out of it and keep it a little fairer shall we?
The particular sting that gets up my nose is this:
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take CareFlight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.
I don't know your background Sandblaster, but please feel free to email me so I have a better understanding. I think the point white hawk was making was that the helicopters were provided free of charge 10 to 15 years before they were contracted, not what the system was like 10 to 15 years ago. What follows here is not a comparison of CHC V CareFlight, it is a reaction to the provocative statements you have made about the systems of NGOs.
Lets be clear about this: an NGO was solely responsible for:
a. introducing the helicopter to EMS in Australia.
b. introducing night capabilities to EMS in Australia.
c. introducing twins to EMS in Australia (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
d. introducing IFR to EMS (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
e. introducing GPS to EMS.
f. introducing GPS/NPA to the Australian aviation industry, and completing the design criteria that is now in use world wide. Westmead hospital was the first GPS/NPA in Australia, and one of the first in the world.
g. introducing trauma doctors and then paramedics to EMS helicopters.
h. founding member of the first integrated safety management system in Australia.
i. Supplying and supporting 5 out of the 6 members of the NVG Industry working group. CHC (until recently) supplied the sixth member.
j. Full motion simulator, integrated flight crew LOFT and CRM courses for EMS in Australia.
That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.
So next time you get paid to strap into your EMS IFR twin with GPS and NVG, or head off to Dubai for some sim training - throw some credit to those who helped make that possible for you instead of piling crap and spouting !!!! about the system that enabled it all, and more importantly, the people who went the extra yard to make it happen.
Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice.
Lastly, I did log into the CareFlight website. For those that want to it is
http://careflight.org/ Obviously I cannot comment, but you pointed out that it was full of lies. We are all waiting for examples.
CHC are a fine company who will do a good job and it is probably not just my opinion when I say that a few rants and raves on Pprune will not get the decision reversed! Nor will the points made on the CareFlight website.
But, if you think that writing provocative crap here is going to achieve anything but personal insult - you need a reality check.