A case (perhaps) for CareFlight
In recent years CareFlight have reportedly been receiving approximately AUD$190K/mth to provide a single-pilot IFR BK117 on 24 hour operations at Westmead, and a 10-hour per day A119 Koala in Orange. From 1995 to 2003 CareFlight provided a Bell 412HP (with EP engine performance) instead of the BK117. The current funding comprises about 30% of the total cost of running CareFlight. Rumour has it that CHC are charging about $180K /mth for one B412 in Wollongong on day-only operations, although I am not sure of the arrangements for flying hour charges.
The above funding for CareFlight does not include any flying hour charges until 600 hours have been flown. After that CareFlight are apparently entitled to charge about $1500/hr for the BK117 (previously Bell412), and $450/hr for the A119 Koala. By any measure these hourly charges are lean for these aircraft.
CareFlight, at times, have been unable to provide a back-up aircraft during maintenance, but some could argue that that is the price Ambulance have had to pay for such a discounted operation. What aircraft, spare aircraft and crew would CHC provide in Wollongong for $60K/mth?? If NSW Ambulance had been willing, over the last 10 years, to pay CareFlight what they pay CHC Wollongong I imagine the practicalities of having a back-up aircraft becomes easier.
CareFlight did have an extended period of not being single-pilot IFR. They had leased their Kawasaki BK117 on the understanding that it was single-pilot IFR, and it had been working as a single-pilot IFR aircraft on a number of previous contracts. Is it the fault of CareFlight that the aircraft turned out to have retreating blade stall problems due to Kawasaki not applying the same Vne, or maximum collective stop maintenance procedures, as are applied by Eurocopter for their BK117s? Some could say that CareFlight should be congratulated on identifying a world-wide fleet problem that Kawasaki have now sought to rectify (and was published in CASA Flight Safety magazine). I guess this does demonstrate lack of depth, but what do you expect for minimal funding. How many other operators would have suffered the cost in time, effort, and reputation to fix this problem? Or would they have lived with the occasional exciting occurrence and continued on regardless? CareFlight had the option to ignore it, and keep providing the “service” or to play it safe and fix it.
On to the recent tender: CareFlight apparently provided the Ambulance Service with a bid option which included the same aircraft as CHC, so rumours about a better equipped service seem unfounded. I imagine the increased funding levels all around will ensure that a dedicated spare aircraft is available at all times. The value of the CareFlight bid included over $50-$100 mill (depending who you believe) worth of guaranteed corporate sponsorship, which is likely to make it significantly less than the reported $230 mill total price being offered by CHC. No doubt other sectors of NSW Health could do with that $50 mill.
Apparently CareFlight also expressed some interest in sourcing the A109S Grand for operations in Sydney. This makes sense if you consider that the majority of their missions are probably within 80nm of Sydney, which quick calculations indicate can be done (out and back) by the Grand with IFR reserves plus 30 min holding fuel. No doubt this option would have brought the price down again as it would be a lot cheaper to run a Grand than an AW139. Such an aircraft would also allow operations into urban landing sites without on-ground support (this is currently being done using the CareFlight Head Injury Retrieval Trial A109E, and is the method used by London HEMS, German ADAC and many others). Having only large aircraft in Sydney will effectively eliminate these options.
EMS NGOs are often only able to raise sufficient funds to provide a bare bones service. This is evidenced all over Australia (and the world), and often results in aircraft and crews being pushed beyond their limits in order to fulfil a very challenging role. However, for many years CareFlight has provided a service over and above any contract or CASA minimums because they have both the will, and the fund-raising support to do so. This will be lost under a commercial contract because profit imperatives will never allow more money to be spent than is provided by the client. Examples of where CareFlight have gone the extra mile purely because the Chief Pilot decreed it, and because management supported it, include:
1. Transition to a single-pilot IFR Dauphin in 1988 when the requirement was only for VFR aircraft.
2. Moves to a Bell 412HP in 1995 when the contract only called for a BK117 standard of aircraft. Replacement of this with the BK117 in 2003 only came about because of financial pressure and Ambulance refusal to fund such a capable aircraft. Funny that one year later they were willing to fund a Bell 412 in Wollongong at a much higher price.
3. Dedicated IFR training flights every 90 days, regardless of IFR currency in the course of jobs.
4. Introduction of flight simulator training in 1995 leading to the use of CareFlight sim instructors, LOFT scenarios, and a local NSW database in 1999. This training always included the other front seat crewmember, the aircrewman. Such training has never been contracted.
5. Establishment of a rapid response helicopter as part of the Head Injury Retrieval Trial (HIRT) using a A109E Power. This was done without any support from Ambulance Service, but with full corporate funding. CareFlight are even required to pay the salaries of the Ambulance Service paramedics working on the helicopter!!
6. Establishment of the helipads.org website for the benefit of all NSW EMS operators. Ironically, CHC in Canberra embraced this!
7. Founding member of the Aviation Safety Network, a consortium of HEMS providers focusing on a fully integrated safety management system.
In the end it will be a crying shame for the NSW tax-payer, and for the aviation industry, if a progressive and innovative organisation like CareFlight are forced to close their doors. Apart from NVGs in the next year, there would have been many other things CareFlight could have added to industry standards and professionalism over the next ten years. Although CHC will do a solid job they will never seek the constant improvements that an adequately supported NGO can achieve for a lot less money.
With sadness!!
SPLOT