Life Flight YMML

[sling load]

I see life flight has advertised again for another pilot. Two recent resignations there from helicopter pilots. What is going on there for such a high staff turnover?

[skidbita]

No contracts... No work I guess
Anyone correct me if I am wrong.

They only pick up ad hoc stuff if there is no other option within existing contract holders.

John Eacott may be able to shed more light on the problems.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Where is the ad. ?

Nothing on AFAP nor on the LifeFlight website.

Thanks

[Nigel Osborn]

Try www.news.com.au

[talklimited]

Word for word from The Oz

BK117 CAPTAINS

BK117 Captains
...who lead by example and others follow!
LifeFlight (Australia)
LifeFlight operates two (2) BK117-B2 helicopters for Neonatal EMS / Air Ambulance / SAR / Fire Fighting roles. These aircraft are operated as the "Powercor Children's Helicopter" and the "Westpac Rescue Helicopter" throughout Victoria.
We are currently seeking appropriately qualified IFR Captains with twin engine SAR / EMS experience to fulfill fulltime and casual IFR Line Pilot positions. The successful applicant/s will undertake the roles and responsibilities of an IFR Captain, assuming responsibility and accountability for the safe operation and performance of LifeFlight helicopters and crew under their command.
You will be a self-motivated team player with excellent written and verbal communications skills, be well organised, and experienced with computer software such as, Word, Excel, Outlook, Project, Schedule and Database management.
The ideal candidate will be a SAR/EMS pilot who has demonstrated the ability to integrate into a small team of skilled personnel.
An 'above award' remuneration package is offered to the successful candidate, commensurate with your experience and qualifications.
Mandatory minimums are:
> Australian Commercial Pilots License (CPL)
> 2000 hours total rotary wing experience
> 1000 turbine rotary wing
> 200 hours twin turbine
> Command instrument rating
Favoured qualifications are:
> Endorsements / experience: - BK117, AS350, B206, Low flying, Sling load, Hoist, Nightsun, SAR/EMS operational experience
All applications and CV's should be no more than four (4) pages and mailed to:
Confidential IFR Captain Application,
LifeFlight (Australia)
PO Box 000
PORT MEBOURNE VIC 3207
Applications close Monday 17th January 2005

From a contact in Oz, this operator has failed to keep a pilot much beyond one year. No work and an "off the planet" CEO.

[spinwing]

I think that any criticism of this organisation needs to done with care ....

"Talklimited" your anecdotal comments from a "contact in Oz" might be suspect if that contact is using you to advance a personal vendetta!

This organisation is in a very tricky political position TRYING to provide a Professional EMS service to fill needed gaps in the face of quite a bit of "Vested interest" by other organisations.

Yes I'm sure there have been problems with crew turnover, its a bit of a "catch 22" situation ... try to provide a service but you are not allowed (??) you need to prove yourself, BUT you are not allowed,... BUT you have to crew the equipment and you need to have Pilots available ... and of course pilots being pilots are usually restless creatures if their skills are underutilised they will get bored and then move on... it happens in a lot of professions.

The CEO has built that organisation up from nothing, they have 2 IFR BK117s which are in EXCELLENT condition... he has the basis for very good team.... and he has put his heart and soul into it!

What he needs is encouragement, (political ?) support and chance to prove the organisation.

(and no I am not part of the opperation!) ;) ;) ;)

[Clarence]

I think that any criticism of this organisation needs to done with care; call me careful.
This organisation is trying to provide a service when they are not allowed and don't have a contract.
The CEO has built that organisation up from nothing, ... and he has put his heart and soul into it! So did John Freidrich and he put a bullet in his own head!
They have 2 IFR BK117s which are in EXCELLENT condition. True; why don't they try and find paying work for them rather than undermining one of the best EMS systems in the world ( The Victorian Helicopter EMS system has operated very successfully for some 20 years and is now bigger and better that it ever was).
What the CEO needs is to be told to pi$$ off, you didn't win the contract and your 'organisation' is not needed!

(and no I am not part of the operation, or the cops or helimed or CHC or the CIA) :yuk:

[Nev Bartos]

Clarence, you have hit the nail on the head !

What the CEO should do is search for a location where they might be useful. Not try and edge their way in to an well run area.

Warrnambool have been trying for years to have a machine to service Western Victoria, and given the recent 4 drownings oin that area, they maybe should focus on regional areas.

NB

[Destabilized]

Spinwing Steve,

Do you believe yourself? The turnover is related to so many issues, mostly the inability to manage the aircrew. Issues over e mail facilities, use of computers, rostering, etc have all been highlighted here before. One of the most relaxed and capable Chief Pilots eventually gave up on a bad job and stayed back in the West; enough was enough.

Issues such as seeking and getting commercial charter operations as a registered charity to the detriment of local operators doesn't endear the company to many, either. AAV know the CEO from old, another point. ChEng has been a blessing, but he's too laid back to let much worry him.

[Av8r]

John Freidrich and he put a bullet in his own head!
Did he Clarence? Did he?

[Brett Rankin]

Actually Nev, Clarence is a little off the mark.... although his intentions are well received, ....as I too agree "the Victorian Helicopter EMS system" is excellent!
LifeFlight is not in competition with Air Ambulance or Police helicopters in Victoria, nor have we ever sort too be... Unfortunately this remains a 'legacy of assumption' that undoubtedly thrives when facts are not considered.
LifeFlight’s BK117's are already -
1 - under contract to the Victorian Department of Human Services for the provision of Neonatal retrievals (Powercor Children’s Helicopter), coordinated by the Air Ambulance Service.
2 - under contract to Surf Life Saving for rescue workload (Westpac Rescue Helicopter), also coordinated by the Air Ambulance Service for EMS functions when backing up or standing in for their helicopters when down for unexpected maintenance issues.
Spinwing is very kind... and the closest to the mark in relation to our situation and intentions.
I'd like not to be considered "Off the planet", but understand there will be disgruntled ex-employees and "knockers" of what and how things are being achieved.
I am always happy to talk to constructive contributors who are genuine in their desire to advance the industry. I can be contacted most days at work on +61 3 9614 1700.
Nev - your point about Warrnambool is not lost, although I'm not in a position to say too much, discussions have been ongoing with relation to the relocation of the rescue helicopter down that way, although the government does not publicly acknowledge the need at this stage.
Thank you for taking the time to read the information I've laid out above, and I hope this helps clarify LifeFlight’s role and intentions here in Victoria.

Brett Rankin.

[clearance]

AV8R, I'm with you... did he really????

Clearance (not Clarence!!!!!):ok:

[spinwing]

Ooooohhh I seemed to have hit a nerve ...

Thank you for the explanation Brett, ... very brave ...

:ok:

[Oogle]

"Very Brave"??

Don't think so. This chap has come onto the forum to put his case forward to keep the "Pprune Wolves" away from his organisation.

Good on you Brett to standing up and letting everyone know the REAL situation.

I myself have been part of a startup EMS organistion which was down the road from "the established" gents. Suffice to say that those "established gents" are now long gone and we built a very nice setup which today has 3 multi-engine IFR aircraft.

Keep up the good work and very nice website. Aircraft look very nice.

[sling]

Good on you Brett for spelling out the details of how you are going about setting up service for needy children in a market dominated by a service provider that is narrow minded, protective and so un-econimic, it's rediculous....

It's sad to see this forum houses so many knockers that have a serious case of tall poppy syndrome...

Good luck Brett with the service and I hope the NETS jobs keep increasing in number.

[sling load]

Why have so many people left there?

[Oogle]

Sling Load

Your very first post of this thread (which you started) asked the question of "what is going on with the high staff turnover".

Now you are accusing the CEO of slandering ex-pilots!

You obviously have not got the facts or very much want to apply for the job but have been put off by pissed-off ex-employees who have left (for probably a number of reasons).

A bit of advice:

1. Make your own mind up about someone AFTER you have met them; and

2. Stop trying to deliberately slander someone who you have not obviously met.

Good night :zzz:

[sling load]

Oogle,
im a very much aware of SAR/EMS in Australia and i am very much aware of pilots who have worked there, I am asking others why they have left.

You seem to have a problem with this.

[Loose Mast Nut]

Perhaps there should be a list made??

There are a few very vocal disgruntled or untalented members here that have the passion to squash any Aussie Initiative.

Mainly Jayrow and Life Flight [Both Melbourne based].

Typical tall Poppy Syndrome or jealousy? [Both seem to be expanding]

How many folk have left the other reputable mobs as well?

[spinwing]

Loose Mast Nut ...


Well said ...

;)

[MPT]

G'day All,

Note all the ex employees weighing in to defend the organisation. The deafening silence says something, I reckon!!

Cheers,

MPT

[talklimited]

MPT is right on.

I was living in Oz when this organisation first started. I with many others wished it well as it meant another avenue of employment for local pilots. After two years in operation it was clear that big problems existed. None the least with the CEO, and his grip on all matters operational. The CP has no say in how things should run.

Ask yourselves as to why some of the most experienced and respected members of the industry that have held positions including CP for this mob, have left. And they will tell you it’s not due to the lack of flying. The turnover speaks for itself, especially with the quality of the former employees. If they have trouble with this company to the extent of the numbers who have left, the “knocking” is justified so as to warn all new lambs to the slaughter of yet another operator that needs to be treated with much caution.

The argument about prejudice doesn’t stack up either. If the Health Dept. had another option other than CHC and their pricing techniques, I feel sure that they would take it. No, slate the blame where it fits and that’s with the organisation. If not convinced, ask Mike, Greg, Roger, Brian, Chris, Jason, Roger, John, ...........and the list goes on.

Change the CEO and the “head crewy”, stop them using their charity status to compete with other tax paying local operators on commercial tenders, and I’ll be one of their biggest fans.

[Loose Mast Nut]

The talk is not limited coming from your mouth when it comes to the lack of accuracy.....but why let facts stand in the way of yet another caustic slander of an Aussie mob.

For your information, Greg is still there, Mike went west to Perth to join another company a few k's from home [and I agree, he is well respected and a friend], the Management terminated another one of your so called "most experienced and respected members of the industry" for undermining the company whilst in a competitive tender, the evidence was right there on the sacked pilots computer.
And then two others failed to achieve IFR status due to their own lack of performance and lack of other pilot qualifications and hence could not command either IFR helicopter, so they left [or asked to leave].
That leaves 3 pilots who I don’t know or can’t account for. The trend is clear, and is not as focused on any specific individual [CEO], that your limited capacity of fairness can comprehend.

Enjoy your over sea’s tour, and god be willing, may it be permanent.

[MPT]

LMN,

I believe you'll find that Greg has left the building also!! I also note that none of the above are leaping to the defence of what is known around the traps as NSC Mk2.

You also didn't address the comment regarding Lifefright competing with other "tax paying" companies for commercial work.

Cheers,

MPT

[sling load]

Im intrigued, why is a charity organisation that purports to be a HEMS Neo Natal operator out competing for commercial work?

[Brett Rankin]

Again, the facts need to be considered.....

1. The Victorian Health Department does have another option, and has taken it in contracting LifeFlight since April 2004 to provide helicopter transfers for the Newborn Emergency Transportation Service.

2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.

3. Any surplus from our contracts goes directly into providing our dedicated "Children’s Helicopter", ....not into individual pockets, or share dividends, or swimming pools, or superannuation funds! The principle behind a not-for-profit is to support the community rather than an individual.
The fundamental purpose of a "for profit" company is to provide returns for their share holders, ...you appear to have taken upon yourself to defend this capitalism - MPT & Talk Limited. Capitalism is a strong and necessary foundation within our economy, and should be encouraged to succeed within the various markets.
LifeFlight believes strongly in the protection of key public services from capitalist positioning. In Australia, you will not see private ambulances or rescue services undertaking public safety roles, there is a reason for this, and we don’t see helicopters as exempt from this principle.
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about charities. What legally (and morally) defines a charity is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are expended, ...and I would have thought that investing ours into a dedicated children’s helicopter to transport critically ill and/or injured babies and children from throughout Victoria to the Royal Children’s Hospital (for and on behalf of the Air Ambulance Service) was a pretty good gesture?

4. Talk limited - not sure you have ever wished us well, in fact your comments have been nothing but derogatory which makes it difficult for me to identify any real substance within your opinions. You have taken it upon yourself to publish a list of names claiming them to be all ex employees of LifeFlight. While we do have records of employing the first six (and circumstances surrounding their departure has already been outlined within this stream). The final two are names we are unfamiliar with?? Perhaps you should seek the facts before judging?
I have little respect for a man who hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice his opinion.....

5. MPT - Greg remains on the books as a Casual IFR Captain, in fact he remains upon our roster in this capacity (not that this is anyone’s business other than Greg’s and ours), ...again the facts need to be considered.

6. Id like to think the reason why you don’t see "ex employees weighing in to defend the organisation" is due to the integrity of the individuals we have employed. These are all good people, some of which found our operation did not suit them..... and we have agreed with this.

7. Talk limited.... I hope this attack hasn’t been motivated by our recent rejection of youself as an IFR captain for our organisation?? Its difficult for me not to think this, as the timing is too close. No doubt you'll defend your position by denying this. You are from all accounts a good pilot, ....if you drop the assumption and aggression you'll find people will once again seek to have you work for them...

I am always happy to talk to constructive contributors who are genuine in their desire to advance the industry. I can be contacted most days at work on +61 3 9614 1700.

Again, I thank all readers for taking the time to view the information I've laid out above, and I hope this helps clarify LifeFlight’s role, intentions and our history here in Victoria.

Brett Rankin.
What defines a charity gentlemen, is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are utilised...

[Destabilized]

2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.

Really, Brett? Convenient memory lapse over the past two (or was it three) years chasing Antarctic support work. Not only going in at unrealistically low prices (hard to get the French to understand once you're out of the loop that they'll have to pay proper rates :( ), but hard to justify that as a charitable activity.

Fire fighting: since when was that a core objective of an Aeromedical charity? Nice income stream (750 hours two years ago, 300+ the year before), but once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices.

Competetive process? You'll be quoting probity aspects next. Or legal issues with previous employees :rolleyes:

I know it's all good stuff for your sponsors, where would Lifeflite be without them :yuk:

[Brett Rankin]

Actually Destabilized...my memory appears to be clearer on fact than the assumptions made within your postings. You have made several points that I would like to address separately.

1. The Antarctic support was entered into at rates and arrangements made by previous employees... This was not a competitive process whereby commercial operators were undermined, undercut or any other adjective you’d like to slander us with. I remind you that any income from activity like this is utilised for the greater good of the community - ie our ongoing ability to dedicate one of our BK117's as the "Children’s Helicopter". Again you misunderstand what defines a charity. It is not where we gain our funding, but whether our objectives are being achieved (ie Aeromedical, Rescue and Fire Fighting services provided to the community without prejudice or personal gain...)

2. Fire Fighting has been a core function of our charity since our establishment in 1999 (as stated within our charitable objectives approved by the ATO when registered as a charity in 1999), and yes as you well know the fire services in Australia fund the expenses involved at realistic levels. LifeFlight charges no less than any other operator of BK117 helicopters.
Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices" is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation. Put in plain English ...your full of ****!

3. Finally there is something we can agree on, that is that LifeFlight would not be in existence without our valued sponsors - Powercor, Telstra, Westpac....etc They're all aware of our activities (including the Antarctic activity) and support our service 100% in our efforts.

I encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns , otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable, ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man's opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice it.....

I was typing an email an hour or so ago to a friend about the misaligned intentions of individuals such as yourself. It contained a statement that is worth sharing, it said "We'll flush out the hidden agenda's and get to the facts soon enough, just wish these p%#cks would spend as much energy on positive progression of the industry rather than this crap!

At the end of the day, not all like to be held accountable for their action or inaction.... and not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs, ...but I am confident reasonable men and women (cant forget the girls) will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.

Brett Rankin
Destabilised - Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices” is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation.

[SASless]

Brett,

Being a long way away from Oz....confirm you have commerical backers who donate money to help fund your operation and you also compete for work against commerical operators who have no charitable backers?

If that is so...I can understand some angst by those that have to make it on their own if you have a backstop financially.

We are confronted in a similar situation in the State of Washington where the State operates a fleet of surplus military helicopters during the fire season there. They are supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators. As they take away work from the commerical operators it gets harder for the non-tax supported operations to continue operating.

Or am I missing something that is peculilar to Oz law and general business practices?

[Brett Rankin]

Sassless
LifeFlight is recognised by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a charity and therfore does not pay tax upon any surpluses. The reason why they do this is because our constitution dictates all surplusses (profits) be reinvested into the organisation rather than a Director or Member (shareholder) receive a benefit from the company (...no income, dividend or benefit of any kind).
We are not "supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators".
LifeFLight must operate as if we were a fully fledged commerical operation or we'll go broke just like you and any other operator... We do not get underwritten by government of tax dollars.
We have however sold two key sponsorships from corporations seeking to associate themselves with the good will surrounding our operations (ie Aeromedical, Rescue, Fire Fighting). Supporting the community in this manner provides them with a vehicle to display their ethical investment in the safety of the community they work within.
These sponsorships can be gained by private commercial operations as well.... so am unsure of the perceived 'leg up' people are assuming we have??

Brett Rankin.

[SASless]

Interesting concept....will have to mull that one over.

[Destabilized]

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Spare me, where's the icon for "jaw hitting the floor"?

What a crock, Mr Rankin, and what's more you probably believe yourself, too. There's no assumptions made by me, and to be slanderous, they have to be untruthful.

1. The Antarctic support was entered into at rates and arrangements made by previous employees

The first year, by BS, OK, but that has/had nothing to do with your continuing operations there, nor the rates that you persisted in, to the detriment of other commercial operators. The French are quite talkative when trying to get an even stupider rate, so either they're telling porkies, or you.

But what the Hell are you doing as a charity, operating in the Antarctic anyway!!!!!!

These sponsorships can be gained by private commercial operations as well

Yes, as if Powercorp are going to sponsor a non charity :rolleyes: They get a nice little tax benefit throwing money at Lifeflight, which they can't achieve elswhere. And I'm sure that they feel that their name flying around the Antarctic is really valuable to their shareholders/investors - NOT.

You have an enormous advantage over dinky di commercial operators, who have to compete against your subsidised rates in order to make a dollar, then have to pay tax on any profit they make. Lifeflight & tax? Where does that enter into the equation?

Fire Fighting has been a core function of our charity since our establishment in 1999

Really? Really!! Utter BS. I thought that JE put you into the fire fighting game, and I can't remember that being back in 1999. You didn't even have a fire bucket until three years ago, so how was it your "core function", FCS.

Positive progression of the industry? Not this week.

[Brett Rankin]

Destabilised.... my god fella you've got a bee in your bonet! Strongly suggest a bex and a lay down...didnt think your job would stress you out like this!

The first year, by BS, OK, but that has/had nothing to do with your continuing operations there, nor the rates that you persisted in, to the detriment of other commercial operators.

Our relationship with the French Antarctic support Division is an arrangement for several years and the prices are set (not that this is any of your business).
...you’ve made an assumption here!


Yes, as if Powercorp are going to sponsor a non charity They get a nice little tax benefit throwing money at LifeFlight, which they can't achieve elsewhere.

All sponsors pay Tax (GST) upon sponsorship payments which is the same they would pay if sponsoring a strictly commercial operator. Sponsors also receive NO tax deductibility or relief.
…you’ve made another assumption here too...

And I'm sure that they feel that their name flying around the Antarctic is really valuable to their shareholders/investors - NOT.

Our sponsors CEO sits upon our Board of Directors and has provided feedback to us that they support this... perhaps you purport to represent them now??
….again, another assumption (starting to see a pattern?)

Really? Really!! Utter BS. I thought that JE put you into the fire fighting game, and I can't remember that being back in 1999. You didn't even have a fire bucket until three years ago, so how was it your "core function", FCS.

Yes quite correct, John Ecott did introduce us to the NSW Fire Services, and yes we didn’t have a bucket until 2001/2. In fact we didn’t have a lot of items due to financial constraints of a start up operation. But we've grown and acquired equipment as and when we could afford to do it..... This doesn’t change an organisations objectives!!!!! Just because we couldn’t afford everything right from day one!!!
….another assumption!!!!

I guess this makes you a cereal ASSumer???

Best of luck pal (whoever you are), ....I think you are one of those people who find the world quite challenging...

Brett Rankin

[sling load]

In the yellow pages if you call Heli Solutions, you may request a helicopter for a charter, and get a LifeFlight BK117.
This idea of a charity mixing with business sounds a bit odd to me

[SASless]

Makes sense somehow....if the old geezer gets a heart attack after a three martini lunch and a fling with his secretary....at least the aircraft is equipped to deal with it. Just shove the fire bucket out of the way to get to the litter.....leather seat cushions in back?

I have to admit...am still struggling with the idea of an Australian charity bird flying French scientists in Antartica for hire when it is not off fighting fires under contract to the government.

If the service is a non-profit operation (that could be said for most helicopter operations notwithstanding their tax status....) and it is competing successfully against other profitable operators.....I would sure like to see the books. Wonder if they would make some interesting reading?

The concept of not getting a tax break of some kind from the guvmint for being a sponsor of such a deal also challenges my concept of business. Goodwill is valuable....but to what costs does having your name associated with something like this go before enough of a good thing happens. Are these publically owned firms that donate company funds to the charity? Wonder how the shareholders would see the value for cost on that investment of their capital?

Not trying to be rude here....just pondering how this works.....it sure would not in the USA....I don't think?

[Brett Rankin]

Sasless...
No LifeFlight helicopter has ever or would ever be placed in this situation you have satirically described..... although I do thank you for my first laugh of the day!
LifeFlight does not "compete against other profitable operators" this is untruthful and inaccurate to state....
While I understand your struggling with the concept of there being no tax break for corporations to sponsor services like ours (of which there is >14 in Australia ...some > 25 years in operation with the same sponsor), the Australian GST introduced some years back recognised the value in the return to the sponsor and slapped a tax against it (cant beat the tax man).
Non government and government helicopter services throughout Australia have received corporate sponsorship ever since year dot... in fact this was how Aeromedical/Rescue/ and Fire Fighting helicopter were first introduced / funded in Australia...
regards,
Brett Rankin.

Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....

Brett Rankin.

Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....

Brett Rankin.

[Destabilized]

3 Bex later, still can't see the wood for the trees, can we, Brett?

From your own website:

Is Powercor LifeFlight a recognised charity?

YES - LifeFlight Pty Ltd ACN 082 305 931 ABN 15 082 305 931
Powercor LifeFlight is a not-for-profit organisation and Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) Charity. ALL donations to Powercor LifeFlight over $2 are tax-deductible.

For more information, go to the Australian Taxation Office website:



There's a difference between paying 10% GST and getting a tax deduction on corporate tax up in the high 30%'s. Master of subterfuge, eh?

[sling load]

Ok Brett, did Heli Solutions have anything to do with the Grand Prix at Phillip Island? You can see where your organisation starts to merge with commercial operators, you have all this talk. French Antartic work, i cannot see for the life of me how a charity gets involved in that work.

[Brett Rankin]

Destableized.... Sling Load....

A corporate does not receive a deduction from the tax man for undertaking a sponsorship (whether sponsoring a charity or not). The only time a corporate can achieve a tax deduction is if they donate the funds and there is no obligation upon the charity to provide any type of recognition/return for it...
Not my words mate..... Law!

Your assumptions about this subject are substantially off the mark....
I have stated my position on this several times now.... At the end of the day, not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs ...but I am confident reasonable men and women will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.

Its time I spent my energies upon more worthy issues, ...you guys have elicited enough information from me to last a while...

I encourage any pilot or observer treading this thread to contact me and get the facts before listening to these guys, after all Sling load has done nothing but sling rubbish on us at every opportunity, and Destabilised has only registered to do the same ...with no other postings to date other than to attack us.

I thank the many of you who have messaged and telephoned me over the past days, your support is appreciated. It’s nice to know we’re not the only ones dismayed at the mistruths and harassment these individuals (or individual) is slating at us.

Here’s to a more positive and progressive forum….
Kind regards,
Brett Rankin

[sling load]

Brett,
what a crock of ####. I have not engaged in any of those activities you mentioned, rather ive been asking questions because of things im told. You have not answered the question about Heli Solutions doing the Grand Prix using Life Flight helicopters yet, im waiting for that one.
You are trying to squirm your self out of practical logical questions which you know you cant answer.

[High Nr]

Your arrogance is now becoming over whelming.

Like it or not, at least this man is trying to progress an Aussie Company.

And is also talking the time to answer their / his critics.

Try getting the other operators CEO's to give you that courtesy or time of day.

Just confirm in public, that you are an Aussie, working for an Aussie Owned Helicopter Company please!!!

[sling load]

High Nr,
What should i be backing off from? What arrogance, i started this thread because i wanted to know about the high staff turnover there, this had lead into other directions, but dont accuse me of being arrogant.

I asked a very simple question mate, if Mr Rankin is out there asking for public money for a charity, then competing in the commercial world Against commercial operators, i have every right to raise my eyebrows.

[High Nr]

Just confirm in public, that you are an Aussie, working for an Aussie Owned Helicopter Company please!!!

Did not quite see an answer to my question - I wait with baited breath for your answer.

Your far to focused to be an innocent question asker!!!

[sling load]

High Nr,
yes im an Aussie working for an Aussie company.
Now, do you work at Life Flight?

[Oogle]

Sorry chaps - I'm with High Nr on this one.

Who gives a toss how they make money for the charity as long as the funds earned are channelled back into the charity to upgrade aircraft etc for the neonatal missions that they undertake.

Sling Load - you are extremely lucky to have the CEO come out and explain your claims. Not many companies will do that.

If you don't like the answers - stop asking the questions. I don't see what this organisation has done to you to be filled with so much angst.

Conducting charter work is exactly the same as your AusSAR tasking the joy-ride operators to help look for a downed aircraft, missing persons in the water, etc. I don't hear the dedicated SAR/HEMS guys having a whinge.

Who cares how any charity raises money. Whether its selling cookies door to door or offering BK117 type endorsements IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is all raising money for the charity. Lifeflight is lucky to be able to offer a few more different ways to raise funds for the charity (fire fighting, etc)

Good luck Mr Rankin (I might ask for a job one day)

[sling load]

Oogle,
i suspect you are not aware of the laws of charities.
The CEO did not explain Heli Solutions and what the involvement of the charity is.

Lets get this straight. I have no issue with charities.
But when a charity takes commercial work from an operator in the Antartic, i dont see it as a charity anymore.Simple.

[spinwing]

Hear Hear!

:ok:

I suppose, if one wished to be mischievious (??) one could ask why a Police Service Helicopter should be able to carry out Aeromedical tasks ... which COULD be percieved as robbing a Charity or commercial operator of work/income ??? etc ..

(Oh here we go again !!!)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[High Nr]

Oh Dear.

No I am not a memebr of that oragnisation [past or present] or undertaken any type of flying for them. period.

Your words are well choosen?---I asked Aussie "owned" company, your answer neglected the word "owned", just for clarification, please confirm.

[Spelling error edited]

[SLBAGAGE]

He may be the classic aussie battler, fighting the overseas giants, while just trying to make a difference.
Shrugging off the tall poppy syndrome.
Flying at tree top level to EMS tasks when no other operator would do so due wx and CASA Regs. (herald sun newspaper)

BUT.................

Original Question:

Why such a high flight crew turnover, in such a small company operating time?

It' s not a malicious or hard question, just a question!

Those who have seen the operation first hand prpbably know the answer! :yuk:

[the coyote]

I don't know Brett and I have never worked for LifeFlight.

As an observer of this thread it is obvious that people have some personal and/or professional beefs towards them. Every operator in the world enjoys that, you can't keep everyone happy all of the time.

If they can financially operate the way they do legally, which I presume it is, then what is the problem? And if that does legally give them a competitive advantage in order to increase their revenue, then isn't that to their credit? Business is business, the motive is to find any way legally possible to improve your position. Ethics in reality rarely comes into the equation.

Other companies are doing just that for profit, yet LifeFlight being a charity, are doing that to improve their equipment and service aren't they? If they were pocketing the cash then yes, there is a problem, but that would also be illegal.

To me, the bottom line is that if the LifeFlight helicopter saves just ONE life because no other service was available, then in my opinion they are a success and hats off to the man with the vision and the energy to get it there. That one life is someone's child.

[talklimited]

Let’s not be hood-winked by this charity argument that the profits benefit the community therefore its ok.

Take an operator like John Eacott. He has a BK117, the same type as LF operate. When they both tender for the same commercial contract, and let’s say that both operators have the same DOC and need to recover these from the prospective tender, John must price his bid to fully recover his costs and then add some profit. LF can recover some of their costs from the corporate sponsorship and tax-deductible donations they receive from all sources. Therefore they can go in at a lower price (and do so) to win the tender.

Where in that is the level playing field?

LF are getting a free leg up in bids due to their effective lower operating costs as a result of their charity status and the donations they get. People who wish to donate to John’s business won’t get a tax deduction so there is no incentive to do so.

If the LF’s of this world are allow to unfairly compete with commercial operators, the commercial operators will go out of business. Where will your adhoc helicopters come from then when there are insufficient contract machines around to fight fires?

AusSar is a government body that pays taxpayers money to any suitable operator during a SAR event. So it makes no difference if you are a SAR/EMS operator or a commercial operator in that regard.

And I have spoken to 4 previous employees, and they ALL tell a very different story to that which has been presented by Brett. His readiness to involve legal firms in his dealings with people is well practiced.

If all the profits go back into the “community”, can I come and drive the BMW’s or what ever the latest ‘company cars’ are and be paid a similar benefits package that certain individuals receive in LF?

Brett, me thinks you do protest too much.

PS....love ya guess work buddy!

[SASless]

The exact same argument I used to challenge the Washington DNR firefighting fleet and its expansion at the expense of commercial operators. As they expand flying aircraft at an annual rate of about 200 hours each summer for firefighting ops only....the commercial operators who have to operate all year long with the same size aircraft and who rely on the fire fighting revenue to sustain their crews and fleet may one day no longer be there due to going broke.

The state in their quest to build an empire....refuse to discuss that issue. When the fires go wild.....as they do every now and then.....having a robust fleet of commerical aircraft is critical.

[Destabilized]

Talklimited has made the point well.

Because the CEO deigns to come on line and answer questions, doesn't mean he's right, and all the detractors are wrong. There's a long history of bending the truth, and many of the Pronouncements from on high stretch the bounds of reality.

Firefighting was NOT a core function back in 1999 on the original application of Lifefright for charitable status. It was added nearly 3 years later, after it became a good source of income. BR would have you believe otherwise, but that would be to LF's benefit, and who's to say what the truth is on the internet?

The industry is small enough to know the goings on down at Docklands, and the aircrew who have left, and why. Brian's legal action to regain unpaid monies from LF after he left in 2003 are not a state secret. The autocratic style of management, dictating to pilots, has eased of late, but the memories linger.

No assumptions from this end, Brett, but a truckload of BS which appears to have been taken as Gospel from your end. How about fronting up with the truth, and why you're operating in the Antarctic for a foreign government? Why you still put out two aircraft (one crosshired) at a daily rate $1000 below the last operator? You can't blame Brian or Roger for that, you're the CEO, no? Or will you go crying to the moderator threatening legal action, as you did before when the thread turned nasty?

Good hunting......:ok:

[helmet fire]

These charity threads keep on keeping on dont they?

SASless raises a very good point, and one that we are sarting to loose focus on: to retain the surge capability to cope with disasters of all types, there needs to be a varied and robust commercial helicopter industry. Nibbling away at the edges of this will eventually reduce such a capability.

I would also like comment on the issue of ploughing money back into the community. This is a noble sentiment and takes the moral high ground forcing any contrary views to look cruel and somehow immoral. Same as the constant cry "babies will die if we dont..." So at the risk of sounding immoral and killing babies as a result, I will give you another side to this story, all perfectly legal and above board, but, well,....you decide.

At another charity helicopter, money was tight, and politics were tighter still. There was much blood letting over the years as power groups came and went. CEOs who tried to rationalise the place were dismissed. All perfectly legal, all within the rights of the charity, and I have no bone with that. Those in power get to choose. So the board decided that only they could run the place effectively, and as the sponsorship money finally stabilised and increased, they changed the constitution to enable VOLUNTEER board members to assume paid positions within the charity. The constitution was duly voted on (comment can be made here on voting structure/period/notice, etc which are all controlled by the board) and approved, just like it says in the charity act. Now you have volunteer board members also being paid CEOs, Development managers, blah blah blah. Where does the CEO go to get guidance and organisational integrity? To the board of course (themselves). The increasing money within the charity can now be more easily distributed by increasing wages and perks (after all they are now responsible for more turnover), getting new kit, and then being able to justify the whole thing by claiming community benefit.

At the end of the day it is all legal, the winners can claim smart manouevering, and the complainers can be dismissed as sore losers. It's all legal. But bad darts perhaps? A little bit stinky? Or beneficial to the community?
I think it depends upon which side of the fence you are seated at the time.

[SASless]

As I said in one of my first posts here....I would love to see the books....and also alluded to a handpicked "tame" Board.

You have hit the nail on the head...not that it applies here necessarily...but the potential is just that. Some very shrewd folks could make a very tidy setup for themselves if they wanted to.

The shame would be if regular commercial operators were to be put out of business due to the uneven playing field that appears to exist.

Interesting situation in the Land of Oz.

Do we not read daily, especially since the Tsunami event, of charities that live in high cotton on donations while out doing "God's work"?

In Somalia...and other places on the dark continent...I saw just that happen.

[Brett Rankin]

Flying at tree top level to EMS tasks when no other operator would do so due wx and CASA Regs. (herald sun newspaper)
SLBAGGAGE - could you explain this one to me??? If it is a report or reference to activities claimed to be done by LifeFlight, I would be grateful to know where and when, as this is not condoned or supported and is actively frowned upon by us? High risk activity is a major concern to us?? We are not likely to recover from an incident/accident caused by such activity, and we therefore mitigate against any such activity occurring. We’re not a government funded agency or service where another aircraft would be funded to replace it….
SASless - your comments alluding to a "hand picked board" is not a reflection of LifeFlight's Board structure. In fact our Directors would be quite offended that anyone would think this. We spend a great deal of time addressing corporate governance issues here at LifeFlight, in fact I regularly feel as if I’ve gone ten rounds in a washing machine after our Board Meetings. The discussions are robust and the management is constantly challenged by the Board to clarify issues, explain activities, and place forward projects for approval and funding. The board membership consists of Senior Executives and Directors of national and multinational companies (CEO, CFO, Directors, etc). They are not tame. In fact, they are quite often a major challenge for me as CEO, ...and while that remains the case ....they're doing their job and doing very well. Otherwise we wouldn’t be progressing as well as we are.
Your comment "Some very shrewd folks could make a very tidy setup for themselves if they wanted to" is understandable, and indeed is equally of concern to us, because every time a story about how some charity "lives in cotton" hits the airwaves, it damages the charities that are genuine in their efforts to provide benefit to the communities they service in.... I can categorically state that LifeFlight is genuine about our objectives and the governance of our charity!
Helmet Fire - your comment "...the issue of ploughing money back into the community. This is a noble sentiment and takes the moral high ground forcing any contrary views to look cruel and somehow immoral. Same as the constant cry "babies will die if we dont..." So at the risk of sounding immoral and killing babies as a result” ….I don’t recall making the statement that "Babies will die"??? I have only sort to provide facts to counter fictitious claims made... I put it to you that not all charities are a reflection of the circumstances you have outlined, and that just because some may have undertaken this approach, doesn’t mean all charitable helicopter services are likely to follow... (this assumes your note reflects the facts behind their particular situation). Salaries and wages at LifeFlight are tied to relevant awards, as is mine..... Our Board has a sub-committee (three Directors) to review remuneration and they're pretty hard nosed upon controlling increases in HR costs.... They run us like they run their own companies.... to a budget! Otherwise we couldn’t possibly afford the spare aircraft, additional and upgraded equipment, developed in-house engineering, substantially increased training budgets etc etc over the past five years of our existence.
Destabilised ...you've got it in for me mate!
Your statement "Firefighting was NOT a core function back in 1999 on the original application of Lifefright for charitable status" is astounding to me! You have a copy of our company 'Memorandum of Association' dated 15/04/98 and submitted for charitable approval??? Clearly not... or you wouldn’t have published this slanderous untruth onto the web! You purport to have some authority / knowledge of our activities and structure, yet it is easy for me to see through this as you are consistently "off the mark", making statements upon matters and information that hasn’t even left the confines of my office walls.
LifeFlight has currently no legal action against us as you have claimed... Brian Smith (I assume this is who you mean) has had his solicitor send letter demanding a "bonus payment" based upon his performance back in mid 2004. This has been assessed upon its merits and dismissed. No further action taken. Legal action is only worth pursuing if there is substance to your claim....
Your comment "...you still put out two aircraft (one crosshired) at a daily rate $1000 below the last operator?" ….is total rubbish. ...Do you honestly think if we could gain an extra $1000 per day we wouldn’t be doing it????
Again, LifeFlight does not compete with the commercial operators for business!!!!!!!!! I can say this till I’m blue in the face, but I think you'll still refuse to open your mind to the concept that you may not be right???
My motives here is not to "hunt" you as you suggest. You are not my concern; my motive is to correct assumptions and untruths and supply the readers the facts for them to make their own conclusions.... Again I am available to all who have contacted me, and any others who would like to clarify any aspect of our REAL actions.
Talklimited ...your comment "LF can recover some of their costs from the corporate sponsorship and tax-deductible donations they receive from all sources. Therefore they can go in at a lower price (and do so) to win the tender"....is totally inaccurate. All charitable donations and sponsorships fund the dedication of the Children’s Helicopter, and do not fund our spare helicopter. In fact, the spare helicopter must fund itself and contribute to the Children’s Helicopter expenses to justify its existence. LifeFlight does not utilise these funds to "go in at lower prices to win a tender". Again, we do not compete with commercial operators... and if we do undertake work along side commercial operators (such as fire fighting) it is done at the maximum rate we can get!! As I understand it, our rate for fire fighting is above that of operators like John Ecott, and we are happy to keep it that way....
This alone, counters your argument that "If the LF’s of this world are allow to unfairly compete with commercial operators, the commercial operators will go out of business. Where will your adhoc helicopters come from then when there are insufficient contract machines around to fight fires?"
In fact, John Ecott himself has benefited from our hiring out of our BK117 for many months and hundreds of hours, as his company hired it to undertake fire fighting while his BK was getting repaired! And we hired it to him well below full commercial rates to allow him a margin and return from the fire fighting work!!!!!!!!!! We have also hired it to commercial operators for other work such as film, lifting etc ....what’s that ...LifeFlight’s existence and principles actually benefiting and/or supporting commercial operations????? No its not possible is it???
Sling Load ... its not Oogle that doesn’t know the laws... it seems to be you! I respectfully suggest you polish up on Aussie tax law before providing misguided advice on this subject...
Your comment in an earlier post - "Heli Solutions doing the Grand Prix using Life Flight helicopters" … also astounds me, but doesn’t surprise me, as you’ve made some pretty extraordinary assumption so far..... Helisolutions is a company established as a completely separate entity of LifeFlight and has never undertaken any commercial helicopter hiring since its registration.... its a shelf company gained while BS was here and not utilised since, as most of BS's approach was abandoned upon his departure. LifeFlight has been the company undertaking the EMS helicopter contract for the Grand Prix for the past three years.... again the provision of EMS is one of our core objectives!
Talklimited - your recent comment "If all the profits go back into the “community”, can I come and drive the BMW’s or what ever the latest ‘company cars’ are and be paid a similar benefits package that certain individuals receive in LF?" LifeFlight does not dictate to our employees what kind of car they can drive???
Also, ....I wouldn’t get too concerned that you’ll need to be worried about this as LifeFlight would be very unlikely to employ a person of your character, and if we did, you could drive whatever car you think you could afford on the rates and benefits we benchmark from the relevant industrial award. LifeFlight is not a vehicle for anyone’s personal benefit!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t know how many times this has to be stated before you guys consider it may actually be true!
Again, I'm not here to guess who you guys are.... just providing facts.... Some people will take these onboard and some will dismiss them as untrue. I can only place my case forward and trust that reasonable people will see through the mistruths of some individuals (or individual under several pseudonyms) who are persistent with there rather pointed attacks.... Questions asked and answered.... can’t do much about it if these guys won’t accept the answers!
Cheers to all who have stuck to fact and not ridden the wave of fiction within their postings.... I can respect anyone who takes an objective assessment of the situation based on all the facts... but still disagrees with me ..that’s OK! Just needs to be based on fact and not fiction. Their only avenue to continue this fiction is to discredit the facts and/or myself within their claims, and now some are resorting to absolute lies to achieve this.
I ask you all to keep this in mind.... and if anyone would like me to clarify anything, please give me a call, I can be contacted most days in the office and would be happy to make time available to discuss these claims - +61 3 9614 1700.
Here’s to the advancement of the industry!
Warmest regards to all
Brett Rankin.
:ok:

[SASless]

It is refreshing to see senior mangement in an open forum discussing their operations.

Shame the Air Logistics/OLOG guys are not that open and forthright. They for sure get a lot of fingers pointed their way....but not one has dared set foot into the public arena for a fair give and take. For that matter...they won't show up in a crew room or company bar for a fair give and take!

Brett is the first I have seen do so in a forum such as this.

I have received a telephone call from a senior manager in the Gulf of Mexico before, asking to explain some things.....that was sure a first. It was not an Air Dog guy I can assure you.

[sling load]

Brett,
i never mentioned BMW or cars etc........i have also noted that Heli Solutions has NEVER contracted out helicopters. NEVER.
With regard to the Grand Prix, i also take your word.
The point im making to you is that you are still engaging in commercial work that does not appear to fit your core charter.
You as the CEO must realise how this appears to industry.
And no, i dont want a job with your organisation.

[John Eacott]

Any chance of leaving me out of this discussion, please?

Thanks ;) :ok:

[helmet fire]

Brett, I want to second SASless's remarks re your openess and willingness to post. So many misunderstandings can be cleared up with such openess.

My "babies will die...." comment was not attributed to you, nor your organisation and I appologise for any inference. It is merely a common tounge-in-cheek saying for keeping CASA and others at bay from EMS ops. For an example of it's usage, if, and I said IF, CHC wanted to take over Sydney EMS operations, existing operators would quickly wheel out and use the "babies will die..." defence. Tounge in cheek label, but I think you get the point.

I also specifically mentioned that the board example given was NOT your organisation, and I will say it was coloured and embelished to be demonstrative, rather than specific. Your review of your corporate governance proceedures is commendable, and reflects the position of thousands of charities right across Australia. I was merely expanding SASless's comments as a discussion item and demonstrating how these things have the potential to be altered, especially when conducted in organisatoins without the corporate safeguards you have outlined. Using this example I posed the $64,000 question, some say it's all legal and smart manouevring, some percieve it to be not quite kosher, and that depends upon which side of the fence you are on. As this whole thread is clearly demonstrating, don't you think? That's Pprune.

[talklimited]

Oh.....I have misunderstood. If a spare part is purchased, the cost of which is partly or fully covered from charitable donations, it ONLY is used on the ‘non commercial’ Community EMS helicopter. Along with separate fuel installations at your base, one for the EMS “community” helicopter, the other for the ‘commercial’ helicopter? That is like believing your existing French Antarctic contract is not a commercial venture. Oh, and didn’t we see the Community EMS helicopter fighting fires in all parts of the land of OZ when it was the only one you had?

Simply typing the largest number of words does not automatically ensure truthfulness and believability.

I’m yet to meet a pilot, paid in accordance with the Award that drives a “BMW” and receives other benefits to the extent displayed by some of the LF personnel. How about putting that benefit back into the Community you so often mention, and take a less privileged package.

Now this one has me confused;

Again, we do not compete with commercial operators... and if we do undertake work along side commercial operators (such as fire fighting) it is done at the maximum rate we can get!!

So LF does not compete, they undertake work along side. Mmmmm.......now that’s one to ponder. The LF costs needed to be recovered from the same cake (commercial work available) are less than those of a commercial operator competing for the same work. FACT.

And Brett, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the fact that over 90% (my guess) of ppruners use a ‘handle’, as last I looked, this was a ‘rumor network’. That’s what happens on these forums you know!

Well at least we got you on back after you said you were finished with us.

[Aussie Mate]

Please be careful with the "US" word.

You have been a distant lonely voice since you started here.

Never assume the silent majority is anywhere close behind you.

[Destabilized]

Aussie Mate,

There's always two sides to a story, and the truth may lay somewhere in the middle ;)

So BR can register on Pprune, post only on this thread, and suddenly his word is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Any more than me, or talklimited, or any others?

Assertions that non core function work was obtained by not undercutting the opposition, what a crock! Of course you got the work because you were cheaper, that's all the French were after. Going out at a higher rate than commercial operators? Business is business, you get work by being cheaper to operate (subsidised, sponsered, homogeonised, it's all the same when someone else is giving you a cool million to keep your charity in business) and undercutting real operators.

So, how about addressing the real issues, Brett. Why does LF have such a turnover of pilots? Why does lifeflight dabble in commercial charter, to the detriment of other operators? Why do the senior management have such lucrative packages? When will LF get on with its core EMS work, and leave commercial work to commercial (non subsidised) operators.

[Oogle]

Talk Limited & Destabilized.

Two Aussie pricks that I hope I never get to meet!

Mr Rankin came on board to truthfully answer ALL you claims and allegations - AND YOUR STILL NOT HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!

Look at Air Methods - they currently have vacancies for about a dozen pilots. Why don't you start on them about pilot turnover?

Brett - I strongly suggest that you stay off this thread and let these guys beat themselves around the head.

Sasless and Aussie mate - :ok:

[Av8r]

Well boys, it's been quite a muck raking exercise. Quite enlightening really.

At the end of the day, the ultimate litmus test is how often a company advertises in the OZ for the same staff. High turn over, low morale. Your choice.

[Nigel Osborn]

After 5 pages, the original query of why was there such a high turnover of pilots has not really been answered. Brett has been kind enough to explain what LF does, but who is Brett?
Brett used to be a crewman at Surf Life Saving Queensland and for that matter his father is president of Surf, a top bloke. Brett started LF and became CEO. However like several other EMS/rescue outfits that have a crewman as head honcho/ CEO, the pilots have often not got on with their CEO being a crewman in the back, frequently telling pilots how to fly and other things which needless to say will upset most pilots, especially the chief pilot. To lose 2 chief pilots in such a short period plus other line pilots is not good and obviously all is not perfect.
Having said that, Brett has at least been good enough to give long replies that some may not believe; that is their prerogative.
You'll note that I too use my name.:p

[talklimited]

Aussie “hate”.....your first posting on this thread. Keep your eye on the ball, not the man.

“Mr Rankin came on board to truthfully answer ALL you claims and allegations - AND YOUR STILL NOT HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!”

Oogle......your determination that Brett has told the truth and other opinions are false is like my assertions, opinions that I believe. So don’t claim one side to be true when you don’t know. Courts of law have difficulty seeking the truth, but you seem to recognize it instantly.

“I consider Brett a good friend, and have a close and professional relationship with him, despite losing a job or two to Lifeflight along the way!”

JE. Thanks for confirming that LF conduct commercial bidding at the expense of commercial operators.

I rest my case.

[Loose Mast Nut]

Mac, Or maybe others are consolidating and expanding, and your not!!

[ROTOR_BRAKE]

The question still remains unanswered. Why the constant turn over of drivers? Answer is simple: Have you ever met BR? Just spending a short time with the man is enough to answer everything. Not one ex employee (or current for that matter) has a good thing to say about the guy. That is an almost unheard of situation. Where there is smoke there is fire and in BR's case the Sky Crane couldn't put this guy out. He has played more dirty tricks and last minute deceptions than even the most shonky operators. Don't be fooled by the pages of crap that he purports as the truth. He should sell cars. He will talk on and on about this and that....drifting all the contributors to this forum further and further away from the original question. Speak to the people that have worked at LF. Talk to the Ambos that knew him before LF. The story is always the same. The evidence is overwhelming that the reason for the HUGE and CONSTANT turnover of air crew at LF is........BR.

[High Nr]

Remember a chap by the name of, John Fredericks?

For all those folk out there that work within Queensland Rescue [Townsville], CHC Military SAR or Helimed 1, spare a thought for the "shonk’s, or perceived Shonk’s" of this world.

Without their vision and enthusiasm [be that misguided] you may still be flipping Beef Patties at MacDonald’s.

[Too Cloudy]

JUST TO CLEAR THE AIR!!!!!

I would like to be able to share my opinion on this subject, but there are those who would start to question my motives (and abilities) as they have in previous Life Flight posts. (A certain pilot from YSCB comes to mind).

I may have made a stupid mistake, and as a consequence have had to wear the embarassment of getting the bullet from LF.

My main reason for posting is to stop certain people from thinking I am posting under many psuedonyms. The moderator would not allow this.

I have learnt the hard way that it is much better to keep opinions to myself. It's not hard to read between the lines of some of the posts.

I'm sure that all will be revealed in due course without my input.

Jason Walburn

[ROTOR_BRAKE]

Too Cloudy:

That is a pity.

Your slip in judgement aside, you could answer the ORIGINAL QUESTION, better than most.

Still, the answer to the question is quite clear.

High turn over of the Chief pilot's position at LF? Personnel management problems? Of course they are! Questions do need to be asked.

How many accidents in the industry can be inked back to a poor management structure, systemic failings, or a break down in relations between administrators (read: self appointed CEO) and flight crew in some company?
I would never wish CASA investigation upon any operator but CASA would be very justified in asking those type of questions.

Not sure why everyone is dancing around the bleeding obvious!!
The turn overs will continue as long as BR is at LF. He is hated by his staff, within days of their starting. Ask them!

Looking forward to reading your memoirs, JW. Would make a good read.

[Heliport]

This thread is now going around in circles and getting nowhere.

People on both sides of the divide have had their say, as well as those who are clearly neutral.

I'm now closing it.
If anyone is desperate to say something, e-mail me and tell me what it will add to what's already been said.


Heliport