royal doctors flying service in australia [Archive]

playboyfree

24th Jul 2005, 01:29

thanks...i know about the job as is published on the royal docs website. i know all about the bases, job qualification requirements, etc. i appreciate the fact that jobs are scarce in australia and that its a privelege to fly for the royal docs, and all that. but before i abandon 6 years of seniority and spend thousands of dollars on immigration fees and license conversion and moving etc..all i want to know, from an employees point of view..what does the job pay? no one will say and i don't understand that . what's the big secret? i would be happy to give the real deal scoop on my job to anyone who asks

Towering Q

24th Jul 2005, 01:31

Playboy, here is the link to the WA site.

http://www.rfds.info/

Appears to be a steady stream of pilots into and out of the Meekatharra base.

Why you ask?...go check out Meekatharra.:{

Blamping

24th Jul 2005, 02:53

Hello Towering Q.

The site you have referenced is actually the URL to a temporary West Ops clinical staff web site. The decidedly poor WESTOPS web site is actually at www.rfdswestops.com.au although there is very little information so is not worth visiting.

Visit http://www.flyingdoctor.net and http://www.flyingdoctorqueensland.net for slightly more comprehensive information.

Hey Q. You from Westops? We're stealing at least 3 of your pilots in the next 12 weeks so EXPECT MORE MOVEMENT. One spot will come from Jandakot but I expect some of the remote bases will bid for that??

compressor stall

24th Jul 2005, 05:18

There is a steady exodus of pilots out of the west - for a number of reasons.

The pilots that meet the criteria for employment there are thin on the ground...it might be worth firing an email to the CP over in the western section to see.

You might not got your relocation paid for but they might (might!) be interested in sponsoring you for your visa provided you spend a few years in Meeka....

CS

Towering Q

24th Jul 2005, 08:20

Blamping, my stuff up, I meant that second site you mentioned. I have to agree with you though, none are particularly useful.

And no, I'm not from West Ops, not even from the RFDS but that 'EXPECT MORE MOVEMENT' sounds good.:ok:

chief wiggum

25th Jul 2005, 23:22

I would suggest you get their name right - that would be the FIRST step!

Blamping

26th Jul 2005, 04:21

I don't know Chief... some of the doctors think they're royalty.

Taggert

26th Jul 2005, 04:25

In response to your question about pay and conditions, i'm only familiar with Western Section, and although the new EBA is still in negotiation, for a first year B200/PC12 Captain your looking at $52000, rising in annually. Add to this a 2000l fuel card and a house and its not a bad deal. Chances are you'll start off in one of the remote bases, most likely Meekatharra due its high exodus rate. However on the off chance you might end up in Derby or Port Hedland.
Schedule wise, a day shift is on call 6am-6pm, with your duty time only starting once you have been tasked for a job. Not unusual to get home from a day shift at 8pm-12am. Night shift is obviously 6pm-6am, and conversely you can knock off anywhere between 2am-10am.
Typically you get 2 weekends off per month, with usual 8 duty free periods monthly. Night shifts are at a rate of about 6-8 per month.
No clinic work in Westops, all on call.
Hope this helps.

Taggert
:ok:

BlueEagle

26th Jul 2005, 11:25

As a first step I would suggest you contact the immigration department of your nearest Australian Embassy/High Commission and establish your residence and work rights in Australia, I think you will find that the occupation of pilot is still very much on the "Definitely Not Required" list. Still a lot of unemployed Australian pilots here, if you have immediate family here it would make a difference, possibly.

zepthiir

26th Jul 2005, 13:08

Blue Eagle has a very good point, especially considering to get a permanent work visa for aus without relatives here I am pretty sure you have to be sponsered by a company here and they have to justify that the skills you bring to their company are such that they cant be found by hiring from within the country.

First hard part would be convincing the RFDS that they should sponsor you considering they have a flood of pilots knocking on their door.

The second hard part would be the RFDS convincing immigration that all those pilots knocking on the door cant provide the same skills as you.

If you can figure your way around the immigration issue though I think you may find a career here rewarding. The flying in aus is much more challenging with a large portion of the country being considered a designated remote area, few navaids and often very few ground references to navigate off. If you can get your visa you should go for it instead of spending the rest of your life wondering what if. If you dont like it you can always go back home and know you tried.

Zepth

swh

26th Jul 2005, 21:40

I see what your saying regarding immigration, however backing up what compressor stall is saying, they have sponsored a number of people in the past in other areas of the organisation.

Yes many pilots in Australia, and doctors and nurses, but to get the right combination of skills and experience is difficult. Its not an entry level job.

The number of people who would have all the qualifications and experience to walk into the job are few and far between, I would not want someone with a bare CPL/MECIR taking me out of a flare lit unpaved bush strip in the middle of the night to a foggy arrival at a larger city airport.

As compressor stall suggested, they could also show that remote bases do have a high turnover, and contracting a person to that base maybe one solution, thats what QLD health does to its overseas doctors to get coverage.

:ok:

compressor stall

26th Jul 2005, 22:44

A couple of points re above:

Zepthiir First hard part would be convincing the RFDS that they should sponsor you considering they have a flood of pilots knocking on their door.

A last report, there is not a flood, and those who do apply are often without the required expereince. They are having a lot of trouble now finding guys with the combination of bush time and 200 night hours in remote areas.

The last point they are extremely strict on - and rightly so as it's probably the most high risk GA operation in oz.

Blue Eagle Wasn't a pilot ON the professional immigration list about a year ago? I seem to remember it being discussed in here.

In any case, if it's on the list or not, then it's still possible if your employer makes a case that the skills are not available here - which is entirley probable with the situation described above.

BlueEagle

26th Jul 2005, 23:56

You may be right but I think, about a year ago, immigration were asked to move pilots OFF the desired list as there were about 14,000 Australian licensed, Australian pilots of varied experience, not working in Australian aviation.

Best advice so far , try it and see how far you get playboyfree,.

swh

27th Jul 2005, 00:19

BlueEagle,

I have seen the 14000 number on this CASA link (http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/overbr.htm) that says ...

Employment in Australia
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority does not control the employment of flight crew in the Australian aviation industry; neither does it maintain details of available vacancies or aviation employment trends.

Persons intending to fly in a commercial operation or work in Australia will need to have the right to work in Australia (resident or appropriate visa) and should make their own inquiries about employment opportunities. Immigration requirements can be found on the Department of Immigration website.

NOTE: In Australia there are currently more than 14,000 licensed Commercial and ATPL pilots who are not employed as pilots. Due to lack of suitable employment opportunities these pilots do not maintain their licences or medicals and many have pursued other opportunities.

However they also say on this page ... (http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/fcl_req.htm)

2004 Current ATPL's = 6,025 Current CPL's = 4,303, not all of them are unemployed ...

I do beleive not a lot of people are prepared to live on 25-30k award wage for a bare CPL holder.

:ok:

bonvol

27th Jul 2005, 01:53

It is true that pilots are not on the Migration Occupations in demand List these days. Go here (http://www.immi.gov.au/migration/skilled/advice_doc/gn_modl.htm) for the curent list.

However, pilots are still on the Skilled Occupation List which can be found here (http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1121i.pdf)

In a nutshell this means an overseas pilot with the relevant skills and able to meet the points test will be able to apply for skilled migration (unsponsored) into Australia.

Whether they will get a flying job when they get here is another matter.

A37575

28th Jul 2005, 12:05

Compressorstall is right on when he says that the RFDS is probably the most high risk GA operation in Australia.

That is why the aircraft are crewed with only one pilot. Saves lives!

On the other hand the RDFS would be a less high risk operation if it used two pilots - especially at night. You have to ask why many mining companies and corporations insist on a two pilot operation. Safety reasons? Insurance premiums?

The Mount Gambier RFDS Kingair accident would probably not have happened if the aircraft had been crewed by two pilots.

Desert Duck

28th Jul 2005, 12:29

A37575

If the charter companies or corporations you mention embraced the same safety ethic and minimum employment requirements that the RFDS have adopted, and demonstrated, then perhaps the insurance companies and the mining companies would not insist on two pilots in single crew aircraft.

The fact that you may fly to a horrible little strip on a dark and stormy night does not mean that it is not done safely with all the risks considered.

Cactus Jak

29th Jul 2005, 12:14

The Mount Gambier RFDS Kingair accident would probably not have happened if the aircraft had been crewed by two pilots.

You're right on the money there A37575. The aircraft would never have been tasked for the job as the second pilot would have nudged it over max take off out of Gambier.

bushy

29th Jul 2005, 13:24

The westwind which crashed in Alice Springs had two pilots, So did the Lockhart River one, and the 737 that nearly flew into a hill at Canberra.

maxgrad

29th Jul 2005, 17:36

Desert Duck, Cactus Jack & Bushy.. Got it right as far as I'm concerned.
A37575..find out more about the medivac operations and the check and training standards involved.

RENURPP

29th Jul 2005, 22:25

My experience with these mining contracts and their requirements for two crew is, They require two endorsed pilots onboard, this barely resmbles two crew.
A few years when I was involved in this type of operation I recall watching companies who were tasked with these operations using bare CPL with no type endorsement simlpy to cover the requirement.

I believe the RFDS and other simliar operators such as Pearl,[Noerthern Territory Aero Medical Services] who do exactly the same job, can all stand on their record.

tinpis

30th Jul 2005, 01:28

Sadly Bushy the Westwind had 3 pilots on board.

OpsNormal

30th Jul 2005, 02:19

And well worth the small climb up the Illparpa Range to have a look at what remains of the aircraft. Very sobering.

Gen Ties

30th Jul 2005, 02:41

I realize that the thread has gone a little off on a tangent but..

Cactus Jak

Are the RFDS King Air 200C's loaded that heavy with gear (stretchers etc) that it couldn't take off from Mt Gambier with 2 crew, a patient and medical attendant (doctor/nurse whatever) and have sufficient fuel for Sydney.

Without holding or alternate it would only have needed around 2500lb of fuel. (Serious question)

Re the two crew issue it is interesting to see that the Flight Safety CFIT Checklist Risk Assessment applies a 1.5 multiplier for Single Pilot Ops whereas, to supply a comparison, only gives a 1.2 multiplier for a flight crew with a duty day a max and ending with a night non precision approach.

"playboyfree", conditions for the various RFDS Divisions can be found at http://www.wagenet.gov.au. Just type in Royal Flying Doctor in the search function.

Cactus Jak

30th Jul 2005, 04:26

About 2500lbs is all it could take if they had 2 crew, as you said Gen Ties. I don't know the weight of the aircraft at Gambier but the medical fitout in the B200 usually brings the operating weight up to between 4-4.5 tonne. Weight is a big issue with these aircraft.

My rough calcs came up with a nil wind, no holding fuel figure of around 2300lbs

What was the weather in Sydney? I don't know, but if there was any kind of weather holding etc. they may have had to make a stop for fuel along the way, which would have been out of the question considering the urgency of the job.

I don't know if this is the case but also consider that the patient may have been quite ill at the time. Maybe requiring additional, fairly weighty equipment to be attached to he or she. This can add up.

Flight nurses can handle many different patient conditions but quite often, a doctor may be required as well. Extra weight again.

You hopefully can see now all the variables that can come into play on different jobs. I can't recall if the Gambier patient required all of the support i've mentioned but if so, the job would not have gone with 2 pilots on board.

As a side note, 2 pilots had no positive outcome at Lockhart River.

Taggert

30th Jul 2005, 08:59

Think ya will find that the King Air in question would have been heading back to Adelaide where it came from.

A37575

30th Jul 2005, 11:43

Let's look at the facts of the Mt Gambier case. According to the ATSB report the pilot was fatigued. He flew from Port Augusta to Whyalla to Adelaide to Mt Gambier (ETA 2330L) and had never landed there at night before -and then planned to fly to Sydney. All single pilot. The patient (who was a small boy) was going to Sydney for a kidney transplant. He had been waiting for weeks and suddenly one became available -hence the call-out. As far as I know there was no special equipment aboard re extra weight.

That is one hell of a long flight for a single pilot operation. The T-VASIS at Gambier was known was to be dodgy in moisture laden air where dry bulb was close to wet bulb or dew point. That night it was drizzly, scattered at 800 ft, mist, dry bulb and dew point 11C and a well known black hole approach.

Mysteriously,six months after the accident ERSA was amended to caution pilots that the T-VASIS at Mount Gambier could give erroneous indications in certain atmospheric weather conditions. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

That caution was not wrong. Reports from pilots familiar with Mt Gambier T-VASIS revealed that the indications were often very misleading with unreliable glide path signals. Air Services were not notified.

The ATSB for various reasons were never aware of this until after their report was published and new evidence came to light about the state of the VASIS. While a tired pilot may have been misled by erroneous T-VASIS indications that night, the presence of a second pilot monitoring would have increased the chances of a false glide slope be detected.

That mining corporations, state premiers and a lot of companies that charter aircraft for their employees insist on a two pilot operation is not because the charterers consider the skills of single pilots are inadequate. It is because the insurance companies and the charterers recognise that two pilot IFR operations are safer that single pilot operations. Few will argue against that fact. Even ATSB said that in their report on the Mt Gambier accident.

The ATSB report also stated that the extra cost of employing a second pilot is often the reason why some operators stick with a single pilot operation. The RFDS ask for tenders to operate aircraft on their behalf and rely heavily on donations from the public. It is less money paid out to operate single pilot, isn't it?

While the aircraft that the RFDS operate are certified to be operated by one pilot, the environment in which these pilots operate would strongly suggest it is safer to use two pilots.

Prop's ????

30th Jul 2005, 12:15

A37575 – makes a very strong argument. I fly in two crew operations, some nights I’m glad I have that second set of eye’s watching over me. We all get tired and could easily make a silly mistake.

Bushy – The 737 in the Canberra incident was very unfortunate, from my experience complacency could have come into that problem.

I wonder, if the RFDS decided to fly two crew operations, would any unemployed pilot say that’s a silly idea?

swh

30th Jul 2005, 14:23

A37575,

"It is less money paid out to operate single pilot, isn't it?"

Pilot wages are small compared with other costs, the reality is that with 2 pilots you would be restricted to 1 patient.

1 patient per aircraft, means more aircraft, more nurses, more doctors, thats where the real cost are. Think a pilot earns 1/2 of what a nurse does, and about 1/5 of a doctor, and 1/10 of the aircraft cost.

RFDS conducts specialised training for operation in remote areas at night. I am not aware of any other operator, apart from the military that do similar.

RFDS encourage the use of breaks, and no pressure is placed on crew to get the job done. The pilot would not have accepted the task if he felt in his professional opinion that he was okay for it.

Having not landed at a strip before would be of little concern, you could do several years in the RFDS and still come across new strips.

"Reports from pilots familiar with Mt Gambier T-VASIS revealed that the indications were often very misleading with unreliable glide path signals."

You get that anywhere not just Mt Gambier with shallow fog, mist, or rain.

"The ATSB for various reasons were never aware of this until after their report was published and new evidence came to light about the state of the VASIS. "

Hogwash...visual problems in shallow fog, mist, or rain have been know for years, was in my text books back when I did my licence. Even remember doing diffraction of light back in school.

"That is one hell of a long flight for a single pilot operation."

Anyone that has done the job will tell you the flying is not where the problem is, its all the stuffing around you do on the ground.

Even though the operation is single pilot, it is still multi crew the team in the back keeping the customers alive also looks after the pilot, its was very civilised to get a hot cuppa from down the back, or chat away to keep alertness levels up in a long cruise.

:ok:

Gen Ties

30th Jul 2005, 15:04

Cactus Jak,

wasn’t doubting you, just curious as to the weight the RFDS aircraft cart around.

I guess if it is not operationally possible, as you suggest, then perhaps that is the way it has to be.

I've never worked for the RFDS but have several years worth of Single Pilot King Air time. Fortunately for me most of that time was during daylight hours and into reasonable bitumen strips, serviced by proper lighting.

If my company had of decided to run the operation with two crew, I would have embraced the idea with open arms.

Thankfully I am now part of a two crew environment and really would not relish the idea at all of having to fly single pilot IFR ops again.

And regarding ...
As a side note, 2 pilots had no positive outcome at Lockhart River
doesn't cut it as a plausible argument to support the notion that 2 crew does not make it any safer than single pilot ops.

Perhaps it would have been more valid to quote a single pilot crash and then suggested ...As a side note, 1 pilot had no positive outcome at........but 2 crew may just have.

Anway regards

bushy

31st Jul 2005, 03:11

The central section RFDS Kingairs were very heavy, as they had lots of equipment fitted, and also carried medical gear.

We need to get a bit more realistic here.
On this forum I have seen people saying a Citation jet is a sensible replacement for a chieftain, a caravan is a suitable replacement for an Aztec and the RFDS should use two pilot crews.

This is aero club dreaming.

Have a look at the "Alice Springs news" printed on April 27 2005.
This describes how the Alice Springs base of the RFDS has only one pilot on duty at night although they have three aircraft. It took 14 hours to get a seriously burned patient to Adelaide.(a three hour flight.)
I am not criticisibg the RFDS or the medical people. I know from experience that there are a lot of good people there , doing a lot fo good work.
But let's, stop waffling about jets replacing chieftains, and two pilot crews for the RFDS when they cannot even provide an adequate 24 hour single pilot service.

Running Boeings up and down the J curve is one thing, but the rest of the country is very, very different.

Even the RFDS does not have a bottomless pit of money. Like the rest of us they have to be realistic.

swh

31st Jul 2005, 04:45

bushy,

I agree with what your saying.

As new medical technology becomes available the aircraft are getting heavier all the time.

A seriously burned patient or critical patient will normally have a doctor and nurse, as well as the doctor you would load 40-50 kg of additional equipment.

RFDS pilots have fairly uniform CAO48 exemption across the country, they still have maximum flight and duty time limitations. As the job is "on call" you could be 10 hours into your "on call" period at home and tasked for a 14 hour duty. Then you need an addition rest time after that end of duty, and if that end of duty took you into late night operations, you have a limit on how many you can do in a week.

That being said, if the patient was known to be life critical, every avenue would be explored to move the patient before the captain would be asked (with the CP consent) if he would accept the task on a mercy flight basis.

I am not a medically trained person, however in my experience patients will only be transported when the medical staff are happy to do so, and the priority for when to move them is a medical decision.

What I guess I am hinting at, is that the medical people may have decided the priority for this patient was move with 24 hours, as apposed to the higher priority which is life critical move asap.

I also know that sections will call upon each other in times of need, could have had a king air from Mt Isa (QLD) in 1:20, Broken Hill (NSW) 2:20, Derby (WA) or Darwin (NT) 2:30

:ok:

bushy

31st Jul 2005, 06:31

I do know that, as I flew their aircraft for many years. I was once diverted to do a night pickup in WA, when returning from Adelaide to Alice Springs, because the one night crew was already busy, and there was a serious problem in WA. There were other aircraft available, but no crews rostered. (I was closer than the WA bases.)

There were not enough pilots then, and it appears that there are still not enough.

Changing to a two pilot operation would require bigger aeroplanes, and a more complex more expensive operation, which would need either LOTS more money, or less aircraft and crews.

There are not enough now.

The RFDS have a good safety record as they have good equipment, experienced pilots, and they DO NOT go into grotty little airstrips.

If there is LOTS more money forthcoming, then two pilot crews would work, but I really wonder about the nenefits.

Gen Ties

31st Jul 2005, 07:30

After crunching sme numbers I can see that the 200 can get tight in the Medivac Ops, especially on a long leg (remote opserations)with weather and combined with added medical requirements.

The B350 would be nice for you guys but then you would run into problems with night approaches into strips with no navaids. (Over 5700kg).

Budgets being budgets and suitable aircraft being another problem I suppose, at this time anyway, there is no easy, and not excessively expensive, answer.

Pity, because there certainly is a benefit to flying two crew.

Enlightening thread all the same.

swh

31st Jul 2005, 09:49

Gen Ties,

An approach is all that is needed, GPSNPA works to meet the above 5700 kg issue.

They have been working with people for a new approach type for aircraft with two primary means of navigation, for a GPS/DME arrival without a ground based aid that could be deployed anywhere without flight testing.

The B350 costs more to purchase and operate than a small jet.

:ok:

Desert Duck

31st Jul 2005, 10:15

bushy

Just because it is in print in the Alice News does not mean that that is what actually happened

How long did the ambos take to get the patient to hospital?

How long did the hospital stuff around before they called the RFDS?

Was the aircraft already tasked?

It would be nice to have 3 crews 24/7 for 3 aircraft but if they are only used a couple of times a year - how loudly would the State and Federal Govt as well as the general public who donate money scream about responsible fiscal policy

bushy

31st Jul 2005, 15:23

Sure. But wouldn't it be nice to have three eight hour shifts, instead of two 12 hour ones?. Or back to back 12hour ones?

Then there would be less duty time problems, and more stable rosters. And a little fat, in the system,so that an extra night flight can be flown at short notice sometimes without major disruption.
I guess, if the money is not available, then it cannot be done.

But, if this is the case, then the notion of two pilot crews is just dreaming.

Gen Ties

1st Aug 2005, 08:42

swh

Yeah, the're not cheap, I am led to believe new they are around $AUD 7 million (dependant on fitout of course). But for that they will lift around 1.3 tonne and still carry 2600lb of fuel, 280 + kts and up to FL350. (And if you believe the books the books over 300kts :suspect: - perhaps not in the hotter parts of Aus)

What about the B300, (do they still make it?), it would probably be cheaper and it comes in a cargo model as well.

Be intersted to know what a new 200 cost, I believe they are around 280 kts as well and I read in the papers the QLD Div has bought one or two of them.

Hey, people who know your business better than I have obviously researched this subject, and believe me when I say tht I am not trying to second guess. It is just an interesting discussion for someone who doesn't have a great deal of knowlege of your ops.

Hey Bushy, who was dat Aero Club dream'n guy who said one day that Drover plane be replaced by a Queen Air and then that Queenie, she be replaced by that King Air plane. :D