LifeFlight Melb. Last one out, please turn off the lights. [Archive]

Overwait

1st May 2006, 11:04

KP...

You can't have been in the industry too long if you haven't heard of the enigma that is Brett Rankin.;)

Life Flight has an inglorious past that has tainted the industry more than any other flying organisation in Victoria in the last 10 years.

Do a search on PPRUNE....I believe the last title was "Life Flight YMML".

The moderator closed it some time ago...I don't know if it can be recalled. "Used car salesman" and Rankin have been used in the same sentence...I think that's a harsh call....I actually trust a used car salesman in comparison. It's quite a skill to watch someone shake your hand and pick your pocket with the other.:E

Hopefully the moderator will let this one run its course....BR has had many posts pulled with threatened legal action....S'pose he can't afford the Collins Street Solicitors now that he has a BIG mortage to service and no job.

PS..Heard that the General manager at Childflight in Sydney was advertised last week....

Terry and Bretty boy up there together.....He He!!!!

Aussie Mate

1st May 2006, 11:14

A better equipped set of aircraft would be hard to find!

Also the salary is good and the conditions just fine.

We don't need your assistance Mr Overweight, just try to use your brain instead of that Foul Mouth.

Overwait

1st May 2006, 11:29

Aussie....

I don't disagree that the helos aren't well equipped....Banks own em though.....

If I could get millions of dollars telling fibs...I could buy and fit out a space shuttle....

I just found the old Life Flight post and saw you post several times in support of Bretty boy...In hindsight, your comments pledging your undying support seem to be little foolish now don't they???

It's a forum...I can say whatever I want as long as I stick to what I know.....and I know Life Flight:yuk:

Come on BR....we can see you are on tonight....Any thing to say???

Kulwin Park

1st May 2006, 12:47

I was a bit rushed before with my short questions - had to run out.... Sorry

Now back to it. Mr Overwait, you are very harsh in your comments. I think you are taking this the wrong way!! I have seen the LifeFlight facility, how it operates, the impressive aircraft, well trained and polite staff...... So what you are saying is that you wish for LifeFlight and its service to the Royal Childrens Hospital and life saving services get shutdown because you have a grudge with someone. Not very professional !! By this service closing, it creates a very big chain of inconvience and negative events that could affect lives..... so maybe you should be careful with your comments.

And to answer your question - I have been in the Industry for over 15 years, but thank-you for your concern. I have travelled the world and seen many operations and worked for many high profiled well named companies. I don back stab someone to upset the work of other innocent people! Mr Rankin, from what I could see, acted in a great way to his team members. So, when you say "you know LifeFlight", does that mean every person working inside that facility, or do you just mean upper management?!

I'm suer everyone stands here with me that there is a big difference in bagging someone or everyone?!

Also, people change, or you just do not agree with his decisions. Do you run a successful business yourself? or are you just in your negative comments?

Heliport

1st May 2006, 14:00

overwait

Welcome to PPRuNe.

It's a forum...I can say whatever I want as long as I stick to what I know
Wrong.
If you say something which puts the site owners at risk of a libel action, it may be removed.

BR has had many posts pulled with threatened legal actionWrong.
Very few posts are deleted or edited in this forum - mainly because the majority of people use good sense. (We occasionally get some people, often new members, trying to use the forums to pursue personal vendettas but they're usually easy to spot.)

HillerBee

1st May 2006, 14:04

Regardless of this Mr. BR, it's very sad. It's bad for the staff who obviously did their best, but very sad for the patients/victims.

I don't see why a personal 'vendetta' has to be battled on here.

the coyote

1st May 2006, 20:25

Well said HillerBee.

Oogle

1st May 2006, 21:15

Overwait

I don't see you trying hard, putting in the long hours trying to get a fledgling EMS service off the ground.

I don't know the ins and outs but what I do know is that it is a shame that a service like this one is going down.

Ring Mr Rankin and let him know what you think of him instead of putting us all through your ranting.

This subject has SO been done.

spinwing

1st May 2006, 22:29

Ahhhh POLITICS ...

Its a pity that this service has to endure the "Sling and Arrows" of outrageous politics. There is nothing else in Melbourne to be able to do this dedicated type of service.

Some of you out there obviously have issues with the Chief executive, however I doubt that you will have ever put in the effort that he has to get these aircraft, build the organisation and put together the crew.

I'm sure there are a few people or organisations that have a vested interest in seeing what they view as a competitor go down BUT .... you will not pick up any NETS work as a result and thus only the NETS and the babies they service will suffer!

:uhoh: :{

Overwait

2nd May 2006, 00:35

KP....Wasn't having a go at your time in the industry...not at all...i was more of a comment based loosely along a "where have you been" if you hadn't heard of this person...My apologies if it came across any other way. KP, leopards don't change their spots.

To the others..Spinwing, Oogle, Hiller Bee etc....come on!!!!!.

No lives will be jeopardised by this service falling in a heap. The Metropolitan Ambulance service, as it did before and as it will now, has adequate and sufficient resources to cover NETS retrievals. They have N3's, 412's, Kingairs, dedicated NETS vehicles,taxi's etc all at their disposal. The health minister, the premier, MAS, RAV have all said that no lives will be placed in danger....Lets not play the dying babies card on this one.

Lets remember...This service only operated 10 hours a day. The Depatrment of Health operated for 30 years without a dedicated NETS helicopter, and will operate another 30 if it has too.

Re the Westpac helicopter....also an emphatic come on!!!! This service was NEVER...repeat NEVER going to be first call when the VPAW is required to be first responder to ALL SAR tasks. Also...this machine was only supposed to be tasked for patrolling between November and FEB anyway.....

Even SPRS got called before this machine.

I repeat...NO LIVES wil be placed in danger by these machines not being available...no matter what card you try and play.

To the moderator...fair call....I'm quite happy that some of my comments were removed. Unfortunately when you deal or have dealt with certain people of this nature some of the vitriol tends to spew over. Comments will be tempered.

Oogle, I don't agree that this has SO been done before. Life FLight and the way they operate with commercial tendering, turnover of pilots, reputation of the ED etc has been done before.

The company's sudden and abrupt demise has not.

Screwed™

2nd May 2006, 00:51

Metropolitan Ambulance service, as it did before and as it will now, has adequate and sufficient resources to cover NETS retrievals. They have N3's, 412's, Kingairs, dedicated NETS vehicles,taxi's etc all at their disposal.
...and I'm sure Mr Eacott will be more than happy to sweep up the crumbs. :hmm:

spinwing

2nd May 2006, 01:07

overwait ...

I did'nt say lives would be in danger.... nor will they be allowed to be!

If you know anything about NETS in Melbourne you would realise that the Vic Pol don't do NETS and in fact the service doesn't like to use the N3 a/c due to the NOISE !!! (it DOES upset the babies!) no airconditioning etc etc etc ....also VIC POL have been known to knock back requests for air support from their own Search and Rescue Squad ... how reliable is that!

Yes the King Airs get used where there is an airfield handy or at the further out ranges from Melb.

412s from Bendigo and or Latrobe Valley are too far away to get to Melb, pick up equipment and NETS team then get to where needed ... So....

LifeFlight could get the NETS team airborne from Royal Childrens pad 15min after a callout! ... and if the Govt. had provided adequate funding to crew for 24 hrs it could have been done as well!!

What is your REAL Beef with them? :rolleyes:

Overwait

2nd May 2006, 01:35

Spinwing...I know enough about NETS and the players invloved, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time posting. The N3's have been checked in the last week to see if they can carry the cot...they can. All helicopters are noisy and cramped aren't they?

The N3 may not be around all the time when NETS need them...Neither is the BK after 5pm.

Whilst it may not be the best option...it CAN be done.

I agree that the 15 minutes turnout was perhaps the best thing about both their and the RCH locality.

The contract was NEVER going to be 24 hour...plain and simple. The contract was won based on 50 odd hours of flying or 35 jobs a year...That's it...This was quite succint in the tender document. Although it was not mentioned specifically in the tender, the document was written around a "charity"...how else could you provide and maintain a 2 crew, IFR M/E helicopter for 10 hours a day...for a grand total of 50 hours of flying per year? The commercial big boys couldn't have sustained something like this...why would they bother? Corporate support was the only way to do it.

This corporate support doesn't exist now...hence the predicament of L/F.

My beef....not trying to hide it here: don't like the ED. Before you go on about whether I have met him, seen the facilities, fly EMS etc....yes...done all those things....

I would love to see the service remain, as like Aussie mate has alluded to in previous posts on other topics, creating jobs in OZ is a good thing. Sack the ED, appoint a new board, get a sponsor and get on with it.

But if it is going to call itself a charity, act like one.

bellfest

2nd May 2006, 02:00

Maybe an auction will replenish their roots
With BM's and Ray Bans and Armani suits:cool:
There's a few lines there that you can read between
Go see the ED and you'll know what I mean:D

It's a charity yeah so what is the racket:confused:
Some for the kids, some for the pay packet:E
Don't greed with the cream and play by the rules:}
Get an engineer who likes using his tools:8

I'll leave it there then I'll stay at a touch
I know a little but really not much
If there's truth in the rumour that it could all fail:sad:
There'll be bloody nice BK's in Melbourne for sale:ok:

spinwing

2nd May 2006, 02:50

Overwait...

Well done .. according to my sources, you are correct the N3 were checked out last week and yes they COULD carry the Neonate Cot.... providing all of the paramedic equipment currently carried for ambulance tasks was removed.

With time required to remove/re-install that necessary Ambulance mission equipment, AND a NETS mission requiring an average of 4Hrs of dedicated time ...I put it to you would NOT be the best way to serve Melbourne with either type of service!

The Bk is available for service after 5PM ...albeit by prior arrangement (due to crewing requirements).

The contract for a 24 Hr service was subject to need and funding be made available ... It is an IFR service NOT restricted to daylight hours!!!

I understand the corporate support does STILL exist but is finite and thus needs topping up from other sources.

It still is a not for profit organisation!

I also know about the "players" here in Melbourne ... on ALL sides!

Cheers ;)

spinwing

2nd May 2006, 10:26

Overwait

2nd May 2006, 10:48

Spin...

WHo is the new sponsor??? Is it some big secret???

Kulwin Park

2nd May 2006, 11:41

The WESTPAC rescue helicopter.... Is that a seperate part of LifeFlight, or part of the Powercor LifeFlight group?

Only the NeoNate helicopter would be affected right?

spinwing

2nd May 2006, 22:55

Overwait

....I think the organisation will make an announcement when it suits them!!!

Cheers ;)

Screwed™

4th May 2006, 21:12

I have been reliably informed that the supplemental corporate sponsorship for LifeFlight has been secured and thus there is no longer any threat to the NETS helicopter transport service in Melbourne.
This thread can now go awaaaaay!!!!!! :D :D
Cheers
..that’s not what I hear. Warnies 'donation' has been vetoed from above.
Maybe that beemer has to go after all?

topendtorque

4th May 2006, 23:46

if Kennett gets back in as premier some pecuniary common sense may prevail.

I've no intentions of intruding into the emotiveness of this debate and i'm no bean counter but i've oft had to make sure the beans were there for those that do.

I cannot see in the Herald Sun article enough beans for a service of more than one helo? lavishly kitted out, lavish pay and conditions and a supply when we feel like it in the daytime only - mentality- for 50, yep it said FIFTY only babies per year??????????????

All of this on 2.5m per year????????

The banks own-em one said. maybe when the balloon payments come along that is when the balloon will go up, in more ways than one.

This is the age of module adaption and as some-one else said the "cots" could be fit elsewhere maybe anywhere within reason, special ambo trucks etc?

apart from that there is plenty of examples around where skinny budgets and safety do NOT go hand in hand for extended periods.

Not in my definition of charity no sir, and the rumoured benefactor, fair go, if it is who it may be suggested it is, well he may 'bowl the odd maiden over' and we all know he has major finger trouble with the old cell phone, maybe he just dialled the wrong "baby".

spinwing

5th May 2006, 02:18

screwed ...

Oh well ...... I guess we'll just have to wait and see ...

BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too! ;) ... its hers !!!

Cheers

Screwed™

5th May 2006, 04:51

screwed ...
BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too! ;) ... its hers !!!
Cheers
Oh, I see. Sorry.
BTW, who does she work for?

spinwing

5th May 2006, 09:38

Mmmm...

I am not sure ...I believe she works for a LARGE Multi-National Corp. and the beemer is her (company) car !!!

BTW I think you will find that your info about the Warne Foundation is incorrect as well!

Cheers :D

Oogle

6th May 2006, 04:53

Screwed

You seem to be REALLY close to what is going on old mate.

A classic example of someone who has worked there before and didn't (or couldn't) hack it.:{

Screwed™

6th May 2006, 06:04

Wrong. I've never met the man.
However, I'm am glad to see my sources are good though....thanks. :ok:

High Nr

6th May 2006, 06:21

Aussies are renowned for practicing the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”, unfortunately it’s one of our negative national traits.

However, most if not all girls/guys that have worked there, or other much criticised operators, still willingly ensure their period there is in Bold letters on their Resume.

And why?, because the crews are normally very professional, know the task, respect the good machines and can put the petty personalities that are exhibited here [prune] by lesser pilots aside, and get on with the demanding tasks.

The intelligence and sense of under achievement exhibited by some of my colleagues is truly an embarrassment to our Industry.

Oogle

6th May 2006, 07:29

Screwed:

I can't believe that a fool like you would get on this forum and throw mud left right and centre to try and dis-credit the service and the CEO then have the brains to write:

Wrong. I've never met the man.

Screwed™

6th May 2006, 09:04

My problem is not with the man, it’s with his type. I’ve been in the industry a looong time. Long enough to know how these two bit 'wannabe' operators discredit the industry as a whole. Entering into a Government contract to provide a service that simply wasn’t possible at the price. The fire season wasn’t kind to LifeFlight (..errr, a charity doing commercial work? Can you see where I’m going with this?) which was the final nail in the coffin. Then has the audacity to go cap in hand and beg for more government funds and appear in the media saying babies are suffering because of his gamble that didn’t pay off?
The likes of LifeFlight, Mr Chibbs in Warrnambool and other ‘fly by night wannbes’ who are fulfilling a personal ego trip rather than a sound business proposition, do a great disservice to our industry and need to be outed for what they are.

Brett Rankin

6th May 2006, 12:10

Overweight, Screwed, Topendtorque,
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally on the same day we identify the persons who have contacted MP’s and others to undertake a smear campaign against our organization. These same people who’ll benefit from our demise!
I don’t think you can call a 6-year-old twin engine IFR HEMS operation with two well-equipped aircraft and a professional team - ‘two bit’ or ‘wannabe’…..
You clearly have a problem with me personally!
Any contract has a minimum of two parties… in our case the Vic Government and ourselves are the two parties.
Both entered into this contract with eyes open… both knowing 90% of the costs would come from non-government sources.
LifeFlight consistently maintained to government that 10% contribution is insufficient to sustain supply. The funding made available by government for the contract was (and remains) restricted by their budget at $250,000 per annum.
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit from undertaking these activities to the shortfall in funding our helicopter which we have dedicated to the Newborn Emergency Transport Service (Powercor Children’s Helicopter). This commercial work is undertaken with the knowledge and support of the Life Savers who contract it during summer and Westpac who sponsor it (Westpac Rescue Helicopter).
I make no apologies for doing whatever we can to fund a long awaited dedicated Children’s Helicopter in Victoria.
If you have a problem with us needing to do this… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Regarding Donations and fundraising - I have no problem asking the communities we serve to chip in for the cost of providing the services they benefit from (and nor do they!).
Your comments regarding my wife are particularly troubling and inappropriate….
Equally inappropriate is your attempt to associate our professional service, operating two IFR, multi engine, multi crewed HEMS helicopters, with the unfortunate efforts and/or motives of Mr Chibbs at Warrnambool or anywhere else!
Anyone who has experience within a HEMS operation knows it’s hardly an ‘ego trip’. It’s difficult, with daily challenges that require dynamic and sometimes complex solutions to overcome.
My understanding is that most of Australia’s HEMS operations commenced on less than sound business propositions. In fact very few have had guaranteed funding from commencement, and even today most do not!
Following your thinking, many of Australia’s HEMS operations should not have commenced (us included). IN fact HEMS was launched in this country by community-based operations, which continue to be a demonstrably cost effective option for government. In fact, more HEMS activity is undertaken under these models than services that enjoy full/guaranteed funding from government.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think either can do the job better than the other… and I too agree that government should fully fund HEMS operations and in doing so dictate across the board standards…. But I don’t see the $$ coming forward at the rate demand for HEMS services has developed in Australia. So we do what we can do…. And shouldn’t be abused for it!
Only when funding equality is achieved will we truly see which model can best deliver a HEMS service. But I don’t see the government giving us the $4.6 million per helicopter per annum our counterparts enjoy here in Victoria. If they did, I doubt I’d have to defend our organization from people like you!
For the record, I have asked our solicitors what actions can be taken to identify you.
Enough is Enough!
To all who have wished us well… Thank you!:ok:
I should have good news to announce shortly.
Cheers
BR

helo1

7th May 2006, 03:11

Great response Brett.
Keep up the good work down there

pohm1

7th May 2006, 07:49

Certainly seems to have silenced the critics................or has he?

topendtorque

7th May 2006, 22:29

Overweight, Screwed, Topendtorque,
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit BR

ahem
I didn't think that I was attacking you, merely noting the spectre raised in the Herald sun of a multi Helicopter op reamining viable on a bare 2.5m per annum. so I am glad that you have cleared up the fact that you subsidise cost with the profit from commercial work.

I gather then that work is undertaken as commercial work on an australian issued AOC where deductions for depreciation and all costs etc are allowable under the prevailing australian taxation system?

Yet you proffer adamantly that this is a Registered Charity.

I have two questions;
1) where does a registered charity fit with the ATO (tax office) if it is doing commercial work?
2) where does a charity fit in OZ air regs, as a prtivate op or is it allowable to be commercial?

Apart from that I have very definite views on full charitable funded outfits be they Helicopter or whatever, going in and competing against those registered business's that operate fully commercially with full fiscal responsivbility under the relevant companies ACT etc.

I imagine that you would not get very far with a charity funded taxi set up in opposition to the cabs at Kings Cross for example.

Brett Rankin

7th May 2006, 23:21

I have two questions;
1) where does a registered charity fit with the ATO (tax office) if it is doing commercial work?
I'm not a Solicitor, so I cannot provide a legal interpretation, but understand that a charity is registered by the ATO upion the basis of;
1. its 'predominant purpose';
2. the application of its profits /assets to that purpose;
3. no remuneration or in-kind benefit for the Directors or shareholders;
4. its constitution.

2) where does a charity fit in OZ air regs, as a prtivate op or is it allowable to be commercial?
LifeFlight has a charter catagory AOC, which I understand can be looked up upon the CASA web site if you would like to view it.

Apart from that I have very definite views on full charitable funded outfits be they Helicopter or whatever, going in and competing against those registered business's that operate fully commercially with full fiscal responsivbility under the relevant companies ACT etc.

LifeFLight has a greater obligation with respect to fiscal responsibility than the 'registered bussinesses' you are referring to. More over, we have always maintained independant external accountants and independant external Auditors who review our financial activities every year. They're not back yard operators, and they hold their Auditing responsibility and reputation in high regard (Deloittes).
You are barking up the wrong tree if you're suggesting financial mismanagement, lessor financial accountability, or an easy ride!:confused:
BR

topendtorque

8th May 2006, 14:46

Hmmmm
Just a tad defensive there young fella. First of all let me put your ego at rest, you will not be under more severe “obligation” from the taxman than anyone else if you are a registered charity, you will notice as you mature, that ‘taxmen’ in all countries view everyone with equal mistrust right across the spectrum.

I certainly did not suggest that you would be lacking in auditing requirements, neither do I need words put in my mouth as what your interpretation of my thoughts are. One of the fiscal responsibilities I refer to is quoted by you as something that you don’t need, as quoted below.

“3. no remuneration or in-kind benefit for the Directors or shareholders;”

Rather funny that as all of your commercial competitors will have to provide fiscal responsibility to their share holders. Their other major resposibility to their directors and the taxman is a clearly demonstrated technically solvent responsibility.

All this while the like of you swan around in a benevolent state propping your operations up with philanthropy and then having the cheek to undercut those who have to stand on their own two feet finacially.

Technical solvency, if you operate under the oz company’s act, may just come along and tap you on the sholder as a question from ASIC before long if your promised benefactors don’t show up. Non satisfaction of that question is also a trigger for CASA to suspend your AOC.

Your web page states that you are a ‘non profit’ organisation but we hear from you that you shift ‘profit’ from your commercial activity across to other sectors of where you operate.

Now that may be a play by me on your words, but whilst you live on taxpayers funds and philanthropy and while you and you’re A/C are snoring your collective heads off, ‘your predominat service’ that you suggest is essential and can only be carried out by yourselves is being conducted by vehicles, planes and the helicopters of your struggling competition.

Is your ‘predominant purpose’ being clearly demonstrated as such in your annual returns? By that I mean does the taxman allow you to have that ‘purpose’ as only a minor % of your operation?

I am far enough removed from your sphere to evade criticism of being a hostile competitor, however I am a taxpayer and I believe in free trade. I have had to compete against subsidised competition, like yours in fact much larger, in the past so that qualifies me to make these comments.
All commercial aviation in this country will be stronger and safer if it is not encumbered with unnecessary subsidised opposition, Do you agree?

Brett Rankin

8th May 2006, 23:18

Topendtorque.... you may want to read an earlier thread for more information about this (YMML LifeFlight)
I'll use plan English so as not to 'play on words' as you've described....
LifeFlight has Directors and shareholders the same as any other company. The only difference is that neither the Directors nor the Shareholders hold those positions for financial gain. The Directors and Shareholders have the same responsibilities to corporations’ law as any Director or Shareholder of a profit making company, and I have the same reporting responsibilities to the Directors and Shareholders that any CEO has.
Topendtorque - I'm having trouble following your viewpoints above... If your position is that charities don’t have the added pressure of having to distribute Directors fees $$ and Shareholders dividends $$... this is correct! But is counterbalanced by the extent of work needed to keep our stakeholders happy. It requires a much larger level of detailed interaction and ‘open book’ involvement than would be tolerated by a private company. So your views maybe a case of “grass is greener…” unless of course you’ve worked within the charitable helicopter sector? I don’t know if you have....
If your viewpoint is that Directors fees and Shareholders dividends equates to greater safety within the industry... then I'm not following your argument! I would have thought that any additional demand upon a companies bottom line (such as Directors fees and Shareholders dividends) would place greater pressure upon the companies need to charge increased rates and downward pressure upon the business to cut expenses ...sometimes safety related expenses if no others can be cut???
Our aircraft are not "snoring your collective heads off" as you have so eloquently stated. Despite your claims, no NETS retrieval has transported a baby onboard any other helicopter in Victoria to date ...there is no "struggling competition" as you've suggested.
Your mention of technical solvency 'tapping us on the shoulder' and the suggestion LifeFlight may lose its AOC is a little dramatic.... I can assure you our solvency issues are handled by far more competent persons than you or I, and they hardly need anonymous and misguided advice! For someone who is "far enough removed from your sphere to evade criticism of being a hostile competitor", you seem to have strong anti-LifeFlight buy-in.
Topendtorque's statement that "All commercial aviation in this country will be stronger and safer if it is not encumbered with unnecessary subsidised opposition" is not something I can agree with, nor could I see the very capable and safe government operated HEMS services agreeing with this either.
If you have a problem with LifeFlight needing to do commercial work in order for us to help fund our dedicated Children’s Helicopters… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Safe flying topendtorque. Aviation is a tough market to work in for many reasons other than the existence of charitable helicopter services, ....we're not your nemesis nor are we the basis for your lot in life! :ok:
Cheers
BR

bellfest

10th May 2006, 05:34

Brett
Would it be fair to say that if a charitable organisation like lifeflight is able to compete for commercial work to increase operating revenue than it would be ok for a commercial operator to seek charity in order to do the same? There would be no difference if the company was involved in any SAR or EMS role of any degree. Any helicopter can be essential to anyones survival at any given time or place.
This doesn't happen does it?
If a commercial operator cannot meet or exceed the bottom line from a sustainable amount of commercial work than it is time to close the doors. They don't seek donations.
Your problem is with the sponsors right?
That is what should be addressed and you shouldn't be endeavouring to secure commercial contracts against commercial operators who have to fund their expenses with their revenue.
I think any service that has the capability to save lives ( particularly young ones) is fantastic but if your charitable donations/ sponsors etc. cannot sustain your service than it is not viable.

Brett Rankin

10th May 2006, 06:01

Any commercial operator can approach the community or seek sponsorship.... My experience is that the community and most (if not all) sponsors seek to support an operation with a benevolent focus, not one that provides $$ in the pockets of its directors or shareholders....
I don’t disagree with the view that "Any helicopter can be essential to anyone’s survival at any given time or place", .... I was responding to specific claims that charitable operations somehow make the industry unsafe!
Our problem is not with our sponsors... they already invest substantial annual $$, our quarrel is with government's who expect a dedicated HEMS (10 hours a day) for $250,000 per annum.
If you have a problem with LifeFlight needing to do commercial work in order for us to help fund our dedicated Children’s Helicopters… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!! :ok:
cheers
BR

PS: Bellfest - Your poem is somewhat offensive in its suggestion - I do drive a BMW (not current model but great car), dont own raybans, and cant afford AMARNI....

Squeaks

10th May 2006, 09:40

Our problem is not with our sponsors... they already invest substantial annual $$, our quarrel is with government's who expect a dedicated HEMS (10 hours a day) for $250,000 per annum.
If you have a problem with LifeFlight needing to do commercial work in order for us to help fund our dedicated Children’s Helicopters… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!

Just so that I can understand your point: why have you an issue with a Government Department who expect the winner of a commercially won tender, to carry out that tender at the rate they contracted? Why do commit your registered charity to carry out work at a commercially unsustainable rate?

And why should the Government give you more money, when you won the contract against other operators: isn't there a small point of probity to be considered?

Brett Rankin

10th May 2006, 10:50

Squeaks.... Will help you to understand the circumstances..... although I note your history of anti-LifeFlight posting....
Certainly is a probity issue and this may result in the contract being retendered....
The government’s budget of $250,000 for this contract was what drove the process....
LifeFlight set up helicopter transportation of NETS babies in this state.... initially doing it for free several years ago, because the government did not recognise a need without there being a proven demand.
When our charity configured and dedicated a helicopter to do this work, demand was proven and it increased.... Discussions with the department resulted in them finding some money ($250,000) which, if we wanted to access it, would have to undergo a competitive tender process... All the while demand increased....
Both the government and LifeFlight entered into the contract with open eyes, both knowing we would have to raise 90% from sponsorships and the community. Both (albeit reluctantly for us) were willing to explore this 90/10 model. Remember this was not our solution!
We've raised approximately 60%, which is well short, but I think an admirable effort. LifeFlight has provided substantial commitment to the development and delivery of NETS helicopter services in Victoria, and I feel our efforts should be recognised within a revised funding model. This is why I think they should provide the additional funding to us, and not to those who seek to profit.
The Royal Children’s Hospital isn’t run by a private profit making organization…. I don’t see why the Children’s Helicopter should be any different!
:ok:

Squeaks

10th May 2006, 11:18

Squeaks.... Will help you to understand the circumstances..... although I note your history of anti-LifeFlight posting....

:rolleyes: Two other posts, one in 2004, one in 2005: my, what a memory you have :p

Tell me, what would you think if you were the losing bidder against (say) CHC, and they were now crying for more money from the Government? Would you accept them claiming the same as you are? Would it not seem inappropriate, were they to infer that the Government was at fault, when they had accepted the terms and conditions of the contract, won fairly and squarely against other tenderers?

That's what seems a bit odd about this business, quite frankly. You didn't have to sign up for no standby rate, and a low hourly rate: did you?

Both (albeit reluctantly for us) were willing to explore this 90/10 model. Remember this was not our solution!

Then whose solution was it? Why did you accept it?

bellfest

10th May 2006, 12:29

How was it that the recent and I'm sure expensive upgrade on the aircraft was able to proceed when this impending financial situation was obvious upon assessing the sponsorship, or lack of?
Seems now that could have been the wrong decision. If a commercial operator was to use his available capital on an upgrade that was to later leave him under financed, he is up **** creek with out a paddle yeah? His problem.
As far as your comments about directors and shareholders filling their pockets, You may want to think about that a bit. Some larger company directors are enclined to be a bit ruthless in their bean counting mode. A good percentage of Australian GA (It is very obvious that you have had no experience here by the way) is made up of tight operators that are running a low profit margin business whilst having to maintain aircraft, facilities, tooling, administration and most importantly staff.
The low profit margin is partly passed on to the frontline staff in the way of reduced salaries. The last thing the Australian aviation industry needs is more revenue reduction brought about by charitable organisations carrying out commercail work that should be done by a commercial company, to top up a contract with obvious flaws and and a mismanagement of funds.
After saying all of that, I hope that Lifeflight continues on for many years to come and saves many young lives but I think that if you can't get it out of the Vic gov and your sponsors, you need to leave the already retarded and soon to be even more struggling ( with the coming of fuel costs and the many, many lacking engineers) GA industry alone.
Would they really let you pack up and leave if you are providing such an essential service?
As I said, if it is, than I hope you are still there the next time we throw sticks at eachother on Pprune

Brett Rankin

10th May 2006, 12:57

4 PER

11th May 2006, 13:18

I read these threads and you can't help but admire how BR has everyone fooled. Whilst he argues the toss about who should be doing what...(and more importantly , who should be paying), everyone misses the point. Life flight is a vehicle for BR. Nothing more....nothing less. It has nothing to do with saving childrens lives. As has been so well put already...."no childrens lives are at risk." Never have been, never will be. All of BR's points tug at the heart strings but are not based on fact. He makes it sound like he is the Childrens hospitals saviour. He's actually just a naughty little boy!! :} Anyone that knows BR, knows that he is a control freak. :eek: This, not being in control is killing him. Now he is thinking abou entering into a parnership. Sounds like a deal with the devil. This is going to end in tears eventually. The health minister is now well aware of what he is about, and she isn't going to play his game. He came into this helicopter game without being asked to. He just turned up and offered his services to the Epworth Hospital. They didn't want him, (fast learners) and after a few other failed shots at EMS transport he found himself a little hole in the kiddies EMS market. The whole time with either his hand out, or dipping into the GA market by undercutting the genuine operators, (and still falling short of ripping enough out of GA to stay upright!). Life flight is an industry joke. BR tries to give "his little vehicle" credibility by talking it up. In the end it's all about him....not EMS....not the kids....just a guy with a huge ego that wants a business card with "CEO" on it. Give up Brett....you can argue till you are blue in the face but the industry doesn't want you, (don't take my word for it....do a ring around and ask, I dare you!)...the kids don't need you...and the Government don't want to pay you. Do everyone a favour and give up and let the government give the contract to a real operator who knows what they are actually doing, (before you do actually start costing lives by doing Aviation on a shoe string!!) If you are dumb enough to accept a contract that isn't viable, you should be in another business. Try snake oil selling. Put your ego away. The numerous operators that I have spoken to are over it and you and the damage you are doing this industry. :ok:

spinwing

11th May 2006, 17:02

4 per

Oooohhh bitter arn't we ..... think you need to go back on the medication!

Squeaks

11th May 2006, 20:29

Squeaks.... to answer your question... some money is better than none!
When I see the likes of CHC (or any other operator) utilise their own funds to improve infant mortality and morbidity... I'll be happy to support their claim for aditional funds!

This concerns me, and some other points that you made. Sitting here in the sun, after a few conversations with people down in Melbourne, it still doesn't seem quite right that a Registered Charity should be out in the commercial market. Not only in the market, but taking work at commercially uncompetitive and unsustainable rates. By your own admission above, you took this work in the full knowledge that it was with a massive (90%) shortfall of funding, which is now being addressed by pleading with the public for donations, whilst at the same time implying that the Government holds some responsibiity, and should give more money!

on the same day we identify the persons who have contacted MP’s and others to undertake a smear campaign against our organization.

A statement which smacks of arrogance: didn't you "contact MP's and others" to further your aims, and in the course of which raise inaccurate comments against an approved local operator? Goose/gander?

LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit from undertaking these activities to the shortfall in funding our helicopter

And Grands Prix, and the odd little other job. The important word that you used here is profit: how could you claim any "profit" on the rates that were used to undercut local operators? Don't forget the old adage "confuse cash flow with profit", the bane of so many operators.

rest assured our intention is to withdraw from commercial work ASAP!

Applaudable, but think about the damage that has been done in the meantime :( There are now clients with totally false expectations about what they should pay for (replacement) helicopter services, and an uphill battle for the replacement operators to get proper income for their services. Before anyone takes me to task on this, where do you think that employers get their income to pay pilots, engineers and staff? Without a healthy income, no operator can expect to survive, and the undercutting of rates by a registered charity effectively abusing its charitable status is wrong, in anyone's book.

Brett Rankin

12th May 2006, 03:55

didn't you "contact MP's and others" to further your aims, and in the course of which raise inaccurate comments against an approved local operator?
No... and there was no inaccurate claims made by the MP’s or the media! THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WAS NOT AN IFR EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT... it has nothing to do with which operator's supplying!
...how could you claim any "profit" on the rates that were used to undercut local operators?
LifeFlight’s rates have always been higher or equal to commercial rates. No undercutting has ever taken place... GP contracts were originally won by matching the previous provider’s rate and have since climbed by an annual %... Retention of the contract has been due to the level of professional service provided (2 crew, EMS fit out, etc). You clearly don't know what you're purporting to have knowledge about!

4PER - anyone who creates his profile simply to post abuse is not worth the time of day!

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....Any professional within the HEMS industry knows it’s hardly an ‘ego trip’. It’s difficult, with daily challenges that require dynamic and sometimes complex solutions to overcome.

The reality is that efforts of LifeFlight have contributed to many lives saved! A recent example; - a baby retrieved to awaiting surgical teams at the RCH who performed the youngest tracheotomy recorded! Paediatrician’s openly attribute the ability to transport back to RCH within minutes as the reason kids transported by us are alive today!!!! Many other examples of similar circumstances…..

Again, no other service has transported a baby here in Victoria.... So how you sanctimonious hypocrites (above) can sit back and hurl abuse at something that makes this difference is beyond me!!!! :ugh:

And remember... this work did not exist before LifeFlight dedicated an aircraft for it.... kids used to be transported by road for hours instead of minutes that matter!!!! Suggesting we're somehow pushing into a market that doen't want us is a little dumb, considering the governments resultant contract to provide the services, no matter what the funding arrangement. If they didnt want us, they wouldn't have contracted us!

But I guess now that we’ve proven the need for a dedicated Chidlren's Helicopter… it should be considered a commercial operator's work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad:

bellfest

12th May 2006, 08:24

Brett
Suggesting we're somehow pushing into a market that doen't want us is a little dumb, considering the governments resultant contract to provide the services, no matter what the funding arrangement. If they didnt want us, they wouldn't have contracted us!
This is why you should be solving it with them. I is partly their responsibility to ensure that an important and necassary charitable organisation is able to continue operating. After all it is their state, their people and their babies.
Your existence is made possible by the government, the charity and your sponsors. That is where it should end.
But I guess now that we’ve proven the need for a dedicated Chidlren's Helicopter… it should be considered a commercial operator's work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You would hope that it will always go to those that are best equipped and best prepared to do the job. You are in a very good position with your machinery, location, amenities and I would guess, crew, but a bit behind the eight ball in the funding department. Get out there, campaign, make stratergies, tell us all when you save a little life, show the Victorian people and the Government the success of your transfers and the importance of your existence. It is the communities responsibility to protect their babies by funding your existence, and it is your responsibility that those funds are utilised in the best possible way to provide the best possible service and response back to the community.
The answer is not to gain extra finance by unfairly competing in a commercial market. You didn't have to buy the machinery, you don't have to pay the staff, you don't have to pay for maintenance. You just have to manage the funds to make sure that this all happens efficiently on behalf of the community. In light of that, if you are campaigning as hard as you can, then you are not campaigning hard enough.
The fact that this arrangement was made right at the very beginning with obvious indications of being underfinanced and in particularly, knowing that a full SPIFR upgrade was part of the terms and conditions, is partly negligent and very poorly constructed.
Were you hoping to enhance sponsorships?
When did you obtain your approval to conduct commercial work? Have you had that since the beginning?
Was it planned in the arrangement to pickup any short falls in the funding by doing commercial work?
Why would you have the need to upgrade an aircraft to SPIFR when you don't have the funding to run it 24/7?
Surely the $1 a year rent or the free fuel isn't what has sent you broke.
There is no reason why the tax paying aviation community should have to accept this poorly constructed arrangement and it is very much up to you, your board and the government to resolve the issue.

CYHeli

12th May 2006, 10:56

Brett, if you had to put a figure on it, how much do you need per year to just do NAETS/HEMS?
Considering the success each year of the RCH appeal, can you get some support from that?
Does the contract need to be re-tendered, due to financial changes? What happened with the Epworth? I made inq's re joining your outfit a few years ago when Mike M was around and the Epworth seemed to be a major player at that stage. Did they move the goal posts?
As stated, I'm not having a dig, just trying to understand. Happy to pm or drop in next week.
I also though it a bit rude to compare you with Tim C, I remember the time he though that VH-EMS was his at the time of it's refit at Yungers.
Col.

4 PER

12th May 2006, 12:51

Post deleted.

Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of his arguments, Brett Rankin has come onto the forum and given his side when many people in his position don't.

If what he says is BS, show why it is with reasoned arguments, not abuse.

Heliport

ems01

12th May 2006, 13:18

Sorry all, very close to the industry, all I can say is what BS. I am so frustrated that this crap is going on and nobody from the industry can reply to all this emotive crap that is going on with lifeflight.. Sorry, Lifelight is a 9 to 5 operation, sure they are an IFR machine, big deal if your crew are asleep at home, so much for a 15min turnout...get real SPINWING.
Overwait...

Well done .. according to my sources, you are correct the N3 were checked out last week and yes they COULD carry the Neonate Cot.... providing all of the paramedic equipment currently carried for ambulance tasks was removed.

With time required to remove/re-install that necessary Ambulance mission equipment, AND a NETS mission requiring an average of 4Hrs of dedicated time ...I put it to you would NOT be the best way to serve Melbourne with either type of service!

The Bk is available for service after 5PM ...albeit by prior arrangement (due to crewing requirements).

The contract for a 24 Hr service was subject to need and funding be made available ... It is an IFR service NOT restricted to daylight hours!!!

I understand the corporate support does STILL exist but is finite and thus needs topping up from other sources.

It still is a not for profit organisation!

I also know about the "players" here in Melbourne ... on ALL sides!

Cheers ;)

ems01

12th May 2006, 13:48

AAAAAHHHHH the politics ..... get real mate!

Very much in the industry but hands tied........

IFR machine, get real, how long does it take to get the crew in from home in the middle of the night when the kids are dying mate, its a 9 to 5 operation and that's all, can you all understand 9....to....5. Sorry who did you say does the NETS after hours? Must be the guys who can't do them....yeah that's right mate, there available 24/7 and yes there the ones that are called, not you.

Sorry, what was THAT, YOU WANT TO GO FIGHT FIRES .............thats ok, tell the NETS people you are no longer available..... your fighting fires, what about the sick and dying kids mate?????

Politics, who's playing the politics mate. Good connections at ch 9 but, very impressive.
SOOOO sick of the BS,.................................. spill your guts mate.

vpaw pilot

12th May 2006, 23:04

Well,

This is a very robust and interesting discussion !

:mad:

Overwait

13th May 2006, 00:00

At last some of the players are speaking up.....

EMS01...why the GAG order? It's an anonymous formum....In spite of what BR says and does, unless you slander (or is it libel???) him mercilously and as long as you stick to the facts and they are truthful...he can't ask the moderators to reveal who you are. If you are in a government job and are close to the action, don't give any indication as to who you are...or use your computer at home:E .

His Collins Streets lawyers won't bother with this rubbish....

4PER, unfortunately I got out of bed too late this morning and missed your post before it was deleted. Pity...it must have been juicy....

One thing that EMS has picked up on though is the fire fighting aspect...Who will think of the children when the BK is off in Canberra again at $3500 an hour? (Did LifeFlight pass the RFS audit this/last year????)

Oh that's right, the VPAW or CHC or RFDS who DO carry kids...Maybe not in a Neo-cot, but they do still do it....SEVERAL (in fact more than 20) pilots I have spoken to have all carried mum/dad and tot to hospital from regional centres over the past 25 years. They may not be weeks/hours old, but they have been very young and very small.

Anyhow, what is going on...I thought a decision was supposed to have been made last Monday???

Rant over...time to read the paper and get off the horse...

Brett Rankin

13th May 2006, 01:27

One thing that EMS has picked up on though is the fire fighting aspect...Who will think of the children when the BK is off in Canberra again at $3500 an hour? (Did LifeFlight pass the RFS audit this/last year????)
The Powercor Children’s Helicopter is dedicated to the NETS workload.
Other helicopter is the Fire Fighter and we charged >$3,600 per hour... however hoping not to have to do this anymore... or are you unable to read?

Oh that's right, the VPAW or CHC or RFDS who DO carry kids...Maybe not in a Neo-cot, but they do still do it....SEVERAL (in fact more than 20) pilots I have spoken to have all carried mum/dad and tot to hospital from regional centres over the past 25 years. They may not be weeks/hours old, but they have been very young and very small.
The role you're talking about here is for PETS retrievals and primary accident workload, which is undertaken by AAV, helicopters.... not us!
The Powercor Children’s Helicopter is contracted from 8am to 6pm for Newborn Emergency Transportation (NETS).
I understand AAV helicopters (VPAW helo) are capable and have always transported 1 NETS member and 1 bag. This is and has been their capability to date, although I understand AAV are investigating the installation of the NETS ICU system onboard the VPAW N3's and will be able to take a standard NETS team (2 NETS) along with them, but cannot accommodate the full NETS team (3 NETS), or the full ICU system, or accommodate a parent onboard the return flight. Not having a go at VPAW or AAV helicopters... its just reality that you cant be all things to all people all of the time!
I also understand the MICA Paramedic and some equipment will have to be removed to achieve this, leaving it unavailable for primaries during the 7-8 hour duration of average NETS mission.
VPAW Pilot - chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.....
Not ideal for a primary Air Ambulance helo.... but is AAV's proposal for after hours NETS operations, and/or replacement should LifeFlight discontinue the Children’s Helicopter operations.
To date, we've made ourselves available outside of the contract hours when AAV helicopters are unable to do the minimum of transporting 1 NETS member and 1 bag. Not having a go at VPAW or AAV helicopters... its just reality that some of the busiest primary response HEMS services in Australia aren't always available for NETS/PETS retrievals.
VPAW and CHC/AAV helicopters provide excellent services to the public of Victoria, and our publicity is not meant to take away from their very important activity or professionalism. We’re not saying we’re better than VPAW or CHC/AAV helicopter operations, we’re saying we can provide a better level of service to NETS, because we can dedicate our helicopter and focus upon their needs solely!
The NETS Director publicly stating LifeFlight’s dedicated Children’s Helicopter has “improved the responsiveness and effectiveness of the states Newborn Emergency Transport Service” reinforces this.
EMS01 - You're full of ASSumption and misinformation! Anyone who creates his profile simply to post misinformation and sling sh#t is not worth the time of day!
Collins street is intrigued by the level of professionalism displayed upon this post, and very interested in following up on several of the individuals! Make no mistake about this... doesnt matter if you use home or work computers... you apparently leave a cyber trail that can be followed!
Thankyou Mr Overweight!
:ugh: :mad:

USACJ

13th May 2006, 01:33

Well it's very sad to read all this rubbish.. Do you all know how badly you sound and how unproffesional the Australian helicopter industry is viewed around the world because of the few people who post on this forum?? No I didn't think so, because you are so focused on pulling down the people who are trying to do the right thing.

I am fortunate enough to be involved with a reasonably larger operator in the USA, where we undertake commercial operations for a variety of clients and one of those clients gets their services for free... Yes we mix commercial operations with providing a NETS helicopter for free.

Stop wasting your energy trying to bring down others and get on with life.

If the indivduals who post here are a reflection of the Australian industry, then I'm not sure I want to come back there to work with or in competition with; such a spiteful group of people..

Seen any posts from other parts of the world that rip into one another like ones that originate from Australia??

Overwait

13th May 2006, 02:25

MR. BR, me thinks you spend far too much time on the phone and computer, whingeing champ. :=

If you think mine or other contributors comments warrant the men in suits going after us then so be it... Let's just hope that you are squeaky clean as well old mate...squeaky clean!!!

USACJ, what you do is perform a charitable act as a commercial operator. Not vice-versa. What this organisation does is use the charity act and all its benefits and supplement this with commercial work...

The reason why we seem a bit put out by this is that it is not doing the Australian industry any favours...This has been explained in previous posts by Bellfest, squeaks etc....It drives down the market meaning we pay our drivers less.....I'm not going to go into it...

Brett, comments that are deemed slanderous/libellous are removed by the moderators...This is why we have them...Your energies would be better directed at keeping your company afloat...

vpaw pilot

13th May 2006, 02:42

BR,

You would need to get the company line from AAV...give em a ring :)

But, as you say, the N3 can carry the NETS cot...and does NETS work, though normally addressing the critical element of transporting the NETS doctor and nurse to the hospital, to stabilise the baby, prior to transportation via NETS cot and NETS ambulance.

In my personal opinion, it is not so much the transport element (though obviously, time is a critical factor), as much as the specialist medical stabilization prior to transport. Once baby is in the cot, with the doctor and nurse in attendance....well thats another thing...

But AAV set the agenda...not VPAW or Helimed...we just do it!

Cheers...

Brett Rankin

13th May 2006, 04:15

VPAW... Yes initial phase is important... but cannot see reason behind road transporting a ventilated infant when (under the adult retrieval system) they would qualify for helicopter transportation???? We're dealing with the sickest of the sick infants (which are the only ones that qualify for a NETS helicopter response) and their outcome does also rely upon rapid transportation back to NICU in Melbourne. NETS tell me that unlike an adult or older child, infants deteriorate rapidly and their statistics indicate this is most likely to occur during transportation...

Again, not looking to do anything other than make the functions and distinctions between our operations clear for all to read and draw their own conclusions.

Cheers
BR

Squeaks

13th May 2006, 04:41

No... and there was no inaccurate claims made by the MP’s or the media!

That was your reply to my query about your contacting any Members of Parliament, since you appeared offended that someone else may have done so. To make sure that the advice I had from some of your locals was correct, I checked. If I mention that Helen Shardey, MLC, Opposition Spokeswoman on Health and Community Services, quite distinctly remembers conversing with you, would you agree that your initial response was in error?

LifeFlight’s rates have always been higher or equal to commercial rates. No undercutting has ever taken place... GP contracts were originally won by matching the previous provider’s rate and have since climbed by an annual %... Retention of the contract has been due to the level of professional service provided (2 crew, EMS fit out, etc). You clearly don't know what you're purporting to have knowledge about

Your last statement first: I do ;)

Again, I checked to make sure, hence the delay in my posting. Your first go at the Grand Prix was (almost) for nix, as the official Charity: or had you forgotten? Every year since you have quoted against at least one other operator, and have always been allocated the F1 job on price, and price alone. Not just a llittle bit cheaper, but $thousands. Much the same for the motor bikes at Phillip Island, from what I gather. And then there's the Superbikes, when it doesn't interfere with your firefighting.........

Antarctic Support to the French: they're laughing all the way to the bank, getting two aircraft for almost less than the cost of one from you, compared to previous operators! The past three years you have bid against your previous Ops Manager (who introduced you to the work), and have been more than $A1500 per day less than bare cost price of your nearest competitor, before a profit is factored in.

No undercutting? Higher or equal to commercial rates? I suppose so, but not local Melbourne commercial rates, that's for sure: which third world country are you comparing your rates to!

USAJC,

Your point is pertinent, but please understand that we are discussing a registered charity, that has substantial tax and other benefits that are meant to assist in its charitable functions. Not to give it an unfair advantage when taking commercial work away from operators who are entitled to a fair expectation of a level playing field.

If Life Flight were a charity only operation, not only would they have my full support, I would happily donate to assist them. I find it quite unpalatable that donations they have received are just as likely to have been used to underwrite their commercial operations, taking income away from pilots, engineers and operators in the commercial field, plus depressing the market rates for their "competition".

Brett Rankin

13th May 2006, 05:49

Squeaks
The shadow minister for Health quite rightly requested a brief upon our situation (as did many other MP's from all sides of Parliment)... and as apart of my job, the honourable members received one! At no stage was this an active approach to discredit any operator..., which sadly cannot be said for your actions!

Your claims are baseless and absolute rubbish, which is enough for me to discount your comments entirety! I stand by my earlier statements BECAUSE THEY'RE TRUE AND CORRECT! You are clearly not across all of the facts....

Your claims relating to rates are also fancifull... do you honestly think any organisation wuold 'wave goodbye' to $1500 a day if it could have charged it!!!

The Australian Grand Prix Corporation awards their tender on more than price alone.... to think different is foolish and acusses them of being less than professional in ensuring the best avaialble safety for their staff and ticket holders... a rather bold statement dont you think!

Commercial operations are apart of LifeFlight's funding base... and I guess you'll continue to entertain with your ranting around this....

Your motives are not honourable! Nor are the people purportedly supplying you this misinformation (if indeed they are at all).

You were departed from our facility for a reason mate, and it was a bloody good one!!!!!

No doubt you'll try and purport not to be who you are, but you've said enough to identify yourself! Which of course you could always correct me if I'm wrong by coming out from behind the tree to which you through the stones?
:mad:

vpaw pilot

13th May 2006, 07:19

BR,

As I say...talk to AAV for the current/future protocols...

We certainly don't carry all the NETs gear (cot etc)...but we have certainly carried 2x NETs pers in the past. Having said that, we don't do a lot of it....

To reconfigure for the complete NETs package involves taking off a bit of gear, but this is not much of a big deal; most of our stuff is modular...

If one N3 is off for a protracted period on a job, the other N3 can be quickly configured as an identical machine, the 365 C can take over, or failing that, one of the Helimed 412s can redeploy to EN to take over the response role.

Cheers...

Too Cloudy

13th May 2006, 07:46

I knew this would happen...Every time a Life Flight post starts to get a bit out of hand, I have to be brought into it....

I am not Squeaks, I am not Sling Load etc...

Too Cloudy and his owner has retired...I do not want to get into a slanging match with anyone Brett.....I have absolutely no desire to be involved as it is upsetting to my family who also read what is written here..

I have been slammed on this forum before and I have gone to great lengths not to poke my head up since...

Please leave me out of this...

My mobile number has not changed if you wish to call me....

Thank you,

JW

vpaw pilot

13th May 2006, 07:48

Hi Wally! :)

Too Cloudy

13th May 2006, 09:37

Only felt the need to post as I thought I was being referred to...I really am a sensitive person!!:)

"You were departed from our facility for a reason mate, and it was a bloody good one!!!!!"

Must be getting a bit sensitive as I approach 40...:}

If it wasn't me being referred to, then I (and Too Cloudy)am happy to fall back into retirement.

Only bit to add is that I have personally transported a NETS team to Korumburra in around 97/98 for a meningitis bub...Bub was about 4-6 months old..It was two in the team plus gear...The ambulance with the cot was sent and arrived not long after we departed...I also recall doing it a couple of times to Frankston...Never took the cot of course as the "C" model wasn't even close to fitting it in.

JW

vpaw pilot

13th May 2006, 11:32

Those were the days when you still had hair, Wally...:ooh:

Squeaks

14th May 2006, 01:09

If Life Flight were a charity only operation, not only would they have my full support, I would happily donate to assist them. I find it quite unpalatable that donations they have received are just as likely to have been used to underwrite their commercial operations, taking income away from pilots, engineers and operators in the commercial field, plus depressing the market rates for their "competition".

Brett,

I've reposted this so that you may get to understand where I'm coming from. You haven't any idea who I am, I realise, but I have made absolutely sure that what I have posted is correct, and stand by it.

Life Flight per se is a stalwart and commendable concept: the manner in which it has operated, taking charitable donations from the public and from companies/organisations and using them to subsidise commercial operations concerns me. I believe that is is reprehensible, damaging to the industry, and morally wrong. I am 100% sure of my facts, and hope to encourage you to be more responsible in your operations.

I would also point out that you have contradicted yourself, and thus lend creadance to my assertions. In one post, you denied talking to MP's. Now, you blatantly state that yes, of course you briefed MP's: as I originally said!

Further, you claimed that:

LifeFlight’s rates have always been higher or equal to commercial rates. No undercutting has ever taken place... GP contracts were originally won by matching the previous provider’s rate and have since climbed by an annual %... Retention of the contract has been due to the level of professional service provided

and also said

The Australian Grand Prix Corporation awards their tender on more than price alone.... to think this is just plane foolish and acusses them of being less than professional in ensuring the best avaialble resources are provided to their staff and ticket holders... a rather bold statement dont you think!

I repeat, you were quoting against at least one other operator every year for the Grand Prix, and were given the job on cost, and cost alone. A cost that was undercutting commercial rates, and subsidised by your organisation's Charitable status: a morally wrong, and reprehensible, act.

As an aside, and bearing in mind this is a Rumour Network, I can only remark that I hope the latest rumour that has drifted up from Victoria is wrong: VPAW Pilot may be able to confirm that Mr Rankin has chosen to cause trouble for one of his competitors, by complaining to Force Command about one of the PAW pilots?

Brett Rankin

14th May 2006, 02:43

Your question was:...
didn't you "contact MP's and others" to further your aims, and in the course of which raise inaccurate comments against an approved local operator?

Read your question and read my answer again...:ugh:

Really can’t see where your coming from other than RANTING about issues already discussed... and standing by anonymous and inaccurate claims hardly provides you any credibility.

Although welcome your suggested donation when we withdraw from the commercial work?

You’re trying a little to hard to suggest you're ‘up north’ to not be one of the players determined to see LifeFlight’s demise…
But happy to be proven wrong here.... all you have to do is "come out of the closet!" ...make your accusations without hiding behind a pseudonym and then we'll listen....

PS: ....evidence is an important element of a credible argument!
:mad: