NSW EMS (NGO or Private operator)

[sea breeze]

NSW EMS Helicopter contracts

I hear that the contracts are being announced today, in regards to future providers.

Question ?

Should NSW follow the Queensland Victorian and South Australian model and have a private government operator or stay with the NGO model?

What are the Pro and cons

[spinwing]

Not going to touch this one !!!!!


:\

[trimpot]

Not quite sure what you mean sea breeze. QLD uses government operated helo's, but the EMS machines in Vic and SA are operated by private companies (CHC and Australian Helicopters respectively). I suppose you could say that VIC Pol is government operated, but even their machines are supplied by a private company (CHC).

I have my own veiws on which model I think is best (influenced by 14 years with CHC) but as the contracts are about to be announced I think this discussion is a bit late. I would say that hell will freeze over before the various EMS operators would go for government operated helo's.

[sea breeze]

Some questions to ponder in regards to NGO verses private or total government operated EMS helicopters


NGO’s introduced the concept of Aeromedical transport to the medical fraternity in the 1970’s and in many states still provide this service.

The world has changed since the 1970’s, Government departments such as Police and Health depend upon the concept of air transport to undertake their daily business.

NGO have become a huge charity vacuum cleaner within many parts of Australia sucking the charity dollar out of local communities. As the demand upon the air transport services increase, so has the appetite for more funds to support such services.

I would like to stimulate the debate by asking some basic questions

What benefit will a private rotary operator provide to a government operation?
What benefit will a totally government owned and operated rotary system have?
What is the benefit in staying with the NGO model?

Is there a difference in the pilot training or ability?
Is there a difference in the crew training or ability?
Is there a difference in engineering?

What is the cost to government?
What is the cost to the local communities?
What is the cost to other charities?

Or should governments not be involved in the air medical /rescue scene at all and leave it to anyone who can raise the cash to undertake such a role?

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Driptray]

Interesting view Vice, but I think we probably need some input from one of our leading industry stalwarts to better discuss the pro's and con's of NGO versus comercial operator, where is Gymble when you need him?:E

[Gymble]

Gymble is having some time off while his new medication takes effect. They will not let him have internet access. He needs to stay quite. He is expected to be back to his old self soon.

[PPRuNeUser0212]

a question, how could the NSW Health system afford to pay (especially now the nsw government is in VERY large deficit) for a operation in total, over the non profit NGO's who rely heavily on the community gererousity. The government supplies only a small percentage of the cost of running a service now.
QLD has it's gov run service but also has 4 non profit community based machines.

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Thankyou Vice, you big dicked pilot, I know bugger all of the "bush ranger"state of NSW finances, except what the rest of the punters hearon the 6 o'clock news. However I have worked for both your big multi national companies and for the small NGO community based operations and I know who I would prefer to work for.
SA government saw the light and moved on.
We shall see what, if it happens, in September then shall we.
****

LHS

[fatrat]

LHS, I too have worked for both Multi National and NGO, and have to say that the Multi looked after me far better than the NGO. I knew my pay would be in the bank on the correct day, and I did not have to fight to get allowances. As much as vicey is stirring the pot, I have to say that I firmly believe that the day of the chook raffle is over, and a commercial operator should step in and continue with the job. The current NGO's do not seem to realise that NSW Health/Ambulance are the CUSTOMER, and should be treated accordingly. The NGO's have for many years told the CUSTOMER that they will do it the way they say, because the CUSTOMER don't know what they are talking about. I would suggest that after many years of crap from the services that work for them the CUSTOMER may just have had a gutful of being treated like fools. At least the commercial operators have an understanding of how to treat the CUSTOMER, and I would not be surprised to see some unhappy campers of the NGO type at the anouncement of the winning tender. I expect that there will be several commercial operators doing some serious number crunching over the next few weeks for a slice of a min 7 year contract.

Fatty

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Fatty
couldn't agree with you more. THe multi was very good to and for me and I have been lucky in the ngo world too. And, yes the community based operators will have to extract the digit and become more customer freindly to survive. Unfortunately there seems to be those in the administrative side of things, both private and ngo, that are in the job for themselves and how good it will look on future cv's. Those at the coal face concerned in safe operations, patient care and customer satisfaction bear the brunt of any changes and decisions from the front office.
Luckily, whoever gets any contract to provide EMS/SAR coverage in any state or territory will need crews to operate their machines. :ok:

[bellfest]

Vice
You're an angry man:ooh:
What would a needle dick pilot like you LHS know about Government finance? That’s right, you listened to the six o’clock TV news so now you know all about power station sales.

I would suggest that if anyone here is in the know about the in's and out's of government finances and exactly how they come to the decisions they do then they should go and join the great bunch of individuals that are playing monoploly with our tax. No one here is an expert in that field (except maybe you) and this started out as a discussion of the pros and cons of each option and not a pissing contest or an opportunity for you to show us how big your appendage is because of those who help you stroke it.:)

Resistance is futile.
Very daunting. In fact I wouldn't be surprised one bit if all other tenderers have withdrawn their submissions and crawled home with their tales between their legs based purely on hard Vice Like evidence right here on pprunage:ok:

[imabell]

sea breeze, you certainly ask a lot of questions. ????;)

lhs, in fact the queensland gonernment, aka the queensland taxpayer, drops a very large ammount of money in the collectin bin of the private operators.

well over 1 million to one alone.

vice like, i must love you.

sounds like a set up.:= := :D :D

[vetskone]

:= B]vice like, i must love you.

sounds like a set up[/B]

Very generous of you Imabell. ViceLike doesn't deserve it though. When he contributes something constructive to any debate on the forum without resorting to obscenities or personal attacks, we will all be better served. Until then, when ViceLike's name came up, my thought was "there goes the neighbourhood".
The topic deserves robust discussion. A lot of people's future will be impacted by the outcome.
Apart from whether it is a good move or not, it is inevitable. Running professional EMS operations on the chook raffle principle is a constant pressure on standards and crewing that does not belong in a public emergency service where the public has come to expect, even demand levels of service that are very difficult to fund through an NGO. That comment in no way detracts from the passion and drive that many in the pioneering days of EMS operations in Australia have displayed and continue to display. It was the only way it was going to start. Now Governments are recognising that the voter expects the service to be funded by them, and will no longer excuse the struggle to survive that has been the lot of many. That struggle has led to turf wars and squabbles which can no longer be tolerated, from a political perspective if nothing else. There has to be a standardized, quality controlled consistent product.
The question is will it happen this time around? The NSW Government will have to find a lot more than seems to be in the budget for the specified service, and will have to be prepared to wait for available aircraft for 1-3 years depending on equipment, if they intend acompliant result. They will have to find the will to ask for the extra funds, and then fend off all the political flak that will come their way during the waiting period from the very sophisticated lobby machines some charities have developed together with their sponsors.
The Snowy decision must worry each of the bigger players who are trying to put together costings and submissions in what is a very short tender period. Is all the work and extra hours just going to be a dry run to cost another tilt 3-4 years from now?

[fatrat]

Just another trick, While you have obviously done some work with the details you posted, I feel that you may be clouding the numbers with a little trickery.

CareFlight-- 3 aircraft funded for 2, true, however we must remember that the 3rd was put in for their head injury study, and it was CareFlight pushing this barrow, this is not part of the existing contract, and as such should not be included in the formula you so nicely displayed.

Surf-- 2 aircraft funded for 1, this is true, however we must remember that when the contract started the did have a contract for both, have you used this data in your formula??, To be fair this should have been.

CHC --1 machine-- I must remind you that it was Health that approached CHC, and CHC as far as I am aware offered several options for a short term non contract. From what I am lead to believe Health are very happy with this service, however I digress, and we will accept your numbers.

While we all accept that the current NGO's are doing a good job in the eyes of the public, and their own, I think we need to ask are they doing a good job in the eyes of the customer? Both services have very active PR machines and are very good at having the spotlight shining in their direction at every possible moment, they have to, because if they don't the public would not dip into their pockets to "help".

The public are paying not one but twice for these services, once through their taxes, and once from their post tax money. Why should the public have to pay for this service is the question that needs to be answered.

This issue will always get passionate arguments from the NGO's (no NGO no job so we can understand), and some commercial operators, and not just the red bird, the Aussie Helicopters, Jayrows, Hevilifts and smaller operators too, they would be mad not to try for a slice of the pie. If a commercial operator gets the gig, they must have done some hard work to keep the cost down and be competitive in the tender proccess.

When the contracts are awarded there will be people that feel that they have been hard done by, the commercial operators can continue with what they already have, the NGO's if they miss out will have to shut up shop, and the employees will need to find employment in the commercial world. Many will adapt quickly to life in the real world, and others will flounder.

Good luck to all who tender, and when it's over we can all get back to seeing what else to post about!!;)

fatty

[sand blaster]

Should NSW stay with the NGO model or become government run with a private aircraft contract. Vetskone states this topic deserves Robust Discussion as a lot of peoples future depends upon it. Yes the people of NSW deserve the best EMS service that a government can provide.

EMS in NSW is the largest provider of EMS helicopters in Australia but it relies upon charities to provide its air services and equipment to provide the public with medical / rescue transport. Just another Trick has said Charities are cheap, but we all know that you get what you pay for and if we look further, one begins to ask “ARE THEY CHEAP” or are we being conditioned to think that they are. Imabell you are right QLD Government does inject a lot of money into its government fleet. However how much do you think NSW puts into each NGO? A lot of money MUCH, MUCH more than a million dollars to each operator and there are four NGO operators within NSW, with a lot less service capabilities than other states.

Service capability
Look at Careflight Sydney over the last four years how many days has their helicopter been unavailable for service?
How many days has their service been restricted because of

No IFR capabilities
No winch capability
No Doctor
No crew due to duty hours or sicknessHow many patients suffered or died because of this unavailability? How many people donated money to the service and were moved by another service or were not moved because Careflight Sydney was OFF LINE? How many people were billed for transport even after they donated to Careflight?
Careflights Call sign should be OFF LINE 1

Why has no one ever taken Careflight to task over there inability to provide the services that they are paid to provide?. “Politicians, Politicians” “Yes Careflight is untouchable this contract is for show”. How can Careflight not get this EMS contract. They have worked for years to suck up to and manipulate every politician in power to assist them to progress their cause. Political manipulation is an art and the Helicopter NGO’s are masters at it, however Careflight is the master of them all. WHY has there never been an investigation into how Helicopter NGO’s continue to gain government funding without full and open disclusuer.

Surf LifeSaving is no stranger to Political Manipulation one can only look at the Carr Factor that has provided 12 million dollars to Lifesaver helicopter service to build a new base on the edge of a sensitive national park. Where was the review of retrieval / rescue services in relation to helicopter asset location. 12 Million dollars would have provided a lot of air time. WHY WAS THIS FUNDING PROVIDED with no thought to future service delivery or needs. Political Manipulation has for years been the thorn in the side of moving the EMS helicopter system of NSW into the future. Morris Iemma has distanced himself from the Carr mismanagement and aledged underhanded deals of the past. If this is to be a truely open tender then it needs to be monitored and scrutinised by the media and the public to ensure that the political deals do not restrict the tendering process.

Well Sea Breeze you wanted stimulation.
I have put my head up and expect to get hammered for it, but something needs to be done to ensure that this tender is a fair and open tender without the spin Doctors influence.

[topendtorque]

Future EMS NSW

Shouting just a tad there JAT mate. Some good points have emerged; especially SB’s notes re availability and I tend to agree with the dedicated professional approach.
Here are a couple more firelighter observations but not grenades.

First, the clip below predicts that those that cover under the veil of “charity” need to be bloody careful less the taxman may take the view that some of your legit deductions don’t turn out quite so legit in the future.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1670851.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1670851.htm)

While tax is federal and the fed govt couldn’t give a flying root in a thunderstorm about state issues it is the state that pays for state services, or as others have pointed out their taxpayers do.

What do state Govt’s think? 1) All oz states are labor. 2) Labor party worldwide employs advertising agencies to get re-elected not constructive policies. 3) In the NT an internal letter was leaked that showed that even though the govt when faced with its most embarrassing issue, that of aboriginal housing / child sexual abuse etc, the first thing that they focused on was their re-election stocks regardless for any inspiration toward the very unfortunate victims of the issue.

That is what the potential successful tenderer is dealing with.

Another point that comes to mind is the good advice that Mr Bristow got from his accountant, re suitablitity / affordability of product.

There are those that pander that big is best, and others that smallest suitable is best. We certainly do not need flying twenty bed hospitals, good for train smashes but hopeless when hovering downtown (because they are too big to land) the down at heel suburbs as they will only blow away the houses of all of the needy (and remember this) non tax paying residents.

I also believe that Vice Likes’ nom de plume, style and signature is abhorrent and look forward to the day when his flamboyant brashness is curtailed somewhat. If he owns the outfit he hints that he is part of well he can say what he likes. Of course with the rider that if his comments are still in the same vein then he will be regarded with the same disdain. If he doesn’t own it then someone should point out to the owners just how their shopfront is being displayed.

Certainly if I was competing for the said contract and even though pprune is a gossip column with absolutely no liablility for substance I would work out how to use his comments to my advantage by portraying them as the attitude of the company that he represents. Very small beer there Mr Vice Like!

Apart from that I reckon JAT has come up with the best common sense outcome so far but hey, since when has any oz govt tender system been based on common sense?

[sea breeze]

Topendtorque your right Just another trick is very loud maybe anger management is required. Sandblaster all services have days off line they just pay the penalty depending on the contract. May be the meat raffle did not sell that week so it was cheaper to be off line.
I like the political connection, as we all know its there but how do you stop corruption at that level.

[grenade]

wusfaba wusfaba wusfaba

[bellfest]

They claim to be tendering for it

[Nigel Osborn]

As already mentioned, their ad clearly states they are tendering for various contracts & so they want to know what crews are available if they should win any. Seems very sensible to me.

[sagy34]

I understand that this is a rumor network, but a little bit of fact checking would be a fine thing:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[sand blaster]

I am sorry for the miss information

When I explained that Careflight failed to provide services delivery, I was incorrect.

Yes Incorrect, I stated that Careflight failed to provide services for
· IFR capabilities
· winch capability
· Doctor
· crew due to duty hours or sickness

I am sorry for miss leading you. I used the word days and yes this is incorrect.
In-fact:

No helicopter services at all over 4 years should have readNo helicopter Services for greater than 3600 hours

No winch capabilities should have read No winch capability for greater than 5700 hours

No IFR Capabilities should have readNo IFR capabilities for greater than 8640 hours

No Doctor Who Knows? But, those international high paying jobs still get done. What about those NSW supporters who donate? (No doctor unless they are abroad and insured)

No crew Due duty hoursNo argument from me. Good policy I would say, unless funding is provided for such redundancies.

So Sea Breeze and Sagy34 this should answer you question. No wonder it is cheap to run such a add hock service. How long would you maintain your contract in free enterprise with this sort of service capability?

Just another trick thanks for your heart warming comments, however you need to review your comments Service delivery factor (value for money) Careflight seams to fail to provide the goods even with three helicopters. By the way the facts quoted only apply to the Sydney rescue machine as it would be to embarrassing to include the rest.

Next time you get ill, just make sure the professionals are around and not the NGO (bleed all dry). But get ill soon as the professionals won’t be around for long as the Politicians will soon step in and open the way for the NGO’s to continue their unchallenged lack of service delivery.

So lets all learn the NGO call to arms,

Politician, Politician, come all Politicians, join our boards, support our cause, come all politicians and protect our cause.

[spinwing]

Mmmmm .... Sand Blaster,

When I visited CareFlight (westmead) albeit quite some time ago they had a BH412 which along with the crew WAS IFR capable and was used that way when required.

They now have a BK117 which was obtained with some difficulty due to it also needed to be an SP IFR machine.

Perhaps as others have indicated ... you might need to check your facts!!!

:= :bored:

[sand blaster]

Facts are correct


Mr Selfish, Careflight are contracted to provide 24/7 coverage so hours include this but I like the 14-year bit that makes it sound even worse. Just goes to show how much flying one could do, or in this case not be available to do.
Sagy34, 412 was also SP IFR it was sold because the chook raffles were not doing well.

[fatrat]

JAT, Hammer, the contract the present services have states that the aircraft be single pilot IFR. When CareFlight got rid of the 412, and picked up that rather disgusting excuse for a replacement, the auto pilot did not work. After it was evident that this would not be fixed quickly they were financially punished by health.

It is interesting to note that for several years the surfies operated their machine 2 pilot IFR, as it did not have an auto pilot. They quite often did not meet the requirement as they did not always have a co pilot.

At the end of the day it does not matter how much value the community get out of a machine that is IFR, it all boils down to the fact that the contract states that the aircraft will meet certain specs.

I have said this before, the problem that the NGO's have is that they think they run the show, and they treat the customer like they are morons! If they lose the contract it will be largly because of their appalling attitude and treatment of the customer.

They can then bleat to the media and try to do their normal spin doctoring in trying to do what they did 10 years ago and have the successfull tender winner kicked out.

Thank god the tender closes on WED 12 July, lets hope the Govt gets it right this time!!

fatty

[sea breeze]

Just another trick
Don’t forget, that the charity vacuum cleaner is spread over a very large distance and sucks many communities dry, these areas are well outside Sydney and require IFR capabilities to reach them on many more occasions than 15%,
What is Careflights area of operation?
what of the total lack of aircraft availability?
What is the night VFR hours verses IFR hours, for surf and careflight?


Who is the Customer?


Fatrat
What happened 10 years ago? seems that this could do with some expanding or was this just a comment in Jest?

[Neerg rN]

There's more and better reasons to go IFR than only when it's IMC!

[fatrat]

Seabreeze,
About 10 years ago when the contract was out for tender CHC or LLoyds at that time won the tender for the whole of NSW, the NGO's all got together as one(first time ever they all agreed on an issue) and fought the Govt's decision, with a very bitter anti Lloyd campain. Lloyds to their credit did not respond to any of the smear campain, and basicly stood back and allowed the NGO's to get the decision reversed. Lloyd were given the Canberra contract through South Care. The contract in NSW was a performance based contract, which the govt renewed on one or two occasions.

The reason it is actually being tendered again now may be an indication of how satisfied the Govt is with the present NGO services.

I guess that we will all find out in the near future if the Govt is serious about improving the services to NSW. Having just said that we must remember that NSW are due for elections early next year, and it would surprise no one if the decision was delayed until after the election, and leave the diry job of anouncing a re think to the incoming Govt!!!

If the NGO's get up they can expect to be treated more like a commercial entity, with the same restrictions for things like maintenance down time. At present they enjoy the 6 24 hour periods per month, (without providing backup)which can be pooled to allow them up to 18 days straight down time without penalty.

fatty

[sand blaster]

Are we being conditioned to think that NGO’s are cheap


What is the cost of the community helicopter model to the mum’s dads and the retired? What is the cost to local charities, Sea breeze asked? What downside is there to the health system?

Sea breeze uses the term CVC, this Charity Vacuum Cleaner regularly sweeps the countryside and urban areas, to feed its insatiable hunger for the charity dollar. These fundraisers use techniques that can often be intimidating because of the callers or doorknockers reluctance to take no for an answer.

So where does this money go:
· CEO $150,000.oo to $200,000.oo
· Chief pilot $150,000.00
· Crew Chief $90,000.oo
· Secretaries $50,000.oo by say x 2
· Fundraises full time $50,000.oo say x 4
· Vehicles by many??????
· Media spokesperson????
· Board members expenses
· Accountants????
· Legal team (A very large sum for some)
· Payroll team $60,000.oo

*Essential staff eg pilotis crew engineers are exempted from equation because all operators require these assets

My Point is a charity helicopter cost around $800,000.oo in wages before any of the essential staff or flying assets are factored into the equation. $800,000.oo is also a very conservative figure, as many of the staff numbers have not been truly represented, the true overall cost of each staff member has not been adjusted to calculate, insurance long service leave or superannuation, and other ongoing costs.

How many community helicopters are there in NSW.

Sydney 2
Newcastle 1
Lismore 1Wollongong has the Garth helicopter mob with no current aircraft, no current aircraft experience no current base, no current pilots, no current crew, no current engineers, but most likely will become successful in their tender bid. This is because they also sing the NGO song (politician) however they have a better weapon in their arsenal “the South Coast Labour Council.” (as seen on the SCLC website, http://www.sclc.com.au/content/campaigns.php )

There will be Five Community Helicopter Operators with the above costs plus their regional satellite bases which incur additional costs in fund raisers managers etc.

NSW Mums, Dads and the Elderly must DONATE just under Five million dollars just to feed the CHARITY machine without buying one drop of fuel or aviation asset or essential staff payment.

5 million Dollars WHAT a rip off, but its a cheap service. “To Who”

What of other local charities, they beg for crumbs, whilst many local causes suffer greatly because of this highly structured and relentless feeding upon the community’s good will and charity dollar.
On one of the NGO’s Annual reports for 2005 it states that cost for fund raising was $4,546,000.oo, whilst total funds raised were $8,424,000.oo

This equates to 50 cents in the dollar raised goes to obtain the funds.

Do those donating realise this?


Shame NSW Government stop hood winking the public, make this a fair and transparent tender.

Why doesn’t NSW have a government funded and run EMS system like Queensland, don’t NSW taxpayers deserve the best the government can provide. Let charities be for non-essential services and let the charity dollar stay within their communities where it is needed.

Tenders are closed and the NGO’s will now commence their networking of influence how much money will be spent on wining and dinning and lobbying for support .

Fatrat (interesting info, and very much on the mark)
If the professionals get the nod this time will they sit back and allow the vacuum cleaners to maintain their EMS strangle hold on the industry or will they fight back.

I have a question to all

Why do the charity helicopter group have the advantage of charity protection? whilst it could be argued that they are running a commercial business under the disguise of a charity. Are the overseas transport jobs performed at cost, or are they in direct competition with non-charity international transport businesses. Why has the media never reported on the way these charities do business? What is the role of a charity in the Australian EMS industry.
Answer
They are the true UNTOUCHABLES

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Lucky you live in WA SB, you won't have to pay the extra rip off taxes of the NSW gov to pay for the fully funded private operator providing the Sydney/Orange helicopter service, then later the Newcastle, Tamworth, Lismore and Canberra contracts. Where else will the pollies/public servants get the money for it. They can't sell the Snowy now and they have to have their pay rise too. You got it right Fatrat, nothing will happen until after an election. If the NGO's get the contract, the NSW Ambulance Service will pull the reins in and make sure they have 24 hour coverage.
I'm sure the folk way out west will be happy paying for the Sydney machines and only ever see them on the news.
At least the charity dollars are from people in the areas, whether it's Lismore, Newcastle, Tamworth, Orange, The Gong or Sydney and the dollars stay locally not going O/S. They are not forced to donate and if the organisation is above board there will be an annual report go out to all the regular donors, so yes they know where their money goes. Yes there is a lot of fat in some charity organisations but that seems to be the nature of the beast these days and me thinks $50K for a secretary may be a little on the hight side.
Lets see waht happens in September.:ok:
And does it matter, whoever gets it, will need crews, just have to make sure CV is up to date.

[Oogle]

Sandblaster

For someone who lives in Perth (west coast of Aus), you are getting pretty hot under the collar on this one.:*

I disagree that a fully Govt. funded service would be cheaper. You obviously are not aware of the cost of QLD Rescue or VicPol.

PS: I believe that the Chief Pilot is an essential part of the operation (even though you may not think that in your little equation)

[sea breeze]

Sand Blaster
You some up the NGO helicopter industry so well.
"Ouch"

[catseye]

Oogle,

Sand blaster raises an interesting point in terms of system cost and who actually pays. Unfortunately his cost model is a bit out but the basic components are there vis the cost of providing the service. Base costs are the same for the any helo operator vis crew, cost of capital, cost of insurance, facilities maintenance and fuel. Take any of those out and neither operator is going flying for long.

If you take a philosophical view and work on the cost to society there is not much difference between the NGO and fully funded. NGO still needs to suck the money in and their cost of doing that ( aka fundraising ) balances against the cost involved in contracting a commercial operator and spreading the cost through taxes. Not much different cost to society really and I suspect the NGO model may be more expensive due to economy of scale.

Any new contract hopefully will put the emphasis on where it should be.Service delivery to the patient.

A cost model point for consideration:

What's the cost comparison between 25 hospitals in kickatinalong requiring a fully staffed emergency department at 1.5-2 million per year if you can get the staff, versus an adequately resourced quick reaction helicopter capability delivering within the " golden hour "

I suspect the helo model wins hands down.


Then there's the politics and dogma .........:ugh:

The Eye.

[sand blaster]

Oogle
Thanks for the reply, yes I am a born and bred blues supporter. I have many links to NSW and a network of contacts there. As you gather I have questioned the NGO model for a very long time. You are correct in regards to the chief pilot position, he’s role within the organisation is crucial in providing discipline and the nucleus for the safety culture within the said organisation, but does NSW need 5 of them. And yes a secretary is in reality priced between $30000.oo -$50000.oo

Catseye has understood the whole point of my last post. Why does NSW need to spend 5 million dollars each year needlessly in excess staff, whilst not increasing its operational helicopter capabilities?

LHS
You have raised the question in regards to helicopter areas of operations. You implied people out west would not be happy in paying for the Sydney machines when the only time they would see them is on the evening news.
“Surprise” after performing a simple search on the internet all NGO helicopter rescue websites in NSW proudly display and quote the long distances they cover. Some even display maps that cover most of the state. The LifeSaver helicopter of the Southern Region boast the following: Our flight path takes us north to Toukley. North West to Dubbo, tracking south to Wagga Wagga and on to the Victorian Boarder. http://www.lifesaver.org.au/our_role.htm “Yes they are based in Sydney”

So what is a local area in regards to operational helicopter coverage and what is the financial area for fund raising. (You can’t have your cake and eat it as well).

This continued call for aircraft to remain in the local area is naive. It is generally raised when NGO’s and there supporters have their backs against the wall. This tactic can be seen periodically in local newspapers in different regions during difficult times. It represents the NGO’s call to arms, it is a war cry designed to rally their troops, who have been conditioned to believe that the helicopter should not proceed beyond an invisible line in the sky. No wonder the health authorities have had a gut full of these manipulating organisations that continually fail to provide the services that they so much promised to provide.

As many have stated before, it is time for a State funded and State controlled medical helicopter network that is not hampered with the in fighting and the media manipulation that is created by the NGO model.

Does anyone know what is in the new tender bid in regards to aircraft or other requirements? People in the know seem to be very tight lipped in regards to this.

[sea breeze]

:eek: :eek: Did anyone read the artical in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday in regards contracts?

[helopat]

No, but I'd like to...any chance of digging that up for us Seabreeze?

[fatrat]

It surprises me that it has taken 2 months for the incumbents to leak their propoganda to the press, blind freddie can see that this is the same tact they took some 8 or so years ago, when that Canadian company won the contract for NSW. A very nice we can't comment was added so that Health can't have a peice of them though. :eek:

I guess they must be getting worried, otherwise this article would not have been in the paper.

I still have my doubts as to whether this will be announced before the elections, guess we may know in a few weeks time, eh!

Fatty

[Driptray]

Here you go

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/update-threatens-to-end-charity-rescue-services/2006/09/15/1157827162181.html

[topendtorque]

I wonder if this means that we will be hearing again from that veritable ****** - Vice-like.

I heard the other day how Steve Irwin had died doing what he loved doing , and Peter Brock had died doing what he loved doing, and I thought, well, i wonder how our old mate vicelike is going? him being such a ****** an all.

Uh-Oh at least the spam machine is working well, vicelike nearly got away with having a flogging good time!!

[topendtorque]

HH
sounds like 'someone' or "some uninteresed party????" showed honorable minister a xmas catalogue of all the toys that he doesn't have.

what an ego trip for him to buy a whole pack of new helicopters and show up the whole defence procurement department as second grade hams.

For sure come Dec 31 when the current contract is due to expire you will look forward to;
1) snow job,
2)hearing from spin doctors and
3) an extension until after the election, end of story!

heralding a user pays system

[sea breeze]

Well haven’t the NGO PR machine been in overdrive. Sandblaster you hit the nail on the head in you replies, the politicians are being pulled out of their pockets and the shock jocks on the radio and TV are reporting your predicted replies.

Does this mean that the NGO’s cannot match the tender?
I ask why is it the right of these NGO’s to have a monopoly on the EMS system
Does not CHC employ Australian workers?
What of Canberra and Wollongong service, is CHC not providing an outstanding service to those communities?
What of the Dr’s and Paramedics doesn’t the health department employ them?
Won’t CHC or any other successful tender winner employ the good NGO pilots?
What of ICAC, should the NGO’s not be reported for their political interference and manipulation of facts?

What of Fatrat’s post on CHC winning the last tender but because of political pressure NGO’s Lobbied the government and here we are 10 years on. Limited services limited control and siphoning of the very needed community charity dollar from the small communities that so much depend upon it.

LHS, as previously stated in prior posts, It is time that the state pays for this essential service, this is a STATE RESPONSIBILITY. Leave charity for those who really need it.

Last I herd Careflight was the preferred tenderer it raises the? is this a surf driven scam. Surf were kicked out of Wollongong by the people of Wollongong for ripping their funding back to the Sydney operation (As reported in the print media) Sounds like a brain fart idea that those cronies would do.

It will be amusing time ahead

[Yikes]

:mad: Amazing how a company can be sledged with such vitriolic ignorant comment from parts of the media and potential competitors with no consequences.
I didn't realise that CHC imported seal clubers from Canada to fly on their many contracts Australia wide, I was under the impression they employed Australian pilots who have Australian partners, children friends and families, silly me :rolleyes:

[fatrat]

Yes, that Hadley interview/spray was directed right at CHC Helicopters (Australia), I wonder if those who were twisting the knife forgot that as well as CHC Helicopters (Australia), Jawrow and Australian Helicopters (Who have also tendered) also have offshore ownership or at least a good pecentage of foriegn ownership. Or did they attack CHC because they consider them a threat and not Aussie and Jayrow??

I am not surprised at the attack, just like 10 years ago. I can't help but think that maybe this sudden outrage at that Canadian company was directed by those who stand to lose their nest eggs. What the CEO's of both SLSA and CareFlight failed to say was that it was them (Personally ) that would lose their jobs.

I would be very surprised if many of the pilots, crew and engineers were not offered the opportunity to change uniforms if ANY of the commercial operators won the contract. (All three companies have advertised on numerous occassions in the recent months)

The medical personnel in the case of the SLSA helicopter service are employed by the NSW Health Dept,(They also serve on the CHC Operation in Wollongong) and those at CareFlight are employed by CareFlight. How the Health Dept would run the show remains to be seen, however they already provide some Docs to SLSA, and I would imagine they would ask the Dr's employed by CareFlight if they were interested in having their 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 salary paid by the Govt.

I hope that CHC respond in some way to this sledging, not by returning what they got, but respond in a dignified manner without sledging. They sat back 10 years ago and let Surf and CareFlight's public sledging and whining to the Govt have the contract overturned, and did not respond to any of the garbage.

Will a commercial operator get the contract? Not if the boys from the charities are going to continue with their present actions!

Shame really I am sure that the public in NSW would be very happy as long as they have a service, cost to the community with a commercial operator very close to what they pay now. They pay taxes, they also make donations, and they also pay through the sponsors, all the Westpac customers, and NRMA members (and those with insurance with NRMA insurances (IAG??)) also pay through bank charges and Insurance premiums. (even the QLD VIC SA WA and TAS policy holders pay for the service in NSW) At least with a commercial operator they would pay through their taxes only!!

They just don't get told this by the present operators do they??:=

Rant over,

Fatty

[McGowan]

The SMH news article mentions the AB or AW139, I was of the understanding this was a two pilot IFR helicopter and won't be certified SPIFR. I assume the tender calls for SPIFR aircraft. Wonder what the story is there?

[sand blaster]

This is on one of the NGO's web site

Fundraising alert (03 Nov 2006)

The Hunter Region Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service is warning residents that current telephone marketing for funds is not coming from the Service.

General Manager, Richard Jones, said today that the Service never uses telemarketing for fund raising.

“While those telephoning people in the Hunter at present may be legitimately working for other helicopter services that serve other regions in the State, they do not represent the Hunter’s own Rescue Service.” (http://www.rescuehelicopter.com.au/wrhs/news/NewsArticles.asp)

That invisible line in the sky is very difficult to see and even More transparent when it comes to fund raising. That other helicopter service would not have a bear in there or a child or two. How dare, someone try to tap into the mid north coast gold mine, Same Shame Shame.

[belly tank]

I GOT FORWARDED THIS EMAIL LINK HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN IT?
http://www.petitiononline.com/rescueit/petition.html

[Gas Producer]

Hi Belly Tank,

Hadn't seen this until now. Signed it immediately.

These guys provide a truly terrific and highly professional service, and I know a few of the guys involved.

It would truly be a tragedy should either of the Sydney or Newcastle services wind up.

Go the Lifesavers and Angels . You have my support 100%.

GP

[sand blaster]

I GOT FORWARDED THIS EMAIL LINK HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN IT?

http://www.petitiononline.com/rescueit/petition.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/rescueit/petition.html)





I suggest that you read the current Pprune Threads involving Westpac helicopter
NSW EMS (NGO or Private operator)
Australia - NSW rescue helicopters services, uncertain of future!

Take the time to read the posts and make up your own mind. However in a nutshell WESTPAC appear to be running a political campaign against changes to the way EMS helicopters are going to be provided in the future. Obviously they feel that they did not provide a competitive tender application, so are now resorting to the only thing they know, government and media manipulation and lying to the public that have supported them in the past.

Fact
Tender calls for Helicopter provision in Sydney Wollongong and Orange.

Newcastle and Lismore are not under this tender process and no matter what happens in this tender decision Newcastle and Lismore will still provide services that they are currently providing. (Remember: Newcastle and Lismore are separate businesses)

This means that Westpac is deliberately lobbying the government by lying to the community.
Come clean surf lifesaving

This Helicopter is a bit like their sponsor (a BANK) never reveals the truth about their product and above all they look after the profits and those that receive them. (Don’t forget that admin structure $1000000.00 pa)

What of the other NGO’s and private operators that have submitted for the tender process should they just pull out of this process. This is business and the future direction of SAR in Sydney region. Obviously Westpac are unable to look after their customer as they have already lost the Wollongong contract and appears Sydney may be next. :confused:

[Point-of-view]

The ORH Review of Rotary Wing Services had this to say about the current system and NGO's starting at paragraph 3.4.17:

"The cost effective development of Rotary Wing services needs to take into account the following key strengths:

a) the history of medical involvement in helicopter work;
b) the significant levels of community support channelled through the NGO's:
c) The expertise built up within the NGO's (technical and medical);
d) The central role of the MRU and AOC.

It needs to overcome a range of weaknesses:

a) Low utilisation of some helicopters;
b) mobilisation delays caused by non-dedicated crew arrangements;
c) restrictions in secondary retrieval role due to doctor availability for some retrieval hospitals;
d) variation in tasking protocols;
e) concerns over the level and currency of staff training, particularly with regard to non-dedicated doctors/paramedics;
f) the potential for delays in primary mission tasking/requesting;
g) the variation in operating regimes."

Three out of the four key strengths identified in this report are directly attributable to the work and inovation of the NGO's and all of the seven weaknesses are aspects which are under the management control or funding control of NSW Health and the Ambulance Service of NSW.

The report goes on to say at paragraph 3.4.23:

"Considerable expertise has been built up amongst the NGO's across the operational and medical aspects of service provision. Future development ideally should take advantage of this, building on these strengths through constructive liason and review, and minimising recognised weaknesses through good management and robust contracts"

The problem with the system is not with the NGO's, but with silent agenda of a couple of senior people in Health/Ambulance Service to get rid of the NGO's and because of this they will not engage with the NGO's in "constructive liason and review"

[SINAY]

Maybe 2007 really will be the year of the Lifesaver...But not in the manner one thinks....the future's uncertain and the end is always near.

[Point-of-view]

This thread has been bagging the NGO's but the Review that was commissioned by Health and Ambulance had a different view. The ORH Review of Rotary Wing Services had this to say about the current system and NGO's starting at paragraph 3.4.17:

"The cost effective development of Rotary Wing services needs to take into account the following key strengths:

a) the history of medical involvement in helicopter work;
b) the significant levels of community support channelled through the NGO's:
c) The expertise built up within the NGO's (technical and medical);
d) The central role of the MRU and AOC.

It needs to overcome a range of weaknesses:

a) Low utilisation of some helicopters;
b) mobilisation delays caused by non-dedicated crew arrangements;
c) restrictions in secondary retrieval role due to doctor availability for some retrieval hospitals;
d) variation in tasking protocols;
e) concerns over the level and currency of staff training, particularly with regard to non-dedicated doctors/paramedics;
f) the potential for delays in primary mission tasking/requesting;
g) the variation in operating regimes."

Three out of the four key strengths identified in this report are directly attributable to the work and inovation of the NGO's and all of the seven weaknesses are aspects which are under the management control or funding control of NSW Health and the Ambulance Service of NSW.

The report goes on to say at paragraph 3.4.23:

"Considerable expertise has been built up amongst the NGO's across the operational and medical aspects of service provision. Future development ideally should take advantage of this, building on these strengths through constructive liason and review, and minimising recognised weaknesses through good management and robust contracts"

The problem with the system is not with the NGO's, but with silent agenda of a couple of senior people in Health/Ambulance Service to get rid of the NGO's and because of this they will not engage with the NGO's in "constructive liason and review".

[SINAY]

Yes sure is the Year of the Lifesaver and the end was oh so near.
They now have 2 surplus helicopters as CHC is awarded the NSW Rotary Winged contract and not to mention Careflight who also have surplus helicopters.

[fatrat]

Congratulations to CHC Australia, and commiserations to Careflight and SLSA. I guess some will have jobs offered, but not all.

fatty

[Sundance76]

Congratulations to CHC for winning the NSW Government HEMS tender....
Found the following extracts from local Syndey radio station interesting..... appears Lifesaver and Careflight are digging in for a battle.....
Ding!...round 1 to CHC! Will have to wait to see if it's a knockout though!


2GB (Sydney), Ray Hadley Morning Show, 08/12/2006 10:43AM Compere: Ray Hadley

Hadley is joined by John Fraser(*), the deputy chairman of Westpac Lifesaver Helicopter Rescue Service. Fraser(*) says that he has not been made aware of the NSW Govt's decision to give the tender to a Canadian company other than hearing Hadley's interview with Ian Badham, the director of NRMA Careflight. Hadley says that it is cowardly of Morris Iemma's NSW Govt to make the announcement on the day that he and Alan Jones go on holiday. Fraser(*) says that the NSW Govt has been planning this move for a long time and that when he asks Greg Rocheford from the NSW Ambulance Service he told him that there was no plan for the future of the helicopter services. Hadley says that Fraser's(*) organisation will have lost the tender by midday and Fraser(*) says that the organisation will lose the pilots and that they will not be able to replace them. Fraser(*) says that the Govt knows that the issue will die down and Hadley says that he will make sure that it does not. Fraser(*) points out that their pilots will leave and that hey cannot afford to pay them the same. Hadley says that he cannot imagine why the NSW Govt is spending more money than they have to when they are financially 'crippled'. Fraser(*) says that the NSW Govt only provides one third of the funding. Hadley says that this decision makes him suspect the Health Department of 'bastardry'. Fraser(*) says that the Westpac Lifesaver service has been going fro 34 years and that they have great support. Hadley says that he could almost understand the decision if it made financial sense and Fraser(*) suggests that the decision was made to gain power.
Interviewee: John Fraser(*), deputy chairman, Westpac Lifesaver Helicopter Rescue Service
Duration: 4 mins 35 secs
SummaryID: S00024539313

2GB (Sydney), Ray Hadley Morning Show, 08/12/2006 10:37AM Compere: Ray Hadley

Caller David says that he is one of the original crew members of the Westpac's medical helicopter services. He says that the NSW Govt cannot even run a hospital, let alone run the helicopters as well. He says that if he gets a chance to talk to Ian Badham again he should tell him that he has a scrap book about the first fund raising. Hadley says that that would have been when Westpac was the Bank of NSW.
Duration: 1 mins 55 secs
SummaryID: S00024539256

2GB (Sydney), Ray Hadley Morning Show, 08/12/2006 10:28AM Compere: Ray Hadley

Hadley says that he was reluctant to speak to Dr Lewis Geller(*) about the issue of the future of the NRMA Careflight and Westpac Lifesaver helicopter services because he may have been putting him at risk. He says that Geller(*) sent him an email saying that the NSW Govt has designed the tender process for the helicopter service so that only a commercial operator could win. He says that Geller calls for the tender bids to be brought into the public domain. Hadley says that Geller is a senior member of the NSW Health Department but that he is joining the program anyway. He says that the middle management in the NSW Health System are trying to build empires. Hadley says that Geller claims that Careflight and Lifesaver could save the Govt $70m. Geller says that an independent study found that the best medical care would be provided by the current operators and their current medical teams. Geller says that the NSW Govt's decision will cost someone their life because Careflight provides the best service of its kind in the world. Hadley reads from Geller's email and says that the new service cannot provide the same kind of care and that the NSW Govt will not be able to build up such a good medical team again. Hadley says that NSW Health Minister John Hatzistergos must reverse his decision and that he should not think of punishing Geller for speaking publicly.
Interviewee: Dr Lewis Geller(*), senior medical officer, NSW Health
Duration: 6 mins 28 secs
SummaryID: S00024539080

2GB (Sydney), Ray Hadley Morning Show, 08/12/2006 10:21AM Compere: Ray Hadley

Hadley says that he received an email last night that NSW Health Minister John Hatzistergos will announce tonight that he is replacing the NRMA Careflight and Westpac Lifesaver services with a Canadian corporation. He says that NSW Govt sources have broken the Health Department's rule of silence to leak the information. He says that the time has been set so that both he and Alan Jones will be on holiday. He says that he is calling on NSW Premier Morris Iemma to stop this. He says that if Hatzistergos and John Della Bosca think that the public will support a commercial company from Canada 'they have another thing coming'. He introduces Ian Badham, the chairman of Careflight to discuss it. Badham says that he has received calls from Govt sources that indicate the same thing that Hadley's email s saying. He says that the stupidity of the situation is that while the discussions go on Careflight is actually assisting doctors treat a man who has fallen. Hadley says that the Govt only provides a third of the money to pay for these services and that the rest of the money comes from the public and the corporate sponsors. Badham says that the NSW Govt is turning their backs on the donors of this service. Hadley says that it will cost the NSW Govt more money to have the Canadian Helicopter Corporation run the services and asks why they would do it in this economic climate. Badham says that he will break the probity restriction placed on him and says that Careflight has placed deposits on five new helicopters and that they will definitely be coming to NSW. He says that Careflight will be willing to work with the NSW Govt to make sure that their pilots can continue to work with the new helicopters. He says that Hadley quoted the Daily Telegraph today and says that the NSW economy is in trouble. He says that they can bring $100m of donations to the table and that it is stupid to reject this. Hadley says that he has spoken to Greg Rochford from the NSW Ambulance Service and that he has defended the decision. Badham says that Rochford is an honourable man, but that there are other people in the ministry who are trying to take control of the service and stamp their name on it. Hadley says that they are wanting to 'bugger up' this health service as they have done to all the other health service. Badham says that the helicopter services can work with the NSW Govt and doe snot understand the decision. Hadley says that he will pick up the topic again next year.
Interviewee: Ian Badham, NRMA Careflight, chairman
Duration: 7 mins 01 secs
SummaryID: S00024538875

2GB (Sydney), Ray Hadley Morning Show, 08/12/2006 10:05AM Compere: Ray Hadley

Hadley summarises the news for the day. He says that he has received an email that tells him that the NSW Govt has decided to award the rescue helicopter contract to a Canadian helicopter corporation, which will take money away from the NRMA Careflight and the Westpac rescue Helicopter services. He says that he will talk to the services about how they feel about this. he says that the email says that the NSW Govt is waiting until he and Alan Jones are on holidays to announce the decision so that it will not be questioned.
Duration: 1 mins 05 secs

Let the games begin..............

[500]

Where is Austeralia !:rolleyes:

[irh]

Sand Blaster, you obviously have issues with the NGO's especially Life Saver. I know from you previous posts that you have no idea what is REALY going on. I find it interesting that you are so happy to miss inform the public.

I wish you well in your career, it will catch up with you. Blatant lies just dont work!

[Gas Producer]

Sandblaster, you're a d&^#%$.

[spinwing]

mmmm....

Be interesting if all those pilots wanting to jump ship over to CHC were only offered work in Nigeria ..... where there is a real shortage (????).

:eek:

[Nigel Osborn]

Lloyds/ Bond/ Helicopter Services/ CHC is just a change of ownership. The crews in Adelaide didn't suddenly become British/ Norwegan/ Canadian with the change. Adelaide & the other Australian bases aren't suddenly flooded with foreigners.
I've no doubt CHC will do a good job as per the contract. Looking back did the small players always do a good job? Sure they do now but life moves on. I wonder how many crews will be employed.
And no, I'm not looking for a position!:)

[dragonsfly]

These new positions will be offerred to the existing pilots working for CHC and not to new comers. This is how it always works and if they change this system, they will face a backlash from within their own ranks.
If the public of NSW choose to get behind Westpac and Careflight, they can continue to work and with the support of the health department, they will continue to be used in preference to CHC who will be sitting around waiting for a call.
This will be a lot fun!!!

[fatrat]

Dragons, the contract is a health dept one, if the public get behind SLSA and CareFlight, without a contract they will get no work! As far as CHC taking on crew, rest assured that will have to happen, have you noticed they have been advertising recently. Sure some existing CHC people will go to Sydney, CHC will want existing CHC staff to run the show, and educate those who are accepted how to operate to the CHC song. Everyone understands that people are upset at losing the contract, but life moves on, and the sooner it becomes accepted the better it will be for all concerned. The CareFlight docs have said they won't play, and that CHC can find their own Docs, not required that is the responsibility of the Health Dept, they will fly in aircraft supplied and crewed by CHC. The people of NSW will continue to have Docs and Paramedics land on the side of the road and transport the sick and injured. If the Doc's from CareFlight do not want to work for health and fly on the helicopters, the question could be asked "are they doing it for the good of the NSW public now or are they doing it to inflate their own ego's??" I would hope that they would reconsider once the dust has settled, because they do do a good job.

fatty

[robsrich]

Some recent news reports


Last Update: Friday, December 8, 2006. 8:00pm (AEDT)

Rescue chopper decision 'nonsensical'

The New South Wales Opposition has promised to reverse a State Government decision to hand over the rescue helicopter contract to a foreign company if it wins the next election. The Government has today announced that the Canadian Helicopter Corporation has been awarded the tender to provide nine new aircraft.

The decision ends the contracts of the two charity services, NRMA Careflight and the Westpac Rescue Helicopter. Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner says the decision is incomprehensible. "We will halt this contract review, the whole process, open it to public gaze and move forward from there," she said. "It's just simply nonsensical and I can tell you the community rage is palpable."




Helicopter services upgraded

December 9, 2006

The Illawarra's rescue helicopter will soon be flying 24 hours a day in what's seen as a major victory for the region. Unions said yesterday's announcement was the culmination of a three-year community campaign to extend the rescue service, now operating 10 hours a day.

The State Government said yesterday that CHC Australia had won the hotly contested contract to cover the upgraded Wollongong service, as well as those in Sydney and Orange.

Four new twin-engine helicopters will be used, which are up to 30 per cent faster than existing aircraft and can carry heavier loads.

The decision attracted criticism from the existing rescue helicopter operators, NRMA CareFlight and Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service, which cover Sydney and Orange and will now be replaced.

[BreakerB]

Do some further investigating into what the state government exactly paid Westpac and Careflight to do. Even with all the fundraising that these orgs conducted they still received an exhorbitant (spelling??) amount of money (from the state gov) if they flew or not. Once airborne they charged the gov an hourly rate.

I don't know what CHC are going to charge but I'm sure we will find out eventually.

There was a report on the NSW ambulance service website about 6-12 months ago that detailed all the incumbants costings and aircraft availability. Obviously the gov wanted to provide an improved service without too much of an increase in cost (maybe)...

[Blackhawk9]

Look at the official NSW Ambulance site and see what NSW Health/ Ambulance have to say. http://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au

[ApocalypseThen]

Too early for congratulations or commiserations- remember 1996 when the
people of NSW had their say . Investigations are proceeding into something pretty smelly in the tendering process . CHC`s bid was $100 million more than the leading NGO`s , for an inferior offered service .

[Quickdraw]

Too early for congratulations or commiserations- remember 1996 when the
people of NSW had their say . Investigations are proceeding into something pretty smelly in the tendering process . CHC`s bid was $100 million more than the leading NGO`s , for an inferior offered service .

$100 million more... how much of an idiot are you! I mean really, please if you post by all means throw a bit of fat in there for the rumour mill but not $100 million more, and also, how is it an 'inferior offered service'? I can assure you the only investigation will be why the government kept the NGO's as long as they have!

Bring on CHC i say, better conditions, better pay, more job security... Newcastle, Lismore watch your backs boys, as Gretski would say "you've been evicted, it's time to leave the house":D :D

[sunnywa]

Is there a link somewhere as to what the new contract is? It would make for very interesting reading.

[Driptray]

Is there a link somewhere as to what the new contract is? It would make for very interesting reading.

top of this page http://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/

[ApocalypseThen]

The sponsor of the leading NGO pledged the cost of all aircraft required for the contract, and whatever else was required to win it.There is obvious
non-compliance with the tendering acceptance process.

[BreakerB]

Unsure of what the CHC contract will cost. Although these NGOs are funded by donations the gov also pays a substantial fee for the right. See the link below:

http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/bp06-07/bp3/pdf/bp3_10health_f.pdf

Page four...

[topendtorque]

Splot123
There's always an appeal process in every govt tender, sounds like you guys have at least a bit of ammunition in the locker, do you and your brethren have the fortitude to load and fire at will?

I particularly am taken with your attention to cost savings in the 'close in' highest work areas.
cheers tet

[ppheli]

I'm based outside Australia and have no vested interest in any of this. However, I am getting very bemused by all this petition lark. Here are some questions

Why should the fact that the existing operator has flown the contract for the past X years make any difference?
Why should the nationality of the ultimate ownership of an operator make any difference? Global village and all that.....
All organisations had the same tender spec, so if the Ambulance Service of NSW decided one meets their requirements better than the others, is the problem just the inability to accept failure on the part of the unsuccessful bidders?

[ohyeah]

Is there any information on the helicopter type to be purchased for the contract and from whom they will be purchased? There is only a limited number of buisnesses in Australia who can supply brand new helicopters.

[Quickdraw]

ApocalypseThen,

So you are saying that the sponsor of the 'leading' NGO offered Westpac or Careflight anything that they needed to win the contract, wow! that's fantastic.. Based on your previous post, they only needed to give them 1 more dollar and they would have won it... you know $100 million + $1.

Remember your second last post - "CHC`s bid was $100 million more than the leading NGO`s"

They should have sold one more raffle ticket...

:uhoh:

[sunnywa]

Thanks Driptray for the link. It, as expected, didn't reveal the dollars and cents. What it did say was of the 1650 odd missions undertaken in 2005/06, there were 27 per month that needed to wait 2hrs and 12 per month more than 3 hours, which doesn't sound too bad.
I can't see how anyone, CHC or NGO, can improve on that with less machines than they currently have (4 vs 5). Oh well, I am only a mere mortal.

[Mark Six]

Quickdraw, you seem determined to live up to your nickname.
I also heard the figure of $100 million extra cost for the CHC tender. Admittedly it came from a Westpac helicopter spokesman in a radio interview - not the most reliable source given the context. There was a detailed post on the CHC AW139 thread presumably from someone in the know in the Careflight organisation, which has since mysteriously disappeared. It gave a fairly detailed cost breakdown of their bid, and mentioned that their sponsors were willing to put up $55 million for 4 AW139's. That's $55 million that Careflight would NOT have to ask the government for, which presumably CHC would have to factor into their own bid. In addition, CHC has to make a profit - Careflight does not, so if you factor in CHC's profit margin over the 10 year life of the contract in addition to the $55 million extra cost of the aircraft, $100 million extra for CHC compared to Careflight doesn't sound quite so ridiculous does it.
The Health Dept. was paying the Westpac Lifesaver mob something like $40,000 per month to operate the Wollongong service. After it was replaced by CHC the cost to the Health Dept ballooned to$180,000 per month for essentially the same service.

[Heliport]

ABC online


Doctors to reject positions with new rescue chopper service


About 40 specialist CareFlight doctors have unanimously agreed not to accept positions in the new New South Wales helicopter rescue service.
The doctors were offered positions by the Health Department after the Government awarded a 10-year helicopter contract to a Canadian company.
CareFlight chairman Ian Badham says the doctors will only reconsider if control of the service is handed back to CareFlight.
"We're more than happy to discuss with [the] Government how we can use these shiny new air taxis they're going to get from the Canadians, but operate them in an integrated way where it's CareFlight's air crew, doctors and management operating these [Canadian] helicopters," he said.
"That would do it safely."

[Jim Dean]

Mark Six, It can't have been for the SAME service, after all that's why CHC took over isn't it? The service wasn't there! I just love the way that people make comparisons with big figures with no real comparisons as to what is being offered or required or whatever the case maybe. It always generally starts with.... apparently, or something similar....
You just know you can believe anything that follows.

[Jim Dean]

I think Ian Badham should be careful how he words things, is he inferring CHC the "canadian" company (with all it's "Australian" workforce - If it was still Lloyd helicopters would he have so much to gripe about, and nothing major has changed in australia with regard to the company since then) is unsafe. He must be getting desperate to try and save his job.

[Mark Six]

JD, By SAME service I mean the scope of the service offered by both organisations was the same, ie winch equipped multi-engine IFR helicopter conducting EMS ops 7 days a week during daylight hours, so operating costs should have been comparable. As for the STANDARD of the service provided, that's obviously another issue altogether.
Agree the "Canadian" bit is unnecessary, along with the "we've saved x thousand lives in the past. Babies will die," etc. I'd like to see them argue their case purely on a costs and standard of service basis. I think the other (emotional) aspects merely cloud the issue without necessarily strengthening their case.

[fatrat]

Heliport, can we have all the threads regarding this issue merged? It will save double posts under different headings.

Cheers,

[sea breeze]

Why is it that Careflight doctors will only work on a Careflight aircraft?
How does the Canadian proposal put lives at risk? Is CHC unsafe?
Careflight doctors are concerned that new proposed management and equipment will not meet safety stands. What are the concerns that Careflight doctors have with the equipment to be provided.
Luis Gallur appears to have killed off Careflight, as it appears that he has not assessed the situation or appraised what equipment is to be provided or discussed the future management structure.
Dr Gallur said that the government would have to take out unqualified junior doctors from the public sector. I was told that NSW Health System already have a state paid and employed medical retrieval system that is superior to Careflight, the public does not hear from these teams because they do not seek media attention.

Out of the 35 Doctors withdrawing services how many are registrars?
How many are employed from over seas?
How many hours a week do each perform in retrieval?
How many have second and third jobs with NSW healthMany questions need to be raised as to the media driven out cry of the poor little Careflight doctors feeling ruffled.
What motivation is there for this out cry? Is it MONEY, TAX Lurks, positions of power etc? This is a very fishy situation and more scrutiny needs to be applied to this bunch of premadonnas

[Quickdraw]

Mark Six,

The reason CHC were put into Wollongong in the first place was because Westpac could not provide the service that was required, period. So, we are now NOT comparing like V's like. CHC have the capacity to provide additional services (read: crews, airframes, engineering services, competent management systems) well above what the NGO's can.

I don't by my clothes from charities such as Life-Line or the Salvo's just because they are cheaper, I buy them from various commercial business’s that supply what I want, when I want, albeit at a premium price.

You get what you pay for Mr Six!

No lives will be lost, the only thing that will be lost will be the salaries received by the big executives of Careflight.

Quickdraw.

[fatrat]

I think Ian Badham should be careful how he words things, is he inferring CHC the "canadian" company (with all it's "Australian" workforce - If it was still Lloyd helicopters would he have so much to gripe about, and nothing major has changed in australia with regard to the company since then) is unsafe. He must be getting desperate to try and save his job.
Jd, this is the same tact that was taken when CHC won it last time, although if I remember it was Lloyd Helicopters at he time, (but Helikopter Service had taken ownership), so rather than those nasty, it was those nasty Norwegians. Ian Badham is a Journalist by trade, so the old saying "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" works well in this situation.

As far as the Docs are concerned while I appreciate that they want CareFlight to remain, saying they won't do the job with any other service, is IMHO a little narrow minded, and I said in another subject post one must wonder if they do it for the public, or do they do it for themselves?

This whole situation is only going to get messier, and much more mud will be slung by the NGO's before it all finishes, and that is quite sad really. If they want to complain, fine, but slinging mud and mis-information at a company that only tendered for a contract, will not make them look any better. I realise that because CHC is a big company they have a target the size of a huge maple leaf on their flank!

fatty

[Mark Six]

Quickdraw,
I have merely pointed out why it is not impossible that the Careflight bid could have been $100 million less than CHC, as you seemed to have a problem believing that was possible. I don't know how the numbers stack up or what differences there were in the services offered by the respective bidders for that matter, and I assume you don't either. I also stated that they should argue their case on the basis of cost AND service, which is supposedly the criteria the Health Dept looked at (according to their web site). I have never suggested that NSW tax payers should accept a cut rate (ie inferior) retrieval service. I have no doubt that CHC would do a good job - I'm not trying to denigrate them in any way. They bid for a contract, and they were successful - good for them, however I would like to know why an NGO didn't win the contract if their bid met all the tender requirements, but presumably at a considerably lower cost to me, the taxpayer. Maybe there is a perfectly valid reason, but I haven't seen it yet.

[sand blaster]

Well go away for a day or two and the world sure does change.
Boys and Girls this is not rocket science it is not about money. This is about service provision. Now the figures that are being thrown around are just absurd. If you take time to read my previous threads you will see that every thing that has occurred I predicted.

I normally don’t pass on rumour, as I am unable to conclusively confirm that Careflight the community caring service did not provide a helicopter crew on the night of their awards night. Instead they decided that the community could do without for that night. Not good Mr Badman

So I will go back to what this is all about, it is about Service provision.

For the media that monitor this site I will provide some fundamental questions that need to be asked and answered.

How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.
How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the services that they were contracted to?
How many times have missions been knocked back because of weather constraints?
How many times have each helicopter been without winch capabilities
How many times have missions been compromised because of payload issues?
What were the current tender bids? And what did each NGO offer? And when would the greater capability be available to the community.SUNNYWA well you don’t get the point
SERVICE PROVISSION and customer focus is what was required. By being online and available you can provide the service that the customer requires.:eek:

[Oogle]

Whoaaaa there Sandblaster!

Ask all the questions you want but don't bring up the decling of a mission due to weather as something that has to be explained.

Treading on shaky ground there. :=

[Oogle]

It's a long way from being finished.

The Westpac and CareFlight guys will not lie down on this one.

[Twin Head]

Some finer points in mind ware political thinking while tendering for government contracts.

1.The amount of Money was never a problem, look at Vic Police Airwing Tenders over the last 10 years. Many good company's much cheaper, but LLoyds (chc) still prevail, how many years did it take to provide newer aircraft for the airwing. Must have been clauses in the contracts i didnot see:ugh:

2. Who are the experts who provide the unbiased views that determine the ultimate contract winner. A fair and level playing field??

Comiserations to the losers, congratulations to the new pilots and crew of chc, step up to the plate and provide the best service possible to the state of nsw and when money is no option, there should be no shortcuts taken, and 100% availability 24 / seven:ok:

[The Ozzie BOY]

As a person that is not directly involved in aviation I can only say congratulations to the successful tender and may they carry out the work in true and professional manners

Please don’t let politics get in the way of saving lives and just do the job

Well done

[The Ozzie BOY]

As a person that is not directly involved in aviation every day I can only say congratulations to the successful tender and may they carry out the work in true and professional manners
Please don’t let politics get in the way of saving lives and just do the job
Well done

[Scattercat]

Whilst all this discussion about which organisation did / didn't - can / can't - will / won't deliver a particular level of service, is amusing to read. Perhaps an important point is being overlooked. Namely, the ability of a particular tenderer to supply tender conforming aircraft within the specified timeframe. Buying your EC145's or particularly the AW139 is not like going down to your local Holden dealer and picking which colour you want ... there is significant lead-in times from contract signing to delivery. CHC Australia may (?? I don't know) have had access to these airframes through CHC Global and as such were always going to be better positioned to win this tender.
Well done to CHC AUSTRALIA:D

[ApocalypseThen]

The Careflight doctors do not have an issue with what label of helicopter on which they fly .
Their objection is the Dept. of Health., an incompetent bureaucratic organization which they know well from their day jobs . Their motivation to fly for Careflight
is professional satisfaction .Apart from the flying operation ,Careflight is affiliated
with the teaching hospital at Westmead and trains specialists from all over the world
in trauma medicine and awards qualifications .Careflight is at the cutting edge of trauma medicine. The independence of these research specialists has always been a
thorn in the side of the time –servers in the Dept. of health and the morons with the
6th grade education who occupy the upper echelons of the NSW Ambulance Service.
This is the reason for the determined attempts over the years to replace Careflight with a tame and compliant commercial operator , even at vastly increased cost to
the public and the destruction of an institution of medical and academic excellence.
The Specialists donate their time and talents to this unique organisation at great
sacrifice to their income .The payment for a 48 hour tour of duty away from home
equates to about one hour spent on practicing their specialty in the operating theatre.
Without the revenue supplied by the flying operations and the donated time of these
dedicated specialists, this immense resource of NSW will be lost .

[brame]

Does anyone know what the winning combination of helicopter types?

I hear 3 X 412's & 1 X AW139 - any updates....

[robsrich]

Just a thought. I haven't read the specs. Are the new machines fully SAR equipped?

[PPRuNeUser0212]

from the NSW ambo web site 2 x 412 classics and 2 x 412 EPs as the interim from May 2007. Then 4 x AW139's and an EC 145 progressively as acquired.

[sand blaster]

Whoaaaa there Sandblaster!

Ask all the questions you want but don't bring up the decling of a mission due to weather as something that has to be explained.

Treading on shaky ground there.

Oogle
You are very correct however I stand by my Question
4. How many times have missions been knocked back because of weather constraints?
This tender has been decided on the bases that Service capability is not at a level that is required for a modern fleet. The CEO Ambulance and I believe the Health minister have said that we need biger faster helicopter with longer range and better weather capabilities.

So my question is, what is the total number of missions that helicopters decline because of weather restraints. I am not saying that declining missions because of weather restraints is poor practice I would like to know if there is a need for larger bigger machines with longer capabilities enabling them to hold the fuel load for any given destination.

[irh]

sand blaster you are sounding very much like dr garry tall?

[medic001]

This has been really interesting reading. Where to start?
Well done CHC.
I watched the news reports last night about Mr X who had been involved in a motorcycle accident somewhere around Orange. He said that if careflight were not there then he would have lost his leg for sure. It's not the company that does this life saving (or leg saving) work, it's a combination of the medical staff on board and the profesionalism of the crew up front to be able to get the medical crew to the scene safely and efficiently. So Mr Badham - aren't CHC capable of doing this? you've said they're unsafe!
CHC holds the contracts in Vic, ACT, QLD and also in Wollongong along with RAAF SAR contracts throughout Australia. They've been in Australia for 30 odd years. Talk to the medical crew involved with these contracts and you will find they are very happy. From what I've heard from the guys and gals at Wollongong, they've never been happier.
The only change you are really going to see is a different work platform - better aircraft, safer aircraft, faster aircraft.
The Careflight Doctors are "cutting their nose off ..."
A single operator, uniformity across the board. You will be able to work on any aircraft and know that where equipment is, what equipment is used, procedures involved. You will more than likely still be working with the same aircrew that you have been working with for the past years.
The general public are being brainwashed into thinking that no one else is capable of doing the same job. Well, sorry to say this but there are other company's that can do it just as well as the Careflight and Westpac models.

[whitehawkup]

I believe CHC and CareFlight are both outstanding, capable and safe
providers. I believe sandblaster has completely lost it and someone needs
to balance his opinion!! And seeing a how he is gaggin for it....

Let me say a wee bit of research from Ambulance Website may have helped here
sand sprayer. Sandy said
"it is not about money. This is about service provision."

Ok lets forget the $70million dollar difference for the moment.. We can
overlook that. Lets look at service provision.

* How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been
without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.

Lovely false argument. Why should anyone compare the availability of a 50%
(or less) funded operation to the fully funded future one? How does that
help anyone understand? Why are you so fixated on this irrelevant issue?

* How long did it take the NGO's to provide the services that they were
contracted to?

Um let me think. Try 10 to 15 years BEFORE they were contracted they were
providing a service! Anyone around the world got an example of a commercial
provider doing same?
So what is your point?


* How many times have missions been knocked back because of weather
constraints?

Lets hear the facts rhetorical one. Can CHC operate to better weather
limits than the NGOs?
You then replied that "This tender has been decided on the bases that
Service capability is not at a level that is required for a modern fleet.
The CEO Ambulance and I believe the Health minister have said that we need
biger faster helicopter with longer range and better weather capabilities."

Lets state this very clearly for sandy, the CEO and the Minister. ALL
BIDDERS HAD TO BID ON SAME SOLUTION. So the answer the CEO and Minister
provides answers the question about why a tender was run, not why CHC were
successful.


* How many times have each helicopter been without winch capabilities

Ah, fully funded apples Vs partially funded oranges again. Fixation or
obsession?


* How many times have missions been compromised because of payload issues?

Once upon a time there was a B412 in the partially funded system that became
impossible to run on funding levels. Ambulance did not see any capacity
issues and did not provide funding commensurate with payload. B412 was
replaced by BK117. The 0.12% (fat patients over 140kg) had to wait for the
Newcastle machine, and now Wollongong 412.
Maybe ambulance valued the superior reliability of the 117 over the capacity
and cost of the 412 given they had one not far away in Newcastle and now
Wollongong.

Bit harsh to use the lack of 412 as a reason to get rid of the NGOs when
they had to get rid of one because of the ambulance funding isn't it?

* What were the current tender bids?
No idea. You?

And what did each NGO offer?

Well, a compliant bid would be required to get you to the table. Based on
ambulance website, that would be 4 X 139 and 1 X 145. it would be safe to
assume any NGO in the game would have a bid that ticked the very same boxes
that the commercials had to wouldn't it?

And when would the greater capability be available to the community.

I think you need to qualify "capability" and what you want to know in this
garbled multi point question.
According to the website there is an interim solution (what now to provide
until 139s on line) leading to the final solution (139/145).
The winner is providing some 412s (classics and an EP) from may 1. The NGO
are already in place, thus win the interim solution by 5 months.
In terms of capacity, the 0.12% of missions involving obese patients that
you seem to want to increase operating costs by heaps more than 60% partial
funded Bk v full funded 412) to cover could still be done by the 412s. Are
you obese perhaps?
Based on a previous post now deleted, an NGO would have the first 139 in
service 7 months ahead of the winner.

So we have ruled out money (NGO is $70M cheaper), we have ruled out end
state (all bidders had same solution, NGO 7 months quicker) and we have
ruled out interim solution (NGO 5 months quicker). Next argument
sandsprayer?

Maybe it is because they are the largest helicopter company in the world.
Hugely resourced, buckets of track record and experience, Depth an NGO can
only dream about. And in 10 years time when it pops up for renewal, the
competition will be????? Reminds me of mc hammer. "You cant touch this!"

I don't think CHC are in anyway not up to the task but lets not bash the NGO
opposition with such subjective rubbish - CHC can win it without your
slander and have done so.

[coolaroo]

I have been reading the discussion points and the nsw ambulance web site and careflight site.

I have come to the view that the NSW Govt has the people of NSW first in there mind to provide a greater service by expanding the service we have and the capacity of the current arragement with just one provider.

As in business having to deal with one provider would help everyone.
:ok:

[zoomcage]

Well done to CHC for winning the contract. The people of NSW can expect a fully functional, robust, safe helicopter service.
It’s a shame Careflight is resorting to propaganda in order to discredit the winning company. The only real outcome for Careflight if they continue this misinformation is the tarnishing of their name and service, which I might add is already questionable within the industry. The comments coming from Careflight management are ridiculous, unsubstantiated and wouldn’t stand up to any careful scrutiny.
I am pleased to read that the current crews with the various organisations within NSW will be offered employment with CHC. At least they will be paid appropriately and on time. I only encourage the crews to apply quickly.
:ok:

[Blades clear]

:D Congratulations to CHC Australia. Not that great canadian company across the pacific. I am sure the australian born and bred boys, not seal clubbers, will do a fantastic job, oh and just as safely and professionally as Careflight could ever provide.

Well done to the boys of careflight and westpac, you fliers have done a great job, pity your CEO is now mudslinging to save his behind and dragging all your hard work down to his level.

[PPRuNeUser0212]

"the NSW Govt has the people of NSW first in there mind" :ugh:
careful there coolaroo, big mistake to think politicians and public servants give a rat's about the tax payer. More likely what's in it for them?

[coupla beers]

.....unlike any mudslinging in here hey boys? :ok:

The spin puts warney to shame

MORE BEERS PLEASE GUV

[sunnywa]

Sandblaster,

After reading your rant (you do realise that bold in email speak is yelling don't you), I have come to the opinion that you have an axe to grind in this debate. As I said, service provision is the name of the game and if the NGO is doing a good job (and I haven't seen any stats to say they were poor providers), why change it when the other major factor is cost. If it was only a few bucks difference in cost, then okay. But when it is Millions (70 to 100 have been bandied about), something is up because the the government usually goes with the cheapest bid.

CHC are good operators and will do a good job, but the company is not in it for anything but the money. For example, the CHC Air Ambo in WA will cost the taxpayers of WA about 20Mill for 5 years, of which about 8 Mill is profit. At the end of it, the money is 'dead' with nothing to show. If I was a taxpayer in NSW, I would be asking questions about the money unnecessarily spent. As I can reasonably balance my pennies(or credit card), the best solution would be:

The NSW govt buy the new helicopters reqd outright and give them to Careflight and Westpac to operate. That way they own them, can do what they want, and can trade them in later for newer ones.
merge the infrastructure under one umbrella to minimise the duplication
Staff would remain in the organisation as now flying better aircraft with no profit going overseas.Holy cow batman, this just sounds like QES.

Thus sandblaster, I actually do get it and can stand back an judge with an impartial eye. Fly safe.

[Yikes]

Rob what exactly did you have in mind, ie Autohover/FLIR etc

[sand blaster]

Whitehawkup
You are right to put balance in this discussion a rumour forum needs balance, and at times I need anger management. Fundamentally I have an issue with the NGO method of doing business I have a great deal of respect for those individuals that form the air crews as all are professional in their actions and capabilities.

Media release Ministers office 8/12/06
CHC Australia has 37 years experience providing helicopter service in Australia, and made winning bid based on providing more aircraft, SOONER.

You asked why should anyone compare the availability of a 50% or less funded operation to the fully funded future one.
Did not the NGO model lobby the Government, last time round when they used political pressure to trow out CHC. In doing this they down graded the service requirements and the community have suffered with limited service ever since. The Government of the Time needs to be questioned as to why they let down the community with a second rate service that could not deliver what was required.

How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.
This is not an irrelevant argument as if you look at the example above then we will see that the NGO’s inhibited the system from having a fully funded system, with the contract penalties that would enforce compliance. So because of the charity mentality we have a helicopter system that fails the community and by placing the contract in their hands again we will continue to have limited capabilities in the future.

How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the service that they were contracted to?
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take Careflight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.

As far as why CHC was the winner, I don’t have the answer any one out there able to advise Whitehawkup of this?
I would suspect that by being able to provide greater capabilities in May, could be the reason but that is speculation on my part so confirmation would be reassuring.

Winch capabilities
Ah, fully funded apples Vs oranges again. Fixation or obsession.
Once again this gets back to fully funded and 50% funded. So again we get back to the question of a charity being able to provide what is required. THIS CONTRACT WAS CALLED FOR THE PROVISSION OF HELICOPTERS AND MAY BE, JUST MAYBE, THE GOVERNMENT WONTED TO ENSURE THAT SERVICE PROVISION WAS AVAILABE AND ACCOUNTABLE, so it may be because some of he oranges were rotten

As for the partially funded 412 at Careflight impossible to run on funding levels.
Did not Careflight convince the government of the day that NGO’s could provide the service required via donations and their charity management? They had a 412 at the commencement of the contract however because of poor accounting, Tax implications or down right stupidity they sold the 412. Careflight tended and lost the last EMS contract, they then lobbied the government and overturned the decision and then complain because they f**ked up the costs required.
If this applies to this future contract the Greater Sydney area will be flying around in squirrels.

CHC is said to be contracted as of MAY to provide 4 x 412’s for its interim measure, is this not now immediately increasing the range, lift and weather capabilities of the current fleet

AW 139 would arrive seven months before CHC, I find it difficult to believe that a NGO could have grater bidding power that CHC when it comes to aircraft acquisition. If this was true and I doubt that it is, we are only talking about one aircraft. So how long would it be before the community receives any change in SERVICE?

CHC has been awarded the contract because they can provide the helicopters required. I would assume that the GOVERNMENT IS COMING IN LINE WITH OTHER STATES (SA, VIC, and QLD) BY PROVIDING ACCOUNTABLE CONTRACTS THAT CAN DELIVER SERVICES WHEN REQUIRED.

We talk slander, well facts are facts and if you won’t slander and miss-truths read the papers and watch the news and don’t forget to log onto the Careflight web site. Anyone would think that there is no other helicopter rescue services in Australia, Careflight failure is that they believe the b*** S*** that they are preaching. As for Doctors well resign Well get on with it. I am sure that the community will cope without them.

Whitehawkup
I fail to see anything that I have stated that has not been available by printed or available via electronic media. So thanks for the reply

[Blades clear]

Im guessing its just sour grapes over loosing the tender. But what gives careflight the right to the monopoly over EMS operations within NSW just because they have done it for the last however many years.

Im sure their record is nothing like it states on the website, and how many times can you make statistics look good with only half the information passed to the public.

[sagy34]

Beside supplying a clapped out 412 to a CHP, what other contract has CHC got in QLD???

:confused:

[sea breeze]

Yes sunnywa has a point you have been a bit loud with your headings Sandblaster (in chat room talk) just drop the big headings and keep the content coming. In regards to Careflight and the selling of the 412, I do recall hearing about a large taxation issue at the time something to do with the way they paid their doctors I also believe that there was a large fine attached.
Can anyone expand on this?

[helmet fire]

Most of you know where I work and who I am, so I can expect a bit of flak. However, I do have some organisational loyalty and I guess some of the above is really beginning to grate on me. I am not going to get into the who should win debate as the government are solely responsible for that and in case you hadn't noticed - have made their decision. But I would like to answer a few critics whom are really insulting both CareFlight and LifeSaver, and by extension, the people who work there.

Before I start, let me say that each organisation is different. Trying to classify the VFR NGOs in QLD as the same animal as LifeSaver or CareFlight is like comparing an B206 tourist operation to CHC. Lets keep the huge generalisations out of it and keep it a little fairer shall we?

The particular sting that gets up my nose is this:
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take CareFlight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.

I don't know your background Sandblaster, but please feel free to email me so I have a better understanding. I think the point white hawk was making was that the helicopters were provided free of charge 10 to 15 years before they were contracted, not what the system was like 10 to 15 years ago. What follows here is not a comparison of CHC V CareFlight, it is a reaction to the provocative statements you have made about the systems of NGOs.

Lets be clear about this: an NGO was solely responsible for:
a. introducing the helicopter to EMS in Australia.
b. introducing night capabilities to EMS in Australia.
c. introducing twins to EMS in Australia (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
d. introducing IFR to EMS (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
e. introducing GPS to EMS.
f. introducing GPS/NPA to the Australian aviation industry, and completing the design criteria that is now in use world wide. Westmead hospital was the first GPS/NPA in Australia, and one of the first in the world.
g. introducing trauma doctors and then paramedics to EMS helicopters.
h. founding member of the first integrated safety management system in Australia.
i. Supplying and supporting 5 out of the 6 members of the NVG Industry working group. CHC (until recently) supplied the sixth member.
j. Full motion simulator, integrated flight crew LOFT and CRM courses for EMS in Australia.

That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.

So next time you get paid to strap into your EMS IFR twin with GPS and NVG, or head off to Dubai for some sim training - throw some credit to those who helped make that possible for you instead of piling crap and spouting **** about the system that enabled it all, and more importantly, the people who went the extra yard to make it happen.

Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice.

Lastly, I did log into the CareFlight website. For those that want to it is
http://careflight.org/
Obviously I cannot comment, but you pointed out that it was full of lies. We are all waiting for examples.

CHC are a fine company who will do a good job and it is probably not just my opinion when I say that a few rants and raves on Pprune will not get the decision reversed! Nor will the points made on the CareFlight website.

But, if you think that writing provocative crap here is going to achieve anything but personal insult - you need a reality check.

[vpaw pilot]

Hi Jim,
Yes, VicPol conducted the CASA approved (and attended) NVG trial, though the NVG Industry working group has done a significant amount of recent work in this area. VPAW is not a member of this group, however I believe we were invited.
Just to clarify your post, Vic EMS helicopters, VPAW and CHC carry MICA Paramedics.
Cheers...
Greg - I feel your pain m8

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Jim I,
one report is the ASTB report into the 407 prang off Mackay a couple of years ago, you'll have to read the 100 odd page report on the web site to find the reference.

[helmet fire]

Thanks vpaw.

Jim, my comments re the VFR NGO were purely to expose the inaccuracies of generalisations and it was purposely meant not to pass any kind of comment on those organisations. It was quite clear to me that there were inferences from previous posts that these organisations were somehow proof that the NGOs were slow to innovate. I refute that.
I didnt know that Careflight had conducted a CASA approved trial of NVGs, i thought Vic Pol were the ones who did that.
I didn't know that either Jim, nor did I say it at any stage. Where on earth did you get that from????
VicPol, as vpaw points out, conducted the trial following more than 10 years of work by Mike Tavcar. Do a simple search here on Pprune for the report and all it's information. They should be (or already are) leading this industry out of the brail method and into Night Vision Ops.

[eagle 86]

I have resisted joining in this debate as so much crap is being spoken by Sandblaster et al about the NGO's - C/F in particular.
JI for your info:
C/F introduced SA365C in October 1988 - I did my initial MECIR 23 April 1990.
I've got 20 years experience in the Military (all three Australian Services plus three or four foreign ones!) and 20 years experience as a civvy - I've done just about everything you can do in a helicopter in and out. I can assure you outside of the Military, CareFlight has one of the tightest Check and Training systems going - equal to any in the world thanks to one man's drive only - the Chief Pilot of the last 20 years.
Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second.
GAGS
E86

[NASUS]

Helmet Fire I substantially agree with your comments above....NGO EMS operators, such as, NRMA Careflight and Surf Life Saver in the NSW area have in the past 15 years certainly contributed to making HEMS more professional by introducing ME IFR 24/7 ops...as it should be. I hope that the majority of the HEMS crew in the Sydney area will continue to be employed by the new contractor as your expertise will be hard to replace.

As to IFR HEMS...I believe that on 01 July 1986 Vic Pol (other than NSCA) commenced operating a dedicated IFR EMS helo on an ambulance MOU with the Vic Health Commission. That is they were operating 24/7 IFR EMS over 20 years ago before any NGO started 24/7 IFR EMS.....I stand to be corrected of course, anyone?

[robsrich]

As past owner/editor of Heli-News for 18 years, and past HAA President for three years, I have watched you all grow and mature over three decades. I would like to say thank you here to all those who have brought us to where we are today.

Change does cause pain – there is a training industry explaining why it is so.

I was part of the many Queensland changes; my first experience was as a base manager of an SES Base in Cairns. We had a host of SES volunteers, who gave so much and did so well. They were progressively replaced by professionals, and as we moved up the political chain (to higher HQ) we seemed to lose that closeness with the community. That does not mean we did not get better, we did with new equipment and training based on the mistakes of the past; but that contact with the coal face was a great sounding board for ideas; and sometimes brought us back to reality; as any bureaucrat knows when stepping away for the city office and spending time in the bush during a crisis.

It is sad when change means booting out old traditions and many famous names become faded history with the passing of time; as new people, new owners and different client expectations drive what appears to be a successful system into oblivion.

All the best and well done to those who set the foundations of our industry.

You know who you are - so have a beer on your past efforts.

In conclusion, today’s news says a formal bid for QANTAS has been made by a consortium (overseas?).

Nothing is sacred? Who now owns Vegemite?

[helmet fire]

Quite right NASUS.
It's funny, I was teetering on the edge of changing NGO to non commercial, and I guess I should have! What I meant to highlight in my response was that innovation has seldom come from the private sector in spite of the attacks on this thread. And before I get shot down, seldom does not mean never.

NOR do I mean to infer that private sector operators are not innovative - after all I have spent some years doing just that! Its just that private sector providers have to convince each client to pay for the innovation without a tangible return in most cases. On the other hand, a public sector provider can often fund the innovation despite the "client" and thus demonstrate by example why it was necessary.

[NASUS]

Helmet Fire you are quite right! Don't expect innovation to generate from a contractor who will only do what they are contrated to do so. Anything more will eat into their profit margin and lets face it a commercial operator is primarily interested in maximising their profit. Of course if the client wants to do something innovative with the contractor's aircraft the contractor is only to happy to oblige but at their price and terms. The price can be high enough to make you think twice about continuing on with the idea.

Innovation usually comes from the non-commercial organisations, such as, government and NGO's and as I said above, if through a contractor, it will come at a hefty price tag as contractually it is usually not possible to obtain other quotes for work to be done on 'their' aircraft. Not owning your own aircraft can make things difficult if not contractually tied up before hand.

[vpaw pilot]

Speaking from experience, Nasus?:suspect:

[NASUS]

Speaking from experience, Nasus?:suspect:

Of course!! present experience in fact:{

[someplace]

I for one am getting sick of hearing statements coming out of NSW EMS operators ( careflight inparticular) about the reduction of safety there will be in the new operation.

The people at the coal face will be australian and CHC's check and training program has worked well up untill now so why would it be expected to fail because of one new contract.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAGGING SAFETY ARE BAGGING AUSTRALIAN PILOTS AND CREW!

If these people think no one can do the job as well or better than them then maybe the industry is better off without them.

Good performance = job security, especially for companies!

[robsrich]

My previous comment about who owns Vegemite?

QANTAS board today accepted offer from a group that includes Canadian and Texan interests.

Bye bye red kangaroo.......

[eagle 86]

SP.
Mackay 03?
GAGS
E86

[helmet fire]

someplace,
I understand your frustration and emotion, these are very emotive times. A lot of crap will be said on both sides of the fence - but as I tried to say above, lets not personalise it here on a "Professional" bulletin site - lets leave that for the spin doctors.

I am obviously NOT speaking for CareFlight at all, I am speaking from a purely personal standpoint. It appears that CareFlight have not attacked CHC, and CHC have not attacked CareFlight - that sort of stuff has only happened here and I could categorically say that NONE of it has been sanctioned by either organisation. A quick review of this thread reveals a continued attack on CareFlight, and barely a personalised comment on CHC personnel beyond stating they are a multi national.

So I can only assume you are drawing your inferences from that most accurate source of all - the media.

The safety concerns voiced by the doctor group are actually related to the differences between a commercial arrangement where different crew members answer to different managements V an integrated model where all members operate under one system.
NOT CHC V CAREFLIGHT.
NO ISSUE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF CHC CREWMEMBERS OR THEIR ABILITIES HAS EVER BEEN EXPRESSED BY CAREFLIGHT. Or anyone anywhere in this thread BTW.

It has only been whipped up by these sorts of emotions.
At the end of every tender process like this there are winners and losers, and it would be fair to say that a majority of losers will question the tender process and system if a loss threatens their very existance. The larger the threat to their existance, the harder the fight: human nature!

That process is especially reasonable in any democratic system such as ours where government awards such large contracts, and we in the industry have seen it time and again (Canadian Cormorant, Australian ARH, etc, etc, etc).

Such process is no reason to emotively attack the loser, rather it is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate the logic, sound basis, and integrity of the outcome, and thus demonstrate to the governed population that they are acting in the best interests of those who elected them. Losers have a right to process integrity.

I am convinced that the NSW Government have forseen and prepared for the reactions, and will now begin demonstrating the integrity of their decision.

I'd say that it is unlikely that their process of review and justification will involve any of the crap we write here on the 'prune. As I said before, all we will achieve is personal insult.

[sand blaster]

Helmet Fire
Did NGO’s lead the way in the development of the EMS System; well of course yes, it was the NGO that commenced the first helicopter rescue service in Australia.

Did NGO’s lead the way or did the customer provide the pathway for these operators to follow as the customers required changed. As other systems in other states evolved, so did the evolution of NSW EMS helicopter system? The customer required machines that could transport the rescue crews that they deemed to be appropriate for the task; this was also influenced by equipment requirements and other requirements, as did the capability to provide services during nocturnal hours. So yes NSW NGO’s were at the forefront of this change process however to make a bold statement that they were responsible for this change could be strongly argued. I would say that it was a joint venture, would this change have occurred if a commercial operator was involved? who knows, however if a customer contracts a company to provide services then generally that service is provided or the contract is breached. Although I never did make a statement that NGO’s never made change during their involvement. I did make a statement How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the services that they were contracted to?


An example of this could be IFR,as highlighted in earlier posts by FATRAT he implied that Westpac were slow in providing single pilot IFR, and we all know about Careflights poor IFR record of availability.


As for the slander attack on Careflight and Westpac, well I do not apologise, although I don’t believe it to be slander at all I see it as adjusting the misleading information provided by the spin machine. In earlier posts I predicted the media and political manipulation that would occur if a commercial operator were selected. If you go back to the prior contract tender the NGO’s were ruthless in their attack on Lloyds helicopter. Careflight is an animal that is on a rampage; they have prostituted themselves and will undertake any smear campaign to survive so I do not apologise for aggressively attacking their propaganda.

Apologies, I have used the world Careflight and Westpac in describing these companies and yes sadly this has probably placed dispersions on the capabilities of the individuals that fly on these aircraft. I express my apologies to those crew that have taken my posts as an attack on the individual capability and professionalism. When I have used the terms Westpac and Careflight they have been directed towards the management that has let these individuals down.

I have never singled out any individual or individual groups within these organizations. I am not in a position to assess the credibility of individuals or the job role that they perform, however I do certainly question the ethics of the organizations that they work for and question the ethic and there suitability for charity status.

Careflight I believe should be investigated for the content of their media releases and their alignment with certain political members. The politicians that have been lobbying for them over the loss of this tender process need to be exposed and their suitability to hold a political office needs to be questioned. (Media boys out there, this would make a sensational story.) If careflight were a listed company would there not be an investigation into the misleading information provided to their stockholders and the market place.

In closing Helmet fire, I suggest that you have another look at both the Careflight and NSW ambulance website, and really assess who is correct. Someone is lying, if this is the NSW Ambulance Service then swift and server action is required to sever the individual’s responsible. If it is Careflight then the Public deserve the truth to be replicated on the Careflight website and an official investigation into there suitability to maintain their charitable status.

Eagle 86
As I said above I have never question any individual CAPABILITY although I can see how these guys would see this. I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN HOWEVER HIS REPUTATION AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES as do the actions of all these aviators involved.

Stay SAFE and good luck in the future.

[someplace]

eagle 86 - yes I do remember Mackay and it was very sad. The QLD Gov recognised it's contractual short falls and have addressed them in a very responsible way. Trot back through NSW SAR/EMS history and you will find it hasn't been all peaches and cream.

Helmet Fire - any statement that preaches a reduction of safety due to a new operator is an attack on the aircrew. People in the NGO's are premoting this line on national TV and national talk back radio as often as they can. They are not afraid of having to answer to different management they are afraid of having to answer to ANYONE because they have built these empire's and do not want their kingdoms to crumble.

NGO's have done a great job in the past but the decision is in - STOP SLAGGING AUSTRALIAN AIRCREW.

[Oogle]

Sandy

When I read your posts it is like I am in the Willy Wonka movie - as you go down the page everything gets smaller!:uhoh:

[sand blaster]

Sorry for that have a marshmellow on me.

[PPRuNeUser0212]

"yes I do remember Mackay and it was very sad. The QLD Gov recognised it's contractual short falls and have addressed them in a very responsible way. "

Someplace,
I don't think the QLD gov has done much, you might find that in Mackay there are still 4 organisations flying in the one machine. CHC Helicopters (Australia) supplies machines, pilot and engineer, CQRESQ supplies crewman and admin, QLD Ambulance the Paramedic and RACQ CareFlight the doctor.
I do hope they are all on the one page, but as there is a government organisation involved I doubt it.

[splot123]

In recent years CareFlight have reportedly been receiving approximately AUD$190K/mth to provide a single-pilot IFR BK117 on 24 hour operations at Westmead, and a 10-hour per day A119 Koala in Orange. From 1995 to 2003 CareFlight provided a Bell 412HP (with EP engine performance) instead of the BK117. The current funding comprises about 30% of the total cost of running CareFlight. Rumour has it that CHC are charging about $180K /mth for one B412 in Wollongong on day-only operations, although I am not sure of the arrangements for flying hour charges.

The above funding for CareFlight does not include any flying hour charges until 600 hours have been flown. After that CareFlight are apparently entitled to charge about $1500/hr for the BK117 (previously Bell412), and $450/hr for the A119 Koala. By any measure these hourly charges are lean for these aircraft.

CareFlight, at times, have been unable to provide a back-up aircraft during maintenance, but some could argue that that is the price Ambulance have had to pay for such a discounted operation. What aircraft, spare aircraft and crew would CHC provide in Wollongong for $60K/mth?? If NSW Ambulance had been willing, over the last 10 years, to pay CareFlight what they pay CHC Wollongong I imagine the practicalities of having a back-up aircraft becomes easier.

CareFlight did have an extended period of not being single-pilot IFR. They had leased their Kawasaki BK117 on the understanding that it was single-pilot IFR, and it had been working as a single-pilot IFR aircraft on a number of previous contracts. Is it the fault of CareFlight that the aircraft turned out to have retreating blade stall problems due to Kawasaki not applying the same Vne, or maximum collective stop maintenance procedures, as are applied by Eurocopter for their BK117s? Some could say that CareFlight should be congratulated on identifying a world-wide fleet problem that Kawasaki have now sought to rectify (and was published in CASA Flight Safety magazine). I guess this does demonstrate lack of depth, but what do you expect for minimal funding. How many other operators would have suffered the cost in time, effort, and reputation to fix this problem? Or would they have lived with the occasional exciting occurrence and continued on regardless? CareFlight had the option to ignore it, and keep providing the “service” or to play it safe and fix it.

On to the recent tender: CareFlight apparently provided the Ambulance Service with a bid option which included the same aircraft as CHC, so rumours about a better equipped service seem unfounded. I imagine the increased funding levels all around will ensure that a dedicated spare aircraft is available at all times. The value of the CareFlight bid included over $50-$100 mill (depending who you believe) worth of guaranteed corporate sponsorship, which is likely to make it significantly less than the reported $230 mill total price being offered by CHC. No doubt other sectors of NSW Health could do with that $50 mill.

Apparently CareFlight also expressed some interest in sourcing the A109S Grand for operations in Sydney. This makes sense if you consider that the majority of their missions are probably within 80nm of Sydney, which quick calculations indicate can be done (out and back) by the Grand with IFR reserves plus 30 min holding fuel. No doubt this option would have brought the price down again as it would be a lot cheaper to run a Grand than an AW139. Such an aircraft would also allow operations into urban landing sites without on-ground support (this is currently being done using the CareFlight Head Injury Retrieval Trial A109E, and is the method used by London HEMS, German ADAC and many others). Having only large aircraft in Sydney will effectively eliminate these options.

EMS NGOs are often only able to raise sufficient funds to provide a bare bones service. This is evidenced all over Australia (and the world), and often results in aircraft and crews being pushed beyond their limits in order to fulfil a very challenging role. However, for many years CareFlight has provided a service over and above any contract or CASA minimums because they have both the will, and the fund-raising support to do so. This will be lost under a commercial contract because profit imperatives will never allow more money to be spent than is provided by the client. Examples of where CareFlight have gone the extra mile purely because the Chief Pilot decreed it, and because management supported it, include:
1. Transition to a single-pilot IFR Dauphin in 1988 when the requirement was only for VFR aircraft.
2. Moves to a Bell 412HP in 1995 when the contract only called for a BK117 standard of aircraft. Replacement of this with the BK117 in 2003 only came about because of financial pressure and Ambulance refusal to fund such a capable aircraft. Funny that one year later they were willing to fund a Bell 412 in Wollongong at a much higher price.
3. Dedicated IFR training flights every 90 days, regardless of IFR currency in the course of jobs.
4. Introduction of flight simulator training in 1995 leading to the use of CareFlight sim instructors, LOFT scenarios, and a local NSW database in 1999. This training always included the other front seat crewmember, the aircrewman. Such training has never been contracted.
5. Establishment of a rapid response helicopter as part of the Head Injury Retrieval Trial (HIRT) using a A109E Power. This was done without any support from Ambulance Service, but with full corporate funding. CareFlight are even required to pay the salaries of the Ambulance Service paramedics working on the helicopter!!
6. Establishment of the helipads.org website for the benefit of all NSW EMS operators. Ironically, CHC in Canberra embraced this!
7. Founding member of the Aviation Safety Network, a consortium of HEMS providers focusing on a fully integrated safety management system.

In the end it will be a crying shame for the NSW tax-payer, and for the aviation industry, if a progressive and innovative organisation like CareFlight are forced to close their doors. Apart from NVGs in the next year, there would have been many other things CareFlight could have added to industry standards and professionalism over the next ten years. Although CHC will do a solid job they will never seek the constant improvements that an adequately supported NGO can achieve for a lot less money.

With sadness!!

SPLOT

[topendtorque]

HF :- "That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.

Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice."

Necessity is the mother of all invention; look at the civvy invented particle separators as just one example. It’s ‘the bottom line’ which is relatively unique to commercial ops that is the main driver for and creates more “necessity” than most service people ever hear about.

Apart from that, I figured that I was reading a commendation for a unit citation, then as helmets second sentence in his quote above approached I caught sight of the number ten redwings all set to sink the boot in.
Then I figured well really the whole episode is just another OZ saga that we are sooooo good at. Cutting down the tall poppy! No discussion, no counselling, no revision of changed market demands, perceived or real, just kick-em-fair-in-the-guts.


eagle86:- "Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second."

With respect there mate, just a bit of a long bow here with this statement.


splot123
your posts seem to come and go a bit, perhaps they need farming in a different environmet, and around the sometimes used word "expectations"
Cheers Tet

[someplace]

LHS - Check QLD Gov's policy on night VFR and who's paying for it.

[helmet fire]

Someplace says:any statement that preaches a reduction of safety due to a new operator is an attack on the aircrew
what I said earlier was: The safety concerns voiced by the doctor group are actually related to the differences between a commercial arrangement where different crew members answer to different managements V an integrated model where all members operate under one system.

That is the extent of the comments by the doctors. It is a comment on management structures alone and it has nothing to do with aircrew. Nor CHC.

Please stop drawing other inferences and stirring the debate up.

[someplace]

HF - It doesn't matter what the management structure is, the fact is the new contractor will be adhearing to the same maintanence and flight rules and reg's as everyone else in this country and the safety of the operation will come down to check and training and the companys attitude.

Like I said before the problem is not answering to different management groups it is having to answer to anyone at all.

The doctor group are promoting that line so people will listen to them, make no mistake they are being supported, driven and advised by more than just doctors, there are a whole range of people trying to protect there jobs. I have full confidence the doctors could do just as good if not a better job in a CHC machine as they are doing now if only they would give it a go with the right attitude.

Grab a hard hat - the empire is coming down!

[PPRuNeUser0212]

As a past employee of CHC I know that the service provided will be top notch, however the same can't be said of NSW Health and Ambulance, they seem to have blown their bolt and spent all the dollars on the new machines and now have to go cap in hand to the public to pay for doctors and the medical gear to actually carry a patient.
Does that mean our state taxes become tax deductable as a donation?

I'd also like to see a 412 go faster and further than a Koala or Power.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Jim Irwin ... VH-AAL the "Angel of Mercy" also met its end at the hands of the politicians .... with perhaps a bit of help from the Vic Pol Airwing which re-established itself in the very early eighties and needed more for its pilots to do ????? (not to mention the very very very close ties that VicPol had with NSCA at the time!).


LHS ... perhaps the 412 though not as fast might carry more and remain servicable longer than the 109/119 ??

Cheers :E

[Sundance76]

Is it true..... Care-flight's contract is being terminated at the end of December 2006, while Westpac continues until CHC contract commencement in April 2007.....
Anyone know the facts?
Surely all you guys havnt gone on Christmas break already... its not even on the front page anymore....

[sand blaster]

Just for you Sundance76
Now we all know that I have been relentless in my questioning of Careflight Management and the method that they do business, however Mr Badham is now living in a world of fantasy have a read of some statements that he has made in media reports that are viewable on the Careflight web site.
Ambulance, police, fire and two rescue helicopters were alerted to the crash west of Wombeyan Caves just before 5 pm.
The mission was conducted by one of the CareFlight doctors who has been rejected from future support of patients by the State Government’s decision to axe CareFlight.
The State Government doesn’t want to continue the world best integrated medical-aviation crew system that CareFlight has pioneered in Australia – and which is regarded internationally as the best way to prevent crashes during difficult rescue missions when close crew teamwork is essential. Ian Badham Sunday, 17th December 2006, 8:30pm
"This attack by Ambulance Service of NSW has not only the potential to kill CareFlight but will see the costs of Compulsory Third Party Insurance and the long term health costs of caring for patients with severe head injuries blow out as patients are left without this live saving service. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 1:46pm
Opposition Leader Peter Debnam said Liberal and National party candidates have launched a state-wide petition to save the NRMA CareFlight and Westpac Lifesaver helicopters. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 11:54am

Questions
· Who Alerted the helicopters of the accident?
· Why is this Doctor rejected from future support by the Government?
· Don’t other helicopter rescue services throughout Australia, Canada and other parts of the world work closely together? Or are they all inferior?
· How in the hell is Compulsory third party green slips related to the helicopter contract.
· How much do the Liberal and National party Know?
· Who’s helicopter was on the accident site with Careflight? And what did they do? Were they safe or did they crash?

Fact
All doctors including the Careflight doctors have the opportunity to work on the CHC Australia helicopters. In NSW, on any given day Careflight provides two doctors out of a total of nine doctors on helicopters. We hope these doctors will work with us but if they don’t we have experienced medical retrieval doctors who have indicated they want to join the new helicopter service. Services to the community of NSW will not be compromised. In addition the crew, pilots and engineers of the current operators have the opportunity to move across to work as part of CHC Australia. http://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/areas/ambulance/docs/061213helicopter.pdf

Like I have said before someone has been lying and the stories are getting better all the time. Is it Ambulance or is it Careflight?
What of NRMA’s role in this, are they condoning this lying and false reporting to the public can NRMA be trusted. Change your insurance provider as NRMA Green slips are rising get a cheaper quote use your money to protest against this increase, or is it the empire of Careflight that has hood-winked us all for so long. What of the politicians supporting Careflight, Mr Debnam will this blow up in his face we know the opposition health minister talks to her Care-Bears for policy advice but Mr Debnam have you investigated this at all? Sounds like policy on the run. I only hope that you get professional advice before you make any other decisions in regards to NSW future.
As for the rest of the EMS crews out there don’t take the insults that are being handed out by the management of Careflight to heart and please don’t take it out on the air Crews they have to put up with this B*ll S**t personally. However, feel free to write your objections to NRMA Careflight Management.

At least Westpac boys (management) are demonstrating public spirit and professionalism if todays paper is to be believed, anyone know if the air crew communicate with their doctor and ambulance officers on mission? Or CHC do they work as a team?

Must go, cricket to watch. :ok:

[topendtorque]

Must go, cricket to watch. :ok:

so Sandgroper, in line with your arguments that get smaller as your endless page unrolls, or was that the writing? I'll state the bleeding obvious and ask, did you enjoy seeing the Christians being carved up by the Gladiators today?

I haven't seen from your good self any thread of sympathy for quite some displaced staff eastside that will need some assistance to re-adjust when it is found that next year the market is for fat cows, not skinny ones, or is that fat cats?

Just for you I'll pass on an adage from a politician, it's goes like this.
'never take any notice of your constituents unless they present you with a petition signed by 50,000 of em.'

I happened to be sent one such petition this am, and yeah you'll have to guess how many, but there's quite some signatures on it.
Taa taa now
tet

[sea breeze]

Other helicopter on the location was rescue 25 out of Albion Park. I hear that they were the first on location.

[Sundance76]

Sand blaster
Just for you Sundance76 ...Not sure what was in your post for me..... didn’t answer any of my questions... rather seemed like a general rant...
My question was Is it true..... Care-flight's contract is being terminated at the end of December 2006, while Westpac continues until CHC contract commencement in April 2007.....Anyone know the facts?
Why not compromise :confused:
NSW Ambulance contract CHC airframes and engineering, and Careflight and Wetpac operate them...

Provides greater control measures Ambo's seem to be looking for
Provides profits CHC looking for (Airframes and Engineering)
Allows Careflgiht and Westpac to continue... Albeit with greater control by Ambo's
Provides improved Capability and Control of NGO's Ambo's are looking for....
Provides Ambo's access to sponsors and fundraising to reduce overall costs....
NSW Public recieve same service offerred by CHC, but without public outcry....
Everyone happy...Similar arrangement (except fundraising) seems to operate effectively for the Vic Police (I think)….
Is this not Logical??? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
:ok:

[disappointment]

It is official, CHC has distributed letters of employment to existing staff at the greater sydney service. It states that there is a special streamlined process for existing employees of current providers. I am pissed off my management, Ive done the right thing by them and they did not pass this on I recieved a copy from a mate. So much for our current management looking after us they can get you know what.

[eagle 86]

disappointment,
You can always get off your @rse, show some initiative and get in first - or do you want a free ride?
GAGS
E86

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Jim,
is ok for furtherment if you are a crewie under 30, bit hard for some of us older fella's trying to keep up with CHC's down the wire fitness standard so they can send you to whatever contract requires people. Poor ol Chief found that one out. Pilots ok they can get fat and old and zoom around Nigeria. Engineers week/fortnight/month on and off in who knows where this week? whoo hoo

Dissappointment,
hear hear E86, it's up to you to look after number 1, don't expect a free ride in this industry. There are better places to work than the sewers of sydney, especially if you are in 412's scrounged out of the deserts of Arizona. Good Luck

It's a life style choice, work to live not live to work and I for one would prefer the community based set up, less stress and no hassles trying to get your pay sorted out by someone thousands of kilometres away and is rewarding when the ex patients come in for a chat. Go for the big bucks fella's but as a wise old crewie told me years ago "You won't get rich doing this job, you do it because you enjoy it."

[trend check]

LHS.
You are a F$#&K Wit! I hope I never have a squeezer like you on my crew.
Step up mate. If your going to use the 'Chief' in your spray, then you better have your S*#t in a pile. It's a fine line your walking.
The fitness tests are created so the down the wire guys can do their job, and help the public. Not pamper your sorry arse.

[eagle 86]

tc,
When I read your profile I couldn't believe that you were only 6 - but you have now convinced me that you truly are only 6!!
GAGS
E86

[PPRuNeUser0212]

Trend Check,
thankyou for your comments and suggest you read my post a little more carefully before beating your chest. That's what I said, CHC have their fitness test, so that everyone can be used as DTW crew as required. Been there and done that and yes thankyou again, my ****e is in one very neat pile.
Now if your's was organised you would know "Chief" was a moving force in trying to get the test modified for the older type crewman as you may find out one day if stay with the job. He had a long conversation about it with my Father one day a while ago. Unfortunately the company isn't interested in changing it and that for me means I'm not interested in being employed by them again and will move on to the next thing.
I have only the highest regard for the blokes that go down the wire, but for me those days are past, only want to drive the winch these days and keep an eye on the pilots.
Hopefully I have stepped up far enough for you and once again thanks for your comments but I won't take them on board and thanks for your concern but my arse has now healed and doing well enough that I can do my job.

LHS

[sea breeze]

Trend check
You were a bit harsh on LHS, being christmass and all. What is the issue with the Physical? what does a CHC crew Physical involve, surely they have crew over thirty.

Anyway best wishes to all over the holiday period and LHS best of luck with your future.

[sagy34]

LHS.
You are a F$#&K Wit! I hope I never have a squeezer like you on my crew.
Step up mate. If your going to use the 'Chief' in your spray, then you better have your S*#t in a pile. It's a fine line your walking.
The fitness tests are created so the down the wire guys can do their job, and help the public. Not pamper your sorry arse.

Well, Well, Well!!!!!

Get a grip fool:ugh: and read the post before you reply. That way you may be able to not make yourself out to be not as big a ****** than you already seem to be:ok:

Down the wire and winch op are two totally different jobs:hmm:

[PPRuNeUser0212]

sea breeze,
thanks for the good wishes, looks like they will be needed, was announced today that a "compromise" had been reached between NSW Gov and CareFlight (not sure about Life Saver), looks like the doctors, some office staff and HIRT crews are safe, the rest thanks for coming your on your own. Things will continue as before until end of April when CHC machines take over.
Was a few years ago that I did a CHC Australia Aircrewman fitness test, if I recall rightly (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong) it was, not in any order:
8 chin ups, 40 push ups, 50 sit ups, 3 km run in 15 minutes, 700 mt swim in 20 mins, 10 min treading water and 2 to 3 mt duck dive, then into wet suit and fins and 300 mts on back. I look up to the blokes over 40 who can still do this easily as I ain't one of them. :ouch:

All the best for 2007 to all the Rotorheads :ok:

[eagle 86]

Gentlemen (I use the term loosely when referring to some correspondents!) here is the deal.
CareFlight came last in the tendering process - the reason - bidders were allowed compliant and non-compliant bids. Compliant bids were purely commercial and allowed no sponsorship - CareFlight could not compete here with large multi nationals. Here's the rub though - in order to get your non-compliant bid looked at you first had to win with a compliant bid!
CareFlight's non-compliant, heavily sponsored bid is the one that would have saved the NSW taxpayers 100 plus million dollars over the life of the contract.
Another rub - unbeknowns to the bidders, there was a "Governance" committee which oversaw the Tender Evaluation Committee, all the hard decisions were referred to the "Governance" committee for resolution - alledgedly one member of the "Governance" committee was the CEO of NSW Ambulance.
It is rumoured that more than one member of the Tender Evaluation Committee was unhappy with the outcome.
Where to now for NSW Health - having bitten off financially more than they could chew they had to secure CareFlight's fundraising to help pay for their new toy's. To the p!ss takers - yes the chocolate wheels and chook raffles are back! To suck up to CareFlight they promised that HIRT could continue - indeed even expand to two machines and that CHC helicopters would prominently display "NRMA CareFlight" logos. Note this is politicians making promises not Ambulance or CHC!
The logic of this astounds me - if it is true that Ambulance wanted to get rid of the burr under the saddle that was CareFlight - how in the wide world would they sanction a privately funded, self responding helicopter service that is going to arrived rapidly to all primaries like a knight on a white charger saying "get out of the way we are here to help" - I don't think so! HIRT is a "trial" at some stage the results will be evaluated and if not satisfactory the plug will be pulled.
Already there are indications that CareFlight fundraisers (unfortunately the best ones) are going to pull the pin - it will be hard to raise funds, particularly in rural areas, to support doctors.
Don't believe Not So, Novel and Lambrain they are only parroting scripts given to them by their bureaucratic masters.
I would suggest that overall CHC and CareFlight's aviation standards are neck and neck with CareFlight winning by a nose on the line.
The system that NSW is going to get will not be as good as CareFlight could have provided when looked at from a medical point of view and will cost the taxpayer, involuntarily, a lot more.
How any rational person can say that the process gave everyone a fair go is beyond me - to quote The Castle "Son, tell him he's dreamin'"
Here endeth the lesson.
GAGS
E86
PS I am an aviation whore - I will consider any offer CHC makes to me.

[topendtorque]

Another rub - unbeknowns to the bidders, there was a "Governance" committee which oversaw the Tender Evaluation Committee, all the hard decisions were referred to the "Governance" committee for resolution - alledgedly one member of the "Governance" committee was the CEO of NSW Ambulance.

and that CHC helicopters would prominently display "NRMA CareFlight" logos. Note this is politicians making promises not Ambulance or CHC!


E86
I must say, I checked your scribe this am and the revelations surprised me so much that i nearly spilt my morning brew! ~poor show.

There seems plenty more ammunition for "interested" parties to crawl around investigating, e.g. where in the state tendering legislation does the "governance" committee fits and, their capacity to "resolve" things?

As for logos of a trampled company being carried around by the victor, someone must be joking.

An ambo you say, a senior one I guess for sure, but still one who goes home from a secure salaried job, no constituents to vote him out, no bank manager or share holders to answer to, what on earth would he be there for?
sounds like that idiot decision years ago when the fat cats decided that Nomads were good for us, without one opinion from a professional aviator in the commercial field.

i must say, 'an extra 100 million wasted' will roll off the tongue very easily in the lead up to the election for those who wish to use it.

Poor old sandy hasn't figured out the last political adage that i gave him yet so I'll spill the next one, goes like this,
'when constituents start to vote with their feet, always double the outcome expected!'

See how long it takes for him to work that one out.

me thinks the old fat lady is winding up for a big sing- sing. ~poor show all round~ have fun you guys:confused:

[Gymble]

It’s all good fun until someone loses an eye.

Cold meat and salad for the lot of you!

Gymble.

[robsrich]

The Australain Newspaper, Friday 29 December 2006 on page 3 (Second edition - Queensland).

Pilots
Engineers - engine, airframe and avionics.
Aicrewpersons.

"Due to significant expansion within NSW, CHC Helicopters (Ausyralia) is looking for full time permanent Captains, Engineers and Aircrew.

If anyone needs a scanned copy please PM.

Best of luck!

[robsrich]

Further to above, current advertisement at 29 Dec '06 is as follows. (No need to PM - copy with specs is here):

CHC Helicopters - Australia

HELICOPTER PILOTS, ENGINEERS and
AIRCREW PERSONS

CHC is Australia's largest operator of civil helicopters services and provides EMS, SAR and Offshore helicopter support operations throughout Australia. Due to our recent contract success with the Ambulance Service of New South Wales In the Sydney and Orange areas, applications
are now invited from suitably qualified personnel to fill these new positions. CHC offers:

> The latest generation aircraft, equipment and technology
> Secure, long term employment
> A wide variety of interesting and challenging work
> Excellent working conditions and lifestyle opportunities
> Opportunities for further development

Pilots (CHC244) - qualifications required for these Command positions are:

Previous EMS experience in multi engine aircraft
Competent flying skills in IFR operations
ATPL(H) and Aviation Medical Class 1
Command Instrument Rating with 3 renewals
2,500 hrs helicopter. 2,000 hrs PIC helicopter, 500 hrs PIC (ME) and 1500 hrs PIC turbine engine helicopters

Engineers - Engline/Airframe/Avionics (CHC245) - qualifications required for engineers are:

• Prefer CASA Group 20 Helicopter LAME licence
• Extensive field experience, have a proven ability to plan and carry out line maintenance, base maintenance and modifications
• Proven ability to be flexible and work unsupervised

Aircrew (CHC246) - minimum qualifications required for aircrew persons are:

• Qualified Air crewperson in helicopter SAR/EMS operations with 500 hours experience
• Senior First Aid Certificate and HUET
• CAO 29:11 Certificate of Competency
• Class 2 CASA Medical Certificate
• SLSA “Bronze Medallion" or equivalent

If you are looking to expand your career and you have:

• Previous or current experience in helicopter EMS operations
• The ability to report to work within one hour of Bankstown or Orange Bases
• Strong interpersonal, written and oral communication skills
• The ability to work as an elective member of a highly professional organisation
• The aptitude to comprehend and apply technical instruction

E-mail your application today, outlining how your skills and experience meet the minimum requirements set out above, to our Human Resources Coordinator at [email protected]

Please state in the subject line which position you are applying for.

Please note that applications without the required qualifications will not be considered although relevant military experience will be taken Into consideration.

CHC Helicopters (Australia) is an Equal Opportunity Employer

[helopat]

If CHC are taking on the pilots from Careflight Sydney and Orange, and SLSA Sydney why are they currently advertising for pilots for the NSW health contract?

I suspect that they're required to advertise the positions. I note, however, that one of their mandatory requirements is "personnel with prior multi-engine EMS experience"...I suspect this will open the door for others to apply but I imagine the folks who do the work now will remain online as they are the most experienced EMS folks (with area experience) in this neck of the woods.

I don't suppose that getting all wound up about this would do anyone any good, would it?

HP

[helopat]

The ability to report to work within one hour of Bankstown or Orange Bases

Missed this the first time around...is the new Sydney base going to be in Bankstown?

[Quickdraw]

I'm sure everyone that is currently flying on the contract will get a look in with CHC, providing you pass their standard entry requirements. This would provide you better conditions, better pay, better (more capable) aircraft. It's a win win for the current Careflight drivers and crewman.

Legally, CHC had to advertise.

Quickdraw:ok:

[eagle 86]

QD,
Better conditions - no - CHC intend to run a 3 x pilot roster for 24 hours C/F runs a 4 pilot roster. Crewies with CHC experience tell me CHC flog the cr@p out of them.
Better pay - questionable
Better A/C - C/F plans were to introduce same types should they have been successful.
GAGS
E86

[Quickdraw]

eagle 86, I guess I was looking at the capacity for individuals to progress through the company the size of CHC, with regards to other types of flying, SAR, Offshore, CHC Global etc something which Careflight could never offer. It is interesting that Careflight operate with 4 drivers and CHC with 3, CHC is limited to the Fatigue Risk Management System that provides controls to capture levels of fatigue (not always correct though) for the pilots. Regarding the Crewies by saying that CHC 'flog the crap' out of them, this may be the case... however it could only done using the conditions set out and agreed to under the crewmans EBA. It's a bit hard to say on one hand that I agree with this EBA and then turn around and say that we are getting flogged. I haven't heard of too many Crewies or Pilot's leaving CHC because of their conditions of employment!

QD

[eagle 86]

QD,
Take your point but experience has shown that the dedication aircrew/medical crew have shown to CareFlight over the years indicates that the troops are happy to remain with the Company far longer than is the norm in the industry. It is hard to describe to the outside world the feeling that exists within the Company - a feeling of belonging, of family and knowing that the aviation/medical standards maintained were at least on a par with any in the world. The aviation member of the tender evaluation board has been quoted as saying that he hopes that the Company's above average aviation expertise will not be lost to the industry.
GAGS
E86

[NASUS]

I'm curious as to why there is no 'reply by' date for the ad? Normally job ads have a cut-off date for applications to be in by.

Also why didn't CHC wait until the Aviation section was back in the paper again instead of putting it on page 3 of the paper at a time when many are away on holidays?

Maybe CHC wanted this way so that it would not get too many applicants outside of the Sydney based guys??

[sagy34]

Legally, CHC had to advertise.
Quickdraw:ok:


Since when does a private company 'legaly' have to advertise???

New one to me:confused:

[helopat]

Since when does a private company 'legaly' have to advertise???
New one to me:confused:

I think its because they are working for the state of NSW that they have to advertise.

[eagle 86]

They are having trouble getting anyone from within or out who are interested in moving to Sydney/Orange and living within one hour's travel of the bases.
GAGS
E86

[eagle 86]

Further to my last re CHC aircraft,
CHC will provide 2 x AW139, 2 x EC145 and 1 x B412
CareFlight would have provided 4 x AW139 and 1 x EC145.
GAGS
E86

[skidbita]

Just noticed another thread stating that EMQ (Formerly QR) will be training their aircrewmen as Co-Pilots on the AW139 at an additional cost of $7milhttp://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258218

Does this mean that Agusta will not be certifying the 139 as SPIFR:eek:
I know bell weren't interested in certifying it as a SPIFR machine, The proviso for the QR AW139 purchase was that it would be certified SPIFR, have Agusta changed their minds???
I wonder what CHC thinks about running with Co's if this is the case....
There may be a request for further funding somewhere down the line from the NSW Ambulance servive, CHC could train their crewies too!!! Nice having 105hrs and your first job flying in a 139.
Or will CHC just use this as an excuse to stay with the ABW412 for a bit longer:E

[robsrich]

This latest debate; when finalised, could change the face of HEMS/SAR in Australia forever.

We seem to be defining a heavy two pilot IFR platform for civil HEMS (and SAR?).

Are we preparing for a Coast Guard? If there was a change of government, then this could be their policy?

For the younger guys - you have a wonderful future ahead - so get your ATPLs and IREX out of the way.

[eagle 86]

The NSW Health Dep/Ambulance have no idea how much they are really going to pay for CHC.
GAGS
E86

[sea breeze]

Does this mean that Agusta will not be certifying the 139 as SPIFR.

Only Agusta can answer this but maybe EMQ is just adding another layer of checks and safety during nocturnal and hazardous flights as stated in the press report. If this is so, it makes Child flight look like a trendsetter in nocturnal flight crew safety doesn’t it. After the bagging child flight has received on this chat site some humble pie may need to be eaten in the future. :D

[eagle 86]

I don't think anyone actually bagged the company!
GAGS
E86

[PPRuNeUser0212]

officially CHC take over helicopter ops on 14 May 07 and by the look of last weeks employment ads, still have positions available in Orange.

[Yara-ma-yha-who]

Time to resurrect this old thread. The rumour is that Toll has secured the contract for the South, and Hunter Westpac for the North. :D

[yarpa]

I second that rumour............it's true then. Toll have hit the big time.

[yarpa]

Helicopter Tender (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/helicoptertender/Pages/default.aspx)

There must be some head scratching in Perth, sad. Pardon my ignorance, but why have they retained the community funded machines up north? From an outsider seems a bit disjointed.

[mustering guru]

I guess the North Reg is Australian owned and now so will the South Reg.

Toll is an Australian company, CHC is an American owned company now.

[Mark Six]

I don't think the NSW government could care less what country the operator is from. It's all about the money. Northern Region (Newcastle, Tamworth, Lismore) come with lots of sponsorship money and community funding. Not to mention that it would be politically unacceptable for those communities to have their long serving 'charity' helicopters replaced by a purely commercial operator. Westpac was never going to lose this one.

[NumptyAussie]

The end of an era (& a 10 year thread). I believe that CHC have bugged out from Bankstown. The last few days has seen quite a few containers being trucked away from the hangar.

[Dick Smith]

Is it true that Toll is owned by the Japanese government and all the profits and wealth creation is shipped out of Australia?

Can Aussies buy shares?

[RVDT]

Dick,

Japan Post is publicly listed - :cool:

[NumptyAussie]

You can also benefit by being a indirect supplier, offering services such as parking or the temporary use of a facility to TOLL?