Rfds Se Section [Archive]

PPRuNeUser0161

28th Dec 2008, 22:40

The agreements on the AFAP are short by exactly 10K. The Co gave all pilots a 10K increase accross the board a few months ago when pilots were in short supply, its being paid but the EBA's have not yet been updated. Each pilot has a letter of advice to this effect.

New Pro-Line 21 equipped Kings Air's are being implemented accross the section. The first entered service in BHI in August 2008. 3 more are on the way with two going into Dubbo and a second for BHI. If they get the EN contract again they will be next. All will have the new design Med fit with the possible exception of EN. Morale is good in BHI and EN, not sure about the rest. Rosters are OK but due to the Co only employing the basic minimum the required minimum time free of duty is what you get!

Oh yes, If you dont wan't to pump some fuel and handle 200L drums 5 days per month in 30+ degree heat on your own on clinics then don't go to BHI. Its hard work but that base does however have the best flying on offer.

Best job out I reckon! Good gear and great flying.

PPRuNeUser0161

28th Dec 2008, 23:38

On the PC-12 thing. I heard that QLD section are selling theirs in favour of new B200's. Apparently over the life of the airframe they are not as cheap to run as they are on paper.

compressor stall

29th Dec 2008, 01:22

Soup Nazi,

I am not surprised one can distort the operating costs if you are only using the PC12 for day clinic runs :rolleyes: when you have a fleet of B200s doing work night and day alongside.

If you used them night and day alnongside the B200 I am sure the figures would be very much in favour of the PC12. Remember - an airframe does not earn money in the hangar overnight.

PPRuNeUser0161

29th Dec 2008, 01:32

CS
Thats true. I guess you have to wonder why they would still choose the B200for the clinics though. In the end it all comes down to how the operator defines the requirement. The B200 is still a very serious and safe platform for round the clock IFR.

morno

29th Dec 2008, 02:40

Soup Nazi, not sure where you've gotten your info from, but I can assure you QLD Section are NOT getting rid of their PC-12's at all. Quite a capable platform for what they are being used for. 1 engine burning 400lbs/hr at 250kts, or 2 engines burning 600lbs/hr at 255kts. How does the B200 come out cheaper?

morno

PPRuNeUser0161

29th Dec 2008, 06:39

Morno
I DID NOT SAY THE B200 IS CHEAPER TO RUN THAN THE PC-12. I dont claim to know which is the cheaper over all, I'm not privi to the finer points of the costings, but I do know that the for commercial purposes the PC-12 airframe is normally costed over a 15000 hour life whereas the B200 airframe is normally costed for 20000 hours effective from new.

The B200 you are in does seem slow to me, I have many 1000's in King Airs and I have never flown one that slow and thats at reduced Co settings. most are at around 265, with a new airframe you get at least 280 at FL250. Don't forget the new GT's are also much quicker. The B200 is also capable of flying higher and has better climb performance, very handy if your trying to out climb ice!

That said I have nothing against the PC-12 and would gladly fly one if it were put in front of me at night and in IMC. It is very capable for Aeromed purposes, especially the cabin size and it has great access, but I still prefer the B200 any day from a pilots point of view its a pleasure.

air med

29th Dec 2008, 07:54

the NG pc 12 that west ops operating, will easerly sit on 265-270kts compared to the series 9 and 10 that are around 240kt.
Have been told that the Ng's are very slippery little machines.

PPRuNeUser0161

29th Dec 2008, 09:40

airmed
I think what we are seeing is a little vying for position as far as HBC and pilatas are concerned. HBC have released a spec'd up B200 (305kt), I think after Pilatas announced the release of the new PC-12. On one hand the Aeromed industry would be insignificant to HBC however Pilatas would regard it as bread and butter. Both models are well overdue.

Personally I think there is there is room in the market for a utility class aircraft with two engines that has the usability and convenience of the PC-12. Whoever produces that airframe should find world wide sales from the aeromed industry as well as military and freight.

Wally Mk2

29th Dec 2008, 10:30

Ahhh my fav subject:E

'SN' is spot on re wages etc, +10K on top of the AFAP advertised numbers. The QLD section is the way to go re wages, they have the best bucks! Can't say the same for some of the planes there though, ya can't pay me enough bucks to fly those PC12 thingy's:E
Rosters? Well it's shift & that combined with 24/7 coverage means if you want a social life go work for the Govt.

The RFDS do have reduced pwr seetings hence the lower than normal TAS.
The new GT's (if they ever come to the SE section) will be better (TAS wise) as mentioned here, same gee gee's though, no increase there.

If by some slight chance that the RFDS doesn't get awarded the new tender in a couple of years time (they are the prefered operator)then it's anyones guess as to the wages etc but the airframes will be the same, twins only...........pheeewww:)

'SN' although there is room for a utility A/C being a twin that is I doubt we shall see a new entrant for many years yet. The cost alone to bring a new type to fruition not to mention the associated costs re getting them proven for anyones use never lone AeroMed would be incredible, but stranger things have happened in aviation before:)
The P188 even though is in production isn't a contender for any of the Aeromed sections in Oz at the moment as far as I know. Oh they would love to have 'em but they wouldn't be suitable overall or as robust as the old Beech design. It's a truck (the Beech), it's a beast, it's a flying shed but it's built like the proverbial brick sh1thouse & has TWO of the best sounding "door hinges" I've ever heard:ok:

Wmk2:)

PPRuNeUser0161

29th Dec 2008, 12:13

Wally Mkk 11
OH YEAH, and another glass of red! Enjoy it, whatever you fly.

Happy new year to all.
SN

morno

29th Dec 2008, 12:18

SN, where do you get 15,000hrs from? I'd be interested to know if you know something concrete that I don't. Surely there'd be PC12 airframes in Central Section well in excess of 15,000hrs considering they got the first one in about 1995?

My knowledge is that Pilatus have said the airframe's are good for 20,000hrs, and really, until such time as they get some at those hours, then they don't even know that! They may even prove to be good for 25-30-40,000hrs? Who know's.

Having first hand knowledge, I don't see how the bean counters at RFDS would stuff up to the point where they didn't factor in the retirement of the aircraft and how many hours they'd get out of an aircraft. 14 years of stuff ups? Because they're still buying them.

Cheers

morno

Wally Mk2

31st Dec 2008, 01:29

'SN' I'll drink too that, make it a double though just like yr "kk"

& yes happy new year to those that want to be part of it:)

Wmk2:ok:

tasdevil.f27

31st Dec 2008, 06:05

Oh yes, If you dont wan't to pump some fuel and handle 200L drums 5 days per month in 30+ degree heat on your own on clinics then don't go to BHI. Its hard work but that base does however have the best flying on offer.

Was only talking to RFDS pilot on Sunday about his days out bush & pumping by hand and rolling 200L drums around to swap over the empty ones. He said he soon got sick of doing that. Said he much prefers ringing for the fuel truck now days...

He did say it was some of the best flying he has done & met a lot of great people in the vast outback.

sms777

31st Dec 2008, 06:41

Pard me for my limited knowledge of RFDS ops, the B200 is my personal choice of aircraft...(cheers Wally)... but how about the resurrected Nomad promised by Gippsland Aeros regarding suitability. Improved airframe, upgraded engines, glass cockpit...... After all it is still the symbol of the RFDS at BHI sitting on a flagpole.
They even turned it in to a TV star :}

Wally Mk2

1st Jan 2009, 02:35

'sms777' keep it up mate I'll add you to my looooong list of 'twin' freinds;)

The 'Gomad' even in a re-invented' form might be suitable under some limited applications for aeromed work but like all things in life progress has meant we can do it safer, & quicker (doesn't apply to the PC 12 though:E)
with the likes of the B200. I'm not so sure the 'Gomad' will get off the ground too quickly so to speak just yet. A genuine market would need to be established before they brought that old truck back on-line & I don't believe it will be in any of the current aeromed roles, my opinion only of course:-)

Well it's the new year, & yes it's the silly season already, I could fill a thread with a zillion posts here with what people are trying to do to themselves already & this is only day 1 !!!

Wmk2

the wizard of auz

1st Jan 2009, 02:48

Now that would make for a far more entertaining thread. :E

Reverseflowkeroburna

1st Jan 2009, 03:43

Happy New Year lads!

Yeah plenty over in the Land of Auz willing to risk their own necks too. Tanked to the eyeballs, no seat belts etc. It seems there are those that are keen to ensure a market to justify redevelopment of that Nomad/new aeromed platform no matter what the personal cost! :(

Slightly off topic, but little birdies tell me that Pilatus have had plenty (200+)of cancellations of the -12NG due to its "teething" problems. Does anyone know how the NG is going elsewhere? What setions have them here on Oz?

Under Dog

1st Jan 2009, 04:59

[QUOTE]"Nomad" After all it is still the symbol of the RFDS at BHI sitting on a flagpole.

Thats where it should stay forever.:=

The Dog

Wally Mk2

1st Jan 2009, 05:57

It's funny you know 'UD' I was up at 'The Hill' not too long ago when I walked past the 'poled' Nomad & noticed the sprinkler on next to it. Maybe they where trying to water it to make it grow into something better.:E It's a sad sight really, but they where real pilots back then I guess, button pushers now we all are.

Wmk2

goin'flyin

1st Jan 2009, 06:17

RFKB - A little birdie told me, (may have been the same "little birdie"that talked to you), that Pilatus are swamped with B200's as trade in's for -NG's, they can't give the B200's away.

From a well informed source - Pilatus have had no order cancellations due to "teething" problems. :ok:

Typical BS for this time of year. Few of the boys have a beer or 10 around the bbq, next thing you know there are a thousand cancelled orders from all ends of the world. :ugh:

Under Dog

1st Jan 2009, 06:57

Wally
It'd take an awefull lot of watering to create something from that Nomad.I'd say its best buried in the past.

Goinflyin,
I think that little birdie you were talkin to might have had a little to much new years cheer.

The Dog:ok:

Reverseflowkeroburna

1st Jan 2009, 12:18

.........they can't give the B200's away.

Bwaaahahahaaaaaaaa :}

On the flipside, such an unlikely scenario might allow the price of the more appropriate airplane to ease and allow more airframes into such a 24/7 business! :D

Just allow me to indulge myself in that for a moment. ;)

PPRuNeUser0161

3rd Jan 2009, 09:41

Morno
Costing the economical life of an airframe is about more than what the manufacturer puts on it. You have to factor in finance arrangements, schedules for major maintenance, written down values for tax purposes and the way the aircraft is charged out. Whether or not the aircraft is capable of going to 30 or 40 thousand hours is to some degree not relevant.

I know from a friend who works there that CS have a number of airframes at around the 15000 hour mark and I assume it is these they are replacing.

The numbers I have quoted came from someone I know who costs these aircraft on contracts for a living. As the PC-12 is still a relatively new type and the fact that there are very few airframes at high hour’s makes it prudent to factor in changing the airframe over at relatively low hours compared to the more proven B200, this will remain the case until confidence in the PC-12 grows with time.

NEW?
I heard on talkback radio today that the NSW air ambulance is asking for a 260kg patient handling capability for the next contract. The B200 may be in strife here as the PC-12 does have a better payload and more cabin room for this. Anyone know more?

SN

Wally Mk2

3rd Jan 2009, 09:59

'SN' am not so sure 265kg requirments would really be needed. Apart from the shear handling problems associated with someone of that weight it's the stretcher size that may become an issue as well. Often we struggle to get a 121 kg (our current max limit) on a stretcher especially if the patient is placed in a vacuum matress. (spinal for Eg) never lone someone of that very large physical size. But yes there has been an across the board future requirement for a greater lifting capacity.
The lattest Med fit-out (of which there is only one in the SE section) has a lifting device I believe to be around 200+ kg's capability, even at that weight it's a struggle to man handle a patient. Don't forget they have to be man handled from one stretcher to another at the moment although common user stretchers are being considered for both ground & air transport. The PC12 V the B200 I believe makes no difference in this case, cabin size, floor loading per sq ft is similar I'd say. And at this point in time only a twin eng A/C is sutiable for any NSW contract that's currently in the pipeline, the same as all other bases in the SE Section so regardless of what lifting capacity is finally used it will only be lifting into the rear of a Beech, phewwww:).

Wmk2

EDIT: Yes 'jamair' there are now a few 'fat trucks' as we call 'em for the community members who have lost control of their weight/s But unless they can walk on & off the current fleet at weights of over 121 Kg's then they go by road ambulance:-)

Jamair

3rd Jan 2009, 10:01

Mmmmmm, I wuz wondering when bariatrics in Aeromed would raise its head:\

Most Oz ambulance services have now commisioned special bariatric ambulances (at least in metro areas) with super-sized stretchers and beefed up suspension. RW Aeromed services do knock back tasks where patient size is incompatible with equipment limits; be interesting to see what solutions are available in FW....:confused:

ForkTailedDrKiller

3rd Jan 2009, 11:01

be interesting to see what solutions are available in FW....http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

??

We still have Hercs don't we?!

Dr :8

morno

3rd Jan 2009, 11:50

I remember being tasked for a rather obese (200kg) patient once. I didn't even leave my house for the tasking, because we worked out we couldn't even physically fit the person onto the aircraft.

So I don't see how they can plan to lift up to a 226kg patient into an aircraft, when they can't even fit them. As Wally said, they're for road transport, or the RAAF.

The PC-12 cabin by the way, is really no bigger than the B200 cabin.

morno

PLovett

3rd Jan 2009, 11:59

I have seen a central section PC12 take a patient who said he was 120 kg but I think that was the reading when the scales broke. :uhoh: He was more like 140 to 150 kg.

I know for a certainty that the ambos' who brought him to the airport thought he was a lot heavier. I think the pilot "helped" the hydraulic lifter to get him up to the aircraft. :ok:

With regard to the stretchers I use the same type that the ambos' use here with one difference, mine has two sets of castor wheels to allow for lateral movement across the floor of the aircraft. Both sets of the bleedin things have had to be replaced recently due to the centre of the castor wheels breaking, no doubt due to the weight they have had to bear over the years.:{

Horatio Leafblower

3rd Jan 2009, 19:26

Obese patients too heavy for ambulance planes

Posted Sat Jan 3, 2009 10:38am AEDT
Updated Sat Jan 3, 2009 10:39am AEDT
An obese man walks along a beach

The Government says it will have to spend around $10 million extra per plane. (Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing (http://www.flickr.com:) malingering, file photo)

The New South Wales Government says obesity levels are so high it has been forced to consider spending millions on larger planes for the ambulance service to transport patients.

The service's planes currently have a limit of 140 kilograms per patient, but the replacements will be able to take people weighing 260 kilograms.

Acting Health Minister Ian Macdonald says the Government has already put out a tender for the new planes.

"It will cost around $10 million extra per plane to cope with people of that sort of weight," he said.

"That's a wake-up call for the community, indicating just how bad the problem's getting and the need for people to wake up to themselves and stop eating so much fats and sugars."

Stationair8

3rd Jan 2009, 22:02

Bring on the Hercules.

Carried 150kg patient in a Navajo, four of us to pick up the stretcher and carry him up into the aircraft.

Wally Mk2

3rd Jan 2009, 23:43

Sheeeez 'S8' those days are long gone lifting patients that heavy by hand.
Nurses where the worst sufferers of that practice, talk to any older nurse & you will find their backs are stuffed from lifting pateints day in day out manually.

Am puzzled how the NSW Govt say that an extra $10 Mill per plane will be needed to carry the fatties of our society:confused: So to my figuring that means an A/C costing around $18-19 Mill each for the Ambo service, what just to carry a few fatties every now & then? I don't think so:ugh: Besides the B200 costs around $8.5 Mill @ to put into service, what the hell costs $18+Mill (adding the so called $10 Mill per airframe) & still get in & out of the short dirt strips single pilot?

'Plovett' as you would know ( I assume) assisting any lifting device with the human hand is forbidden, OH&S laws would string you up for doing so. But I know the practice does happen, at yr own peril I say.

The Govt are good for one thing, they are a great source of entertainment !

Wmk2

Howard Hughes

4th Jan 2009, 00:54

what the hell costs $18+Mill (adding the so called $10 Mill per airframe) & still get in & out of the short dirt strips single pilot?
This perhaps?:E

http://aircraftgalleries.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/v-22-osprey-2.thumbnail.jpg

Imagine how man 'fatty's we could stuff in there...;)

Horatio Leafblower

4th Jan 2009, 01:16

How much would it cost to purchase and fit out a B350, including the extra crew member?

Howard Hughes

4th Jan 2009, 01:36

What extra crew member? The B350 is still a single pilot airplane!;)

The cost to purchase and fit out is about $1.5 mill more than a B200, although the additional running costs over a twelve moth period may well run into the $10 mill range...:eek:

pc12togo

4th Jan 2009, 01:41

There are a number of PC12s now in Police ops, and a great aircraft for thoes ops. Great range, good speed, heeps of room, and at 4760kgs ramp there is not much thay cant do at there cost of operating. They cost half that of a good old 402 to operate.

the wizard of auz

4th Jan 2009, 02:01

you have to start talking about balanced field with the B350 I would imagine. starts knocking some of the strips out of the equation.

Howard Hughes

4th Jan 2009, 02:34

Those problems can be overcome Wiz!:ok:

Wally Mk2

4th Jan 2009, 04:14

Nice one 'HH', am trying to get my head around one of those Bell thingies having an eng failure just whe you start transitioning. With it's off airport capabilities we would get flogged even more 'HH' so lets not encourage those expensive contraptions:)
As 'HH' said about $1.5 Mill more than the B200GT for the B350 & SP, balanced field lengths could be reworked to work in most of the strips we fly into.

'pc12togo' Could you supply some info just for my interest on the range/fuel capacity & usefull load of a typical PC12? FF's would be good too tnxs. PM me if you wish not to get embroiled in a grubby street fighting match here:ok:

Out of curiosity does anybody know what the plan of action is if one of the Bell thingies can't get the wing/engine back to the hover position for ldg? Would be interesting to land one in fwd flight. OUCH, those blades.....;)

Wmk2

Howard Hughes

4th Jan 2009, 05:26

I don't know for sure, but suspect that both engines are connected to the drive of both props/rotors (what are they called? protors perhaps?), in a similar fashion that twin helicopters only have one rotor...:ok:

PPRuNeUser0161

4th Jan 2009, 06:53

Wally Mk II
The commentator on the radio stated that the NSW Ambulance was going fit some ambulances and they specifically highlighted the cost of fitting aircraft with gear to cope with 265kg. The new lifter in SE Section has recently been rated to lift 250kg including the Litter and medical gear.

They have a system that in the event that a heavy patient is required to be moved they send the "Litter" to the hospital and load the patient there using the hospitals lifting gear along with a specially designed sling. The lifter on the aircraft then lifts the patient and litter onto the aircraft. I think the litter weighes about 25kg's and they allow another 25kg for gear. Max patient 200kg's

The new system is heavy though and with 4 POB only about 2100lbs of fuel can be loaded with all pax at standard weights. Not a lot of endurance at 600lbs/hr.

One of the problems with the B200 cabin is that it tapers towards the rear reducing the room in that area.

SN

Wally Mk2

4th Jan 2009, 10:24

Okay 'SN' that's good to know, always handy to find out info from other sources, correct or otherwise.
The floor loading is also an issue with the Beech as in the weight of the wheels on the stretcher with a combined weight of 250Kgs would damage the current floor surface which is modified in the current fleet due to the sunken floor of the B200 ex factory.
I know there are a lot of new rd ambulances that have the uprated stretcher to handle the heavy weight person but they are not interchangeable with the planes at the moment. So shifting a patient from one stretcher to another at night at some country airstrip in pouring rain is just awful:sad:
Yr correct about the new system being heavy & the fuel load available. Still 2,5 hrs crz + reserves works for most tasks.

And yes the Beech does taper towards the rear but that's not an issue, humans tend to taper at the end also so they fit:ok:

Wmk2:)

PPRuNeUser0161

5th Jan 2009, 10:38

Wally Mk II
350's would be nice, that extra metre of cabin and I think around 1500lbs lift would solve a lot of problems. Balanced field should fit with EN, not sure how they'd get around the two crew thing?

I spoke to a 350 pilot recently and he said they actually have a better power to weight ratio than the 200 and so have a shorter ground roll. Balanced field being weight vs field length it most likely would be workable although all fields would have to be surveyed.

Watch em line up for the job should they get those in EN! Seems to me that SE section is currently setting the standard for aeromed in this country, finally someone is thinking about the big picture rather than focusing on keeping T & C's so low as to affect morale. At the end of the day it comes down to who offers the best product for a competitive price wins the contract.

Whats next, NT aeromed contract? I hope.

SN

morno

5th Jan 2009, 11:04

Seems to me that SE section is currently setting the standard for aeromed in this country, finally someone is thinking about the big picture rather than focusing on keeping T & C's so low as to affect morale

SN, whilst I don't disagree that SE Section are doing a great job, they're not the only one's who are "finally" thinking, rather than focusing on keeping T&C's so low as to affect morale. I just seem to get the feel from your post, that you think they're the first and only one's to be doing it.

QLD Section pay quite well ($85k starting base salary), and have a pretty high standard in their Aeromed fleet. Out of a fleet of 14 aircraft, only 3 of them are pre 2000 model's (and they are kept as spares), meaning the fleet is kept at a high standard. The T&C's are also pretty good.

Cheers

morno

Wally Mk2

5th Jan 2009, 11:28

'morno' is quite right, the Qld section pay the best & in fact it was their leading pay structure that led the way for other sections to follow. Although these increases where when pilots where leaving to join the airlines in record numbers, that's slowed so few are leaving the best GA job going.
As I said elswhere introduce a jet/s into the RFDS system & then watch a lot of pilots pull their CV's from the airlines. Good money, latest airframes & a few jets would mean a career worth working towards outside of the airlines. The older you get in this game the more one tends to look at lifestyle (1/2 the hrs the airliens fly), something that the airlines don't offer too much.

Wmk2

Capt Hollywood

5th Jan 2009, 13:51

Wally Mk2,

With regard to your question about what happens if the engine nacelles can't be rotated to the upright position for hovering see below.

The V-22 Osprey combines the flight regimes of both helicopters and high-speed turboprop fixed wing aircraft. The need to make the Osprey crashworthy within this expansive flight envelope led to many unique features. The basic layout of a tiltrotor puts the large mass items such as engines and transmissions out away from the crew and cabin areas. In the event of a crash landing the occupants are not jeopardized by these items entering the occupied areas.

In the event of a crash landing the wing is designed to fail outboard of the wing/fuselage attachment. This "mass shedding" absorbs kinetic energy from the crash. Otherwise, this energy must be absorbed by the landing gear, structure or the occupants. In the nose of the aircraft is a very strong structure called the antiplow bulkhead. This reduces plowing, or "digging in" of the nose during a crash. The forward fuselage is designed to absorb crash forces of 4 g upward and 6 g rearward. The tricycle landing gear on the V-22 is designed to absorb a high sink rate of 24 feet per second (0.4 ft/min, 7.3 m/s)

The cockpit and cabin structure is designed to be 15 percent stronger than the wing's failure load. The overhead wing design also makes the occupied areas inherently stronger and safer in a roll-over or inverted impact. The occupied cabin area is designed to maintain 85 percent of its volume during a crash. The cockpit and cabin seats stroke vertically to absorb crash energy. Each seat has a restraint harness. The design of the cockpit has minimized the number of head strike hazards.

In the event the V-22 must land with it proprotors in the horizontal or cruise position, the occupants are protected from flying proprotor shards. The blades simply fray into individual strands that pose no harm to the occupants.

I particularly like the way they casually say that "The blades simply fray into individual strands". Bit hard to see if it really works in this video....
YouTube - V22 "Osprey" CRASH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ty9WVVFdPk)

Like this effort though!
YouTube - v22 osprey roll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiGDj7KZB4s)

CH.

Sarcs

5th Jan 2009, 19:49

In RFDS Westops, for the PC12s, they had what was dubbed the 'Fat Mat'. Not sure what weight it was rated to but it involved taking out the normal stretchers and using a slide board that was secured to the floor.

Obviously the normal SLD couldn't be used so there were some real OHS issues getting the obese patient up into the aircraft. Never had to use the 'Fat Mat' and can't say I'm overly disappointed.

The V-22 Osprey was touted as a possible aircraft to be used in SAR Ops but I think the unit price was way too much. Questions: Does anyone know if the Osprey is capable of winching and what sort of speed/ range does it have?

pc12togo

5th Jan 2009, 23:20

Wmk2

Sorry mate been busy

Our pc12 data

BEW 2875 in 10 seat
0 Fuel 4100
Ramp 4760
Take off 4740
Landing 4500
Max Fuel 2703 lbs
Planed fuel burn is 450/hr.
Tas 245 kts at 690 deg egt. Can crz at 720 which will give you app 255.

At F170 to F240 burn is app 400/hr and at F300 it is app 320. This is were we can get the range.

It has never let us down, with 100% despach, and our direct op costs are app $540/hr. Only $100 up on the 402.

We can carry 7 Star group guys with all there gear 500 nm. With the net in the combo set up and 7 seats, have heaps of room for all there gear which is large and heavy. Loading with the rear door is fast and easy.

All in all a great aircraft. We have Garmin 530's and EFB, you just sit back and watch it happen.

Yes it is a single engine aircraft, but our dept did a big risk assement on this and it can up trumps. We, at the start were a bit worried as we wanted a twin, F406 or B200 but they were well out of our buget, and the govt would only buy new, but now have 1000 hrs and 2 years of ops and it has been able to do anything that we have chucked at it.

All staff are happy to fly in it, and a fun AC to fly.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Jan 2009, 23:31

PC12togo,

I am a fan of the PC12, but I believe your figures are far from correct.

$540 per hour direct operating costs ?, does that take into account the capital expenses / loan repayments / hot sections inspections etc etc ?.

A Caravan costs considerably more that that to operate, somewhere around the $900 mark, based on 800 odd hours per year, hence the Charther rate of $1000-1150.

If you believe the $540 to be correct could you please post the figures.

I agree with your fuel figures and TAS numbers stated.

pc12togo

5th Jan 2009, 23:44

$540 per hour direct operating costs ?, does that take into account the capital expenses / loan repayments / hot sections inspections etc etc ?.

It does not take into account capital or loan repayments or crew costs.

They are direct cost only, as of today at 900hrs, on all costs, fuel, mainantance, landing, nav charges and expected hot sections.

It would be app $1300/hr with all.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

6th Jan 2009, 01:00

PC12togo,

Thanks for that, pretty much the numbers I worked out, cheers.

Stationair8

6th Jan 2009, 05:28

Thats okay, but add in the medical equipment, non slip floor, oxygen bottles and a couple of stretchers that weigh 80 kgs each and a stretcher loading device.

The last time I had the misfortune to fly a neo natal team the cot weighed 140 kgs plus the nets nurse and doctor. I estimated the nets gorilla I mean nurse weighed at least 300lbs and that didn't allow for her attitude.

If the patient weigh 240kgs perhaps the fat c##t could walk to the hospital!!

Wally Mk2

6th Jan 2009, 11:36

Oh 'S8' thems nasty words but I hear what ya sayin':ok:

'pc12togo' Tnxs for the info, pretty impressive specs, for a single!:)

Look I have no doubts they are a great plane & in a lot of ways sh1t on the old Beech design I'd kill for a sep crew door & elect cargo door, these two area's let Beech down big time but seeing at my stage in life I have a choice as to what I ant to fly (being senior & very comfy lifestyle wise) I choose to fly the safer option that's all. Take me back 20 yrs & I would probably knock you over on the way to the drivers seat to fly a SE turbine, not anymore though:ok:
I notice a 200+ lbs diff between the T/Off weight & the LDG weight, I guess an overweight ldg would be needed if the engine fails aftet T/off @ gross, still that's the least of yr worries in that case.

I have a fair idea what the Central section of the RFDS do as far as engine failure procedures goes say for after T/off , cloud break etc. but would be keen to know how you guys go about it, PM me if you wish with some details when you get some time, no hurry mate:-)

Obviously the DOC's are cheaper than a B200, they would want to be but to the average pilot flying both types the actual costs are acedemic.
Would you get a PC12 up to FL300 & beyond often? I know the B200 isn't happy up there, that level is outside the efficient engine/wing design, TAS drops off a lot with say ISA+15c, good for low fuel burn (down to as low as 500lbs tot)if a healthy tail wind is available otherwise going beyond FL 270 is a waste of everything for the old truck:ok:.

tnxs for the update on the PC12

Wmk2

goin'flyin

6th Jan 2009, 22:04

Wally,

PC12 is only certified to FL300, so going beyond that doesn't happen.
We prefer to be at either FL290 or FL300 whenever possible/practical.
Obviously we wouldn't sit at FL300 with 100kts on the nose, but with any acceptable winds, we are up there.

Best TAS in our machine is somewhere between FL180 and FL220 depending on temp. Don't have the charts with me at the moment, but from my flight planning software, ISA + 10 - FL200 we plan 274 TAS, and drops off to 267 at FL300.

Obviously it is the substantial reduction in fuel flow that makes it so beneficial to get as high as possible.

Oh and for those of you stuck in the twin mentallity (the glide distance is also substantially increased). :ok:

Wally Mk2

7th Jan 2009, 00:08

Tnxs 'goin' for the further info on the 12, am forming an excellent picture of how great they are, as long as you don't start 'em up!:E Nah just kidding, I like the bit about the increased gliding range at ALT though, funny you know I never thought that IFR 'gliders' where allowed in this country:) You can increase the gliding distance so it can circle the moon for all the good it will do but at the end of the day yr the very first one at the scene of the accident, always:ok:
I wonder how many are used in 24/7 IFR commercial ops as direct charter planes here in Oz? Not too many I would think & I believe I know why too:) But I do appreciate the info, good comparisons re operating costs & general mission capabilites as compared to the 'safer' option.:ok:

Wmk2

PPRuNeUser0161

7th Jan 2009, 04:47

Wally II
The new B200 at BHI Se Section has an electric cargo door I believe.

The GT's are a good 5000ft better than the standard B200. Where the standard King Air has it on the Platypus is rate of climb at altitude. They leave them for dead. Best TAS 25-27000ft depending on temp for the standard King as well. No question much better perf.

SN

Wally Mk2

7th Jan 2009, 05:04

Have to agree with you there 'SN' the Beech does have a better ROC even after one fails, it's competitor does what?:E Love the 'platypuss' bit:ok:
So does the GT have a ceiling of 40K now or do you mean better by 5000' on an average high ALT crz?
Actually the cargo door on the new BHI B200 is electro/hydraulic, a fancy bit of gear & very handy but somewhat complicated & heavy sadly.
Tell ya a funny little story about the new B200. It was at EN recently for maint & I had a peek in it after hrs as in dark late at night & once I got just inside the door (airstair door) I nearly fell over & broke my neck on the sunken floor pan. I know the normal Beech has a lower floor level in the center but not our current fleet (flat floor) so I wasn't expecting a sudden drop, oh well it was an air ambulance plane so I guees one couldn't be in better place to 'lie down':ok:

Wmk2

goin'flyin

7th Jan 2009, 05:11

You see wally, if it had of been a PC12, you wouldn't have had to climb into the plane in the dark as we have a handy little light on the stairs, and don't have one of those crappy sunken floors where you break your neck either.

There is currently 1 PC12 on 24/7 IFR commercial ops in Aus, and a couple more in the process of being approved.

You guys and your twin mentallity. Geez its never ending :E

Wally Mk2

7th Jan 2009, 05:30

........ahhh come on 'goin' gotta keep you young people on yr toes:ok:
BTW the B220 does have a stair light but that only lights up the stairs, once yr inside it's everyone for themselves:E
I wonder how long that operator would last if Wmk2 was allowed to stand at the boarding gate of that '12' whilst the poor happles pax board all the while me yelling out, did you count the engines on yr way past the front? good luck!:E
As a side note I read somewhere recently that the TBM makers where considering a twin eng version I wonder why?:)

Wmk2

PPRuNeUser0161

7th Jan 2009, 11:09

Wally MkII
What I mean is the GT will hold 850SHP to about 5000ft higher than a standard B200. As far as ROC is concerned it will climb at roughly the same rate at 30000ft that a standard B200 would get at 25000ft. TAS is obviously up exponentially. This gives the pilot much better ability to out-climb weather, ice and cruise higher. Standard B200's cruise easily at around F250-FL270 whereas the GT will do FL300 no probs easy. FL350 is still the ceiling.

You guy's and your twins! Mate when I was doing my commercial night rating I was told that it was only to be used to get you home if you happened to be out after dark in a single on your way home. It doesn't matter if its a turbine or not the fact is if you lose one in a twin (turboprop) you go home for tea, we all know what happens in a single. I have spoken to many who have flown the PC-12 and most admit it played on their minds whilst flying on duty that, should it fail.....

A King Air can have a failure and still be just an incident report.

SN

Wally Mk2

7th Jan 2009, 18:22

Thanks 'SN' I am aware of all you say about the GT's I just thought there was something that I hadn't read or heard about one of the most bullet proof truck like designs around:ok:You will be banging yr head against the wall trying to convince the '12' drivers they are not safe (as in SE) but I wouldn't mind betting they all think about 'what if' when the sun goes down & or they are in cloud over rough country. I know I don't under sim circumstances. It is difficult though to stay awake of a night time with the sound of TWO engines droaning away there like the sound of angels:ok:

Mk2

LFandH

8th Jan 2009, 23:34

I work for the NSW air ambulance, would have to be quite happy with conditions etc.

Work about 3-4 days a week, always home to see my kids and partner,
recent pay rise to just over $80K, and have a leased 4WD with expenses paid. (the salary sacraficing setup is good)

Good bunch of blokes, hardly any politics and you come to work for the cause and the love of it, not because of financial benefits like some other jobs.

and it appears possibly a new fleet of a/c with proline avionics is in the pipeline

There are however some late nights, remote flying single pilot ops but can be challenging to say the least:ok: