PDA

View Full Version : Pilatus PC24


Jabawocky
25th Oct 2013, 09:44
Video: Pilatus PC-24 Business Jet Debut at NBAA - Videos Article (http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-Pilatus-PC-24-Business-Jet-Debut-at-NBAA220856-1.html)

Capt Wally approved :ok:

RFDS one day?

Howard Hughes
25th Oct 2013, 10:07
Great numbers, but it's all paper and mock ups at the moment!

If they get within cooee of those numbers it will be a great machine. Heard a rumour RFDS Western Ops are the launch customer! Any truth?

Reckon it'll be a long time though before we see one in our hangar...:{

Jabawocky
25th Oct 2013, 10:14
No idea HH, just looks like an interesting project and I figure that Pilatus have the ability to do what they say. They have a good record and one would assume are financially stable enough to see it through.

Where's Wally?

Monopole
25th Oct 2013, 10:16
HH, a colleague of mine once close to Pilatus told me it was designed specifically with Aus RFDS in mind.

PLovett
25th Oct 2013, 11:21
RFDS Western District has a problem with patient transfer from Pilbara/Kimberly districts to either Perth or Darwin. In a PC-12 it takes forever which is why they have toyed with the idea of the Piaggio Avanti for such missions. They have been utilising a Hawker for some time now which I understand is supplied and crewed by Rio Tinto but it can't do emergency evacuations being restricted to paved runways. A jet of their own that can operate into unimproved strips may be just be what they have been looking for.

Wally Mk2
25th Oct 2013, 12:02
...yeah yeah Jabba relax Wally's here:)

Seen this machine b4, well recently anyway.
Would be great to have a few of these scattered over the countryside but can't see it happening anytime soon sadly.
COST & not just for the airframe either. Introducing a new type is fraught with all sorts of hassles especially when it's modified from day one for EMS work.
Cost of spares, manpower avail to maintain such a new machine, training etc. I kinda doubt that the machine would be used SP in RFDS Ops as it's a whole new training regime going from a slow basic prop job to a jet & having two crew would be in some ways more practical for all sorts of reasons (safer & extra pair of hands) the added costs of training x2 for every airframe is another set of $$$, something that the RFDS is constantly seeking.

This particular airframe looks good on paper but fill it up with EMS stuff, 2 pilots, Dr, Nurse maybe another specialist & patient & their quoted range is mythical at best. Note they say in their spiel to get the quoted range means VFR reserves, LRC, the latter means extra time almost negating the whole reason why you use a fast jet in the first place. Doesn't matter how fast & how far any plane goes it's never enough at times.


The 'Pig' (Piaggio) although much faster than the PC12 or the B200 would be very impracticable also for EMS work here. Another new type into the country with all the associated headaches that brings. The canard sticking out the front would be a hazard out there on some country dirt strip at night with an ambulance approaching the plane from pretty much any angle slamming into that canard (due it being totally alienated to what ambo's are used to) & instantly making the new machine a cubby house for the local school!1:-)

They use the B200 & the dare I say it the dangerous :EPC12 for one very good reason, COST, they are known, predictable & well proven covering most of the tasks at hand which is about as much as anyone can ask of any plane as ALL planes have some limitations, new types such as the PC24 & Piaggio mean lots of $$$$ & in a cash strapped world especially down under nobody has the foresight or $$$, so dream on good buddies:) .


Wmk2

neville_nobody
25th Oct 2013, 12:05
However fatigue is a big issue for Western Ops so I would have thought the PC24 would have to be considered. Its also Single Pilot.

avconnection
25th Oct 2013, 15:20
The PC24 will see these shores late 2017 early 2018. Expect to see at least 6 by 2019.

morno
25th Oct 2013, 20:41
With a MTOW of around 8,000kg's, I doubt the PC-24 will be single pilot operated, especially with the introduction down the track of the new rules CASA will be imposing on aeromedical operations, basically making them the same standard as RPT.

The PC-24 looks like a very nice jet. Perfectly suited to RFDS ops you would think.

However that cruise speed isn't exactly spectacular for a jet (no swept wing I'm guessing is what's holding it back). While it's all good and well for it to be able to take off and land in stuff all distance on dirt strips, RFDS don't nessecarily need a jet to do that. That's why they have things like PC-12's and B200's.

What would be better off, is a high speed jet that will serve sealed strips and can meet your B200's (or B350's down the track) or PC-12's and then transfer them to the major hospitals.

Still, it's a step in the right direction, :-).

morno

Jabawocky
25th Oct 2013, 20:49
The time lost in the descent, transfer, start up and climb would most of the time make patient delivery longer. I could be wrong.

The new rules is going to make life hard for the flying dr. :hmm:

compressor stall
25th Oct 2013, 21:16
From my time there, Plovett is on the pulse.

Yes Wally, cost is a big issue, but so is currently having the Kimberley crew stuck in Perth for a night as they've run out of hours and needing to send the Headland or Meeka crews to east Kimberley for a pickup.

Wally Mk2
25th Oct 2013, 22:38
'stally' I agree having crews displaced all over the countryside is a cost but am sure it pales into insignificance when compared to having these jets lying about that have limitations. The costs associated with having crews not avail (overnighting) is am sure factored into the Ruffdus operating costings & strategies whereas the PC24 is a huge unknown.
'jabba' yes intermediate transfers are costly time wise & I doubt that would happen too often.

'morno' true there buddy the speed isn't lightening fast in fact max speed 425k @F300 means lots of gas being gobbled up & in at times the worst place for WX. That rather straight wing is needed to achieve those balanced field length figures.
LRC I bet is back in the mid to high 300's meaning over a moderate distance the time advantage is minimal over say a B350, certainly not worth the added costs of having these airframes lying about with crews at the ready not to mention the infrastructure to support them.
Having to fly the machine at a SL cabin for EG would be interesting somewhere around 25000' probably which may often be the case using the faster plane to get to major hossy's for head trauma for Eg requiring a SL cabin, these are the limitations of any jet.I see on their website they make (well none that I can see anyway) no mention of LRC speeds, I wonder why? No one wants to know that as that's not a good selling point as speed is everything, lots to consider for Aeromed Ops not just the shinny new looks & on paper fast speeds.
In aviation everything is a tradeoff.

Nope can't see these machines getting off the ground anytime soon with the RFDS, maybe as a private venture with someone whom has more money than sense!:-) Now if someone did have use the above philosophy then I'd be in there playing jet pilot again:ok:


Wmk2

Capt Fathom
25th Oct 2013, 23:03
having these jets lying about that have limitations

What limitations? It's still only a mockup!! Umm, I guess that's a limitation!

At the moment, no one knows what's it's capable (or not capable) of.

Wally Mk2
26th Oct 2013, 00:10
'CF' limitations apply to ALL A/C especially small ones like this particular airframe, it's all a trade off. My mentioning of limitations are of a generic nature & am just using this airframe as an Eg in some ways. The manufacturers already have a pretty good idea of what it's capable of or not capable of with today's modern computer technology as well as plenty of airframes around with similar power to weight abilities. Lift coefficients, drag patterns the whole gambit of airframe capabilities are worked out well b4 any airframe ever goes to press.

No one is reinventing the wheel here despite all the manufacturers hype.


Wmk2

Howard Hughes
26th Oct 2013, 00:22
HH, a colleague of mine once close to Pilatus told me it was designed specifically with Aus RFDS in mind.
Makes sense monopole, on paper it does seem to fit all the criteria.
With a MTOW of around 8,000kg's, I doubt the PC-24 will be single pilot operated, especially with the introduction down the track of the new rules CASA will be imposing on aeromedical operations, basically making them the same standard as RPT.8000 kg's will put it just under the cut off for larger aeroplanes under the new reg's, perfect for the RFDS. From my reading of the NPRM, it will not have too much effect on the RFDS's day to day operations, as in most areas they already comply. :ok:

avconnection
26th Oct 2013, 02:57
8000 kg's will put it just under the cut off for larger aeroplanes under the new reg's, perfect for the RFDS.The announcement of the PC24 was also timed 1 week after the changes to FAR 23. They know exactly what they're doing.

There is still talk of an Aeromed section (as opposed to RPT MT), it's going to be a long road for the policy makers.

400kts (assuming thats a standard cruise) is not that much slower than other Jets in class but it's more then that, it's the sealevel cabin to 23,000ft (I can only imagine flogging about at 13,000 between the Pilbra and Perth isn't fun in the middle of summer), its the 30min time to 45,000, the short field, the unimproved strip, the door, the modular cabin, over and underwing fuel, common engines, ground power (assuming it can be certified without a pilot on board), one touch cockpit and full automation. They achieved the figures with the PC12, hopefully they can pull it off again with the PC24.

ga_trojan
26th Oct 2013, 06:15
Here is the good oil from Business and Commercial Aviation

And yes it is single pilot. CASA may have to get into 21st century on that one!

Pilatus Unveils the PC-24 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/BC_07_01_2013_p48-585548.xml&p=1)

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has finally unveiled the PC-24, a clean-sheet light-twin turbofan aircraft that will enter an already crowded market segment when it enters service in 2017. By then, there may be well over 7,500 light jets in service, including plenty of new models from Cessna, Embraer and Bombardier Learjet.
But, Pilatus believes the PC-24 will carve out a new niche it calls the “Versatile Jet segment,” since the all-new model will offer the short, soft-field versatility of the PC-12, a 51-in. by 49-in. rear cabin door, the cabin volume of a midsize aircraft and the cruise speed of a light jet. It will be priced at $8.9 million (2017 US dollars).
Pilatus believes the aircraft will find a home with cargo, medevac, commuter and even government special missions operators, along with its PC-12's historical customer base of high-net-worth individual owner-operators, air charter operators and small companies, among others.
Initial design studies began four to five years ago, says company chairman Oscar Schwenk told a crowd gathered for the mockup's unveiling at the European Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition (EBACE) in May, but “we've kept it very confidential.” Only a few days before the gathering in Geneva, were most sales distributors briefed on product details.
“We learned almost as much about the aircraft as the public at EBACE. I feel better about it now than before the unveiling,” says Pat Epps, head of Atlanta-based Epps Aviation, owner of Pilatus Center South. “It's six years behind the competition, but I think it will create a new niche with its 400+ kt. cruise speed and low maintenance burden. It's big. It will compete well.”
Epps says that while most PC-12 turboprops were sold to U.S. owner/operators, the PC-24 will likely do better outside the U.S., especially for service in Canada's Northwest Territories, China, Asia and Latin America.
Pilatus indeed did extensive market research before launching the new model, seeking inputs from large PC-12 fleet operators, among others.
“They sought advice from us,” says Peter Docking, aviation manager of Adelaide's Royal Flying Doctor Service, an organization that operates more than 30 PC-12s in Australia. “It's making a new niche, a little bit the same as the PC-12. The idea of a light jet with a cargo door is incredibly attractive to us. It's tough to get stretcher patients into and out of a passenger door of most light jets.”

Docking says he's also worked in the mining industry, a market segment that historically has operated STOL turboprops from “rudimentary dirt strips” during the early phases of new mine development. The PC-24 is designed to perform the same mission as smaller turboprops, carrying as many as ten passengers in a high-density seating configuration. “These aircraft fly in and fly out with shift changes. I think Pilatus is really onto something good. PC-24 is a vast improvement over a King Air or a PC-12.”
Conservative, Evolutionary DesignThe newest Pilatus is the firm's first production twin, and a twin turbofan at that. High-strength aluminum alloys will be used for the primary airframe. Similar to the company's PC-21 advanced military trainer, it will have a low-drag airfoil that was developed in-house. The PC-24 will be capable of both high-altitude, high-speed cruise and operating out of short fields. Notably, the aircraft will be fitted with dual-wheel main gear with low-pressure tires and anti-skid brakes.
To achieve the balance of high- and low-speed performance, the wing will have modest sweep, inboard and outboard fowler flaps and large ground spoilers. Estimated stall speed at maximum landing weight is 81 kt. and projected landing distance is 2,525 ft. Standard takeoff field length is 2,690 ft. and 4,430 ft. when departing BCA's 5,000- ft. elevation, ISA+20C airport. That kind of short runway performance will enable it to use 1,300 more airports around the world than the Phenom 300.
“It's not easy to fly to 450 and have the spoilers and flaps needed for short field operations,” says Schwenk.
Extensive wind tunnel tests were conducted in Prague, at the National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands and at RUAG's facility in Switzerland. The final wind tunnel results weren't compiled until early May 2013.
Being able to operate out of short, unpaved landing fields will give the PC-24 access to 21,000 more runways around the world than aircraft limited to using paved runways. A gravel kit will be fitted to the nosewheel to deflect debris away from the engine inlets and the wing flaps will be armored for protection from debris thrown back by the main landing gear.
The 501-cu.-ft. cabin is 5.1 ft. high, 5.6 ft. wide and 23 ft. long from the cockpit to cabin partition to the aft pressure bulkhead. The cabin windows will be the largest in the midsize jet class. Maximum cabin altitude is 8,000 ft. at the aircraft's 45,000- ft. maximum cruising altitude. There is a fully enclosed, forward cabin, externally serviced lavatory and 51.0-90.0 cu. ft. of internal luggage capacity, depending placement of the aft cabin partition.
Interior volume will be bigger than Citation XLS+, but smaller than that of the Hawker 900XP. Unlike most midsize aircraft, though, it will have a flat floor plus both a forward passenger and rear cargo door. Fitting the aircraft with a dropped aisle would have offered more center aisle headroom, but it would have hindered cargo handling.
Six cabin layouts will be offered, accommodating six to eight passengers in executive configuration, ten passengers in commuter seating, pure cargo configuration and half passenger/half cargo combi.



Preliminary Performance Projections
The PC-24 is designed to climb directly to FL450 in 30 min., Schwenk asserts, and it will have a maximum cruise speed of 425 kt. true at FL300. Maximum payload is 2,500 lb. and the aircraft will have a tanks-full payload of 915 lb., enabling it to fly four passengers 1,950 nm at long-range cruise. Schwenk declined to provide estimated cruise performance at FL 450, but it's likely that it will be close to 400-410 kt. true while having fuel flows slightly greater than Citation CJ4 based upon the two aircraft having virtually the same engines, along with similar maximum range. The PC-24 is to have 125-lb. greater fuel capacity than the CJ4.
Williams International will supply the propulsion system, including the two FJ44-4A turbofans, rated at 3,400 lb. thrust for takeoff. APR will boost thrust to 3,600 lb. with a flat rating of ISA+11C. Williams also is engineering a new noise attenuating inlet for the nacelle along with a passive thrust vectoring system that will use Coanda effect to deflect thrust 2-3 deg. upward at takeoff for better aircraft pitch control response. And it is developing a proprietary low idle speed mode that will enable the right engine to serve as a low noise APU.
Pilatus's ACE flight deck, short for Advanced Cockpit Environment, will feature Honeywell's second-generation APEX avionics suite, including four 12-in., landscape configuration displays in a T configuration, a Laseref IRS, an AHRS, EGPWS and TCAS II, plus autothrottles, LPV approach and graphical flight planning. RNP 0.3 navigation, and Honeywell's SmartView synthetic vision will be optional.
Parts for the aircraft are now being fabricated in Stans. Roll-out is slated for mid-2014 and first flight should occur in late 2014. Three aircraft will be used in a 2,500-hr. development program, which is intended to result in FAA and EASA certification in early 2017, followed thereafter by entry into service.
Schwenk says that several potential customers wanted to put down deposits on the aircraft, but he's holding off until roll-out of the first prototype in mid-2014. He says he's leery of over promising and under delivering on performance. By the time roll-out occurs, he'll have hard numbers from his engineers. Then, he'll start making guarantees and taking non-refundable deposits.
“Pilatus always has been a trend setter,” says Schwenk, promising his company's newest aircraft will “be in a class of its own.”
Pilatus launched the versatile PC-12 into what then seemed a dubious market, but has now delivered in excess of 1,100 of the single-engine turboprop model. Now the PC-24 potentially could become one of the most innovative light jets yet to enter its similarly ill-defined market segment. Watch for updates in upcoming issues of BCA.

Pilatus PC-24 Preliminary SpecificationsEquipped PriceEquipped Price$8,900,000 (2017 U.S. dollars)
CharacteristicsWing Loading 53.1
Power Loading2.6
Noise (EPNdB)NA/NA/NA
Seating1+7/11
Dimensions (ft./m) ExternalLength55.2/16.8Height17.3/5.3Span55.8/17.0InternalLength23.0/7.0Height5.1/1.6Width (Maximum)5.6/1.7Width (Floor)3.9/1.2
Weights (lb./kg)
Max Ramp 17,750/8,051
Max Takeoff 17,650/8,006
Max Landing16,250/7,371
Zero Fuel13,450/6,101c
BOW10,950/4,967
Max Payload2,500/1,134
Useful Load6,800/3,084
Executive Payload1,200/544
Max Fuel5,953/2,700
Payload With Max Fuel 847/384
Fuel With Max Payload4,300/1,950
Fuel With Executive Payload5,600/2,540
ThrustEngines2 Williams Intl. FJ44-4A
Normal Takeoff Thrust (lb.)3,400* TBO (hr.)5,000
LimitsMmoNAFL/VmoNA
PSI 8.8
ClimbTime to FL 370
NAFAR Part 25 OEI rate (fpm)NA/NAFAR Part 25 OEI gradient (ft./nm)NA/NA
Ceilings (ft./m) Certificated45,000/13,716
All-Engine Service45,000/13,716
Engine-Out Service26,000/7,925*3,600-lb. thrust APR rating

lk978
27th Oct 2013, 01:04
A small problem to overcome will be taking enough fuel to return to Perth from a strip with no fuel. 1.5 hours out 1.5 back and you start getting into the larger aircraft area. Thats why the hawker is such a good machine. It can go anywhere in the Pilbara or even Broome with return fuel.

I guess the biggest benefit will be if it has a similar MTOW as its MLW then you will be able to do quick hop and pops and carry plenty of gas with you.

Looking at the numbers though 5900 lbs should be plenty of gas for Perth return. As a guess I would say 1800 lbs out and 1800 lbs in. It will be just a question of how much equipment and stuff you can take.

Howard Hughes
27th Oct 2013, 04:15
These are probably the two most important figures:
Max Payload 2,500/1,134
Fuel With Max Payload 4,300/1,950
With RFDS fit outs weighing in at anything up to 500kg and allowing for two crew (and sundry gear), it should be able to uplift around 2300kg of fuel (5070 lbs). If ik978's fuel burn figures are correct it will be a very useful machine. :ok:

PS: Not sure why they haven't gone B350's in WA, marginally quicker than a B200 (but makes a significant difference on sectors over 300nm), can carry a full load and enough fuel to outlast your bladder every single time! ;)

FGD135
28th Oct 2013, 13:20
Plenty of hype about the machine being capable of "short strips", but will CASA allow this for the RFDS?

As the rules currently stand, RPT and CHTR in this aircraft require the operator to increase required landing distances by a factor of 1.67 - moving the quoted 800 metre landing distances more into the 1,300 - 1,400 metre range.

How many gravel strips are that long? Very few. The machine would thus be limited to only the major aerodromes, which have sealed surfaces anyway.

So, as an aspect of the new rules coming in December, will CASA require a 1.67 factor applied to the landing distances for RFDS ops?

Yes, I believe, given that their ops are back-of-the-clock with most of the RFDS pilots being younger guys, with the PC24 being their first jet.

With the aircraft limited to major aerodromes, the case for basing them at the remote bases becomes very, very weak.

ga_trojan
28th Oct 2013, 22:56
How many gravel strips are that long? Very few. The machine would thus be limited to only the major aerodromes, which have sealed surfaces anyway.Most gravel runways and all mine sites in WA and many in the NT are easily that long. Certainly won't be a show stopper for Western Ops guys.

Plenty of hype about the machine being capable of "short strips", but will CASA allow this for the RFDS?Well CASA might have to enter into the real world!! It will be a major embarrassment and there will be alot of political pressure applied if CASA start to block a PC24. I cannot see the Nationals letting CASA get away with to much if the RFDS come and show them the new Jet they want for country people, but CASA won't approve the certifictaion criteria despite every other authority in the world approving it.

Yes, I believe, given that their ops are back-of-the-clock with most of the RFDS pilots being younger guys, with the PC24 being their first jet.Yeah and so what? Guys in the airforce fly their first jet at 100 hours. If you can fly the PC12 well I'm sure you cna adjust to the PC24.
It will be the old crustys in management that I would be worried about.

Wally Mk2
29th Oct 2013, 00:41
You guys are talking about if this is a done deal having these fancy new jets avail scattered all over the countryside. Years b4 they even get off the ground & a few years is an eternity in aviation.
'FGD' touched on another area that I haven't added in my previous posts as there's so many hurdles in this field, the 20.7.1B for A/C Abv 5.7t. The B350's have their limitations & so will the PC's not insurmountable but sure do add to the boffins decision making process as to what to buy for Aeromed Ops.

Don't get me wrong would love to see some shiny jets in the RFDS (I'd be sniffing around there myself if that be the case) but can't see it happening at least not in the foreseeable future.

Wmk2

morno
29th Oct 2013, 02:56
Dunno Wally, I think there may even already be a couple of orders (at least serious expressions of interest when they open the order book anyway) for these things by RFDS.

Just look at how popular the PC-12 has been for RFDS (your old section excluded, :p).

Not a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN.

morno

Howard Hughes
29th Oct 2013, 03:03
with most of the RFDS pilots being younger guys,
Average age where I work around 47ish, with ages ranging from 27-65!
'FGD' touched on another area that I haven't added in my previous posts as there's so many hurdles in this field, the 20.7.1B for A/C Abv 5.7t. The B350's have their limitations & so will the PC's not insurmountable but sure do add to the boffins decision making process as to what to buy for Aeromed Ops.
Come the new reg's, there will be no above 5700kg, nor 20.7.1B. Small aircraft will become those below 8618kg, which will include B350 and the proposed PC-24. At this stage the waters are very muddy with regard to performance requirements for aircraft sitting between 5700kg & 8618kg.

I anticipate that Aeromedical operators (and the RFDS in particular), will be looking to continue operating as they have for many years. I can't see the regulator imposing restrictions that will reduce, or hinder the present services available. Given the move to risk based safety, I would imagine that aeromedical operators will be able to operate as they do presently, provided they can prove a safety case for operations which fall outside, or that will be restricted by the new regulations.

ga_trojan
29th Oct 2013, 10:43
Dunno Wally, I think there may even already be a couple of orders (at least serious expressions of interest when they open the order book anyway) for these things by RFDS.

I agree. Given they have helped design the thing I would imagine they may have some sort of option. RFDS are the biggest operator of the PC12 so a obvious place to try and move new product. The PC24 could kill off the pesky Kingair that inhabits the East Coast aeromed operators as well, so Australia is a good market for them.

However they do have to build it. Hopefully it won't be another Eclipse!

Trojan1981
29th Oct 2013, 10:59
Forgive my ignorance, as I have very little understanding of the new regs, and no experience with fixed wing EMS, but aren't aeromedical operations still classed as airwork?

If so, then then 20.7.1B para 11.3 would suggest that no factoring applies, so that if Pilatus achieves 800m field length then that's what you go with.

Will this be moving into the ATO cat under the new regs?
This seems counter productive. With regard to helicopters, the regs seem like a real ball and chain that will limit operations to the point of costing lives. At least SAR will still be airwork.

Howard Hughes
29th Oct 2013, 21:05
Under Part 135 and the proposed aeromedical reg, operators will need to comply with Air Transport standards, this includes factoring for performance. I'm fairly sure that in the final wash up a compromise will be reached, otherwise I can think of one place in particular that will lose its aeromedical service, as there is no option of extending the runway! I'm sure there will be many others.

CharlieLimaX-Ray
30th Oct 2013, 00:19
The "jet" may be a way of attracting younger pilot's to join the RFDS in the future?

Trojan1981
30th Oct 2013, 10:39
OK, thanks HH.

27/09
31st Oct 2013, 04:06
The "jet" may be a way of attracting younger pilot's to join the RFDS in the future?

Not sure this is a good reason to get "jets".

bankrunner
31st Oct 2013, 23:36
And surely RFDS aren't so hard up trying to find pilots that they'd need to resort to that as a reason to get jets?

avconnection
1st Nov 2013, 07:17
http://replygif.net/i/187.gif

pc12togo
20th May 2014, 14:52
http://i61.tinypic.com/2wdbsle.jpg

Captain Nomad
21st May 2014, 01:41
Pilatus Media Release:


EBACE 2014 – First PC-24 Sales Contracts with Fleet Customers Signed






On the opening day of the European Business Aviation Conference & Exhibition (EBACE) in Geneva, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd signed fleet sales contracts with a first group of customers planning to operate their PC-24s in typical segments of the target market for which the new Pilatus jet has been designed. Sales went ahead on the basis of binding contracts and non-refundable deposits.



Oscar J. Schwenk, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Pilatus and Markus Bucher, CEO, today signed contracts for the sale of PC-24 fleets with five well-known operators:


• Falcon Aviation Services, United Arab Emirates: 2 PC-24s
• Jetfly, Luxembourg: 4 PC-24s
• PlaneSense, USA: 6 PC-24s
• Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Western Operations): 3 PC-24s, incl. option for 1 additional aircraft
• U-Haul International, USA: 2 PC-24s


Oscar J. Schwenk is delighted:



"It's fantastic to be able to sign the first sales contracts for our new aircraft with such well-known operators. Our first customers plan to use their PC-24s for a broad and varied spectrum of mission profiles; with its unique characteristics, we believe our aircraft offers the ideal solution in each case. Missions will include commercial flights, medical flights, private business flights and fractional ownership arrangements. I would like to express my very sincere thanks to our customers for their confidence in our company and in the PC-24.”



Markus Bucher adds:



"In terms of operations, our first fleet customers cover a wide spectrum of different use. In terms of location, too, we will see our PC-24 flying in many areas of the world right from the start of deliveries.



We attach the highest priority to customer service, and look forward to this very valuable early opportunity to acquire a deeper understanding of PC-24 operations in very varied, and sometimes extreme, conditions. Specifically composed teams will do everything possible to ensure that the first PC-24s are ready to operate smoothly from 2017. PC-12 owners consistently rate our customer service 'excellent' in consumer surveys: our goal is to meet and even exceed the understandably high expectations of our PC-24 customers.”



Grahame Marshall, CEO of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (RFDS Western Operations), eagerly looks forward to the PC-24 joining the fleet:



“When transporting patients requiring emergency medical care, time is always of the essence. With the vast distances we service across Western Australia, covering some 2.5 million square kilometres, the challenge for us has been how to combine a turboprop’s strengths like its dependability and its ability to operate from short and unimproved surfaces, with a jet’s speed – and that is exactly what the PC-24 will now deliver. The other great benefit the PC-24 will bring is enhanced accessibility for our stretcher patients and staff because of its huge aft cargo door. There has been a close ongoing co-operation between RFDS and Pilatus in the definition phase of the PC-24, and we are now very excited to take the next step and become a Launch Customer for the new Super Versatile Jet.”



President and CEO of PlaneSense®, Inc., George Antoniadis, said its fractional ownership program is pleased to be a PC-24 launch customer.



“We have been in close cooperation with Pilatus for nearly 20 years, and immensely value our long standing friendship, as evidenced by taking delivery of 50 Pilatus PC-12s since our inception,” Antoniadis said. “We are delighted to be a PC-24 launch customer because we are confident that this Pilatus jet, with its large cabin, exceptional performance, and trademark large cargo door, will further enhance our service offering and augment our marketplace reach. In addition to the initial launch order, we anticipate acquiring many more uniquely capable PC-24s in the future.”



CEO of Jetfly, Cédric Lescop, said:



“We are very proud to support the launch of the Pilatus PC-24. Jetfly believes that this jet will shake up the entry level business aviation market segments by filling a gap, because it combines the comfort of a large cabin, the price of a small jet and the landing performance of the best turboprops. The PC-24 will be a perfect complement to our existing fleet and will further improve our service.”



High-resolution photos of the PC-24 as well as from EBACE 2014 are available to download, free of charge, at http://images.pilatus-aircraft.com.



Further media information is available from:

Oscar J. Schwenk, Chairman

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd

P.O. Box 992, 6371 Stans, Switzerland

Phone: +41 41 619 62 05, Fax: +41 41 619 60 34

E-mail: [email protected]

yr right
21st May 2014, 05:29
Ever thought jets might mean speed for the distance required up in these parts.

Cheers

Jabawocky
21st May 2014, 05:47
Simon is taking things seriously, SR22TN to PC12 to twin jet :ok:

Bevan666
21st May 2014, 06:06
Go hard or go home I say!

Stationair8
21st May 2014, 07:31
So RFDS(WA)-three plus an option for one, who is the other undisclosed Australian retail customer with an order for three?

Interesting to see where WA ops base them? All three at Jandakot maybe, all one at Port Headland, one in Derby and one at Jandakot?

Wally Mk2
21st May 2014, 07:43
Well am surprised but it's great to see:ok:

Seems like the landscape has changed & fantastic the WA section are leading the way......dunno where the $$$ are coming from but hey as they say.................nice if you can get it:ok:
Might have to do some sniffing around:E


Wmk2

yr right
21st May 2014, 09:57
mmm maybe the super base that they be building in broome

gerry111
21st May 2014, 13:52
Really good forward planning by RFDS. :ok:

More and more grey nomads are being attracted to the beautiful W.A. Northwest. And local medical facilities are already under pressure from them. So really good medivac facilities into the future will certainly save lives. Money well spent.

FGD135
21st May 2014, 13:52
mmm maybe the super base that they be building in broome
That would not only be the most expensive option, but also the least effective.


The cheapest and most effective option would be to base them all at Jandakot, but given the runway lengths at Jandakot, it may have to be Perth.


Basing them all at Perth would be interesting, given how capacity constrained that aerodrome already is.


And to really minimise the costs, the pilot group would have to be separate from the PC12 group - with a different employment agreement.

pc12togo
21st May 2014, 17:16
Why would the runway lengths at Jandakot be a problem?

The stats for the PC-24 show a balanced field length of 820m at MTOW (which seems like part of the attraction for RFDS).

manymak
21st May 2014, 22:28
Jandakot shouldn't be an issue. Don't China Southern operate a Phenom 100 and C550 for jet transition training there?

Towering Q
22nd May 2014, 04:55
Might have to do some sniffing around

Could be a few vacant PC12 slots for you to try out for, Wally. :ok:

FGD135
22nd May 2014, 05:06
Why would the runway lengths at Jandakot be a problem?


Because of the 1.67 factor they will need to apply to the book landing distance figures.


What are they saying for the landing distance?


If you start with the greatest LDA at YPJT, which is 1,274 m for runway 06L, and work backwards through the 1.67 factor, you get a theoretical book figure of 762 metres.


So, to land legally at YPJT the book figure for the landing distance required will need to show 762 metres or less. That is getting a bit tight.

Vincent Chase
22nd May 2014, 07:16
FGD135, I believe RFDS ops are AWK category?

BPA
22nd May 2014, 09:11
The jet airliner I fly as an unfactored LDR of around 800m so I can't see the PC24 having an unfactored LDR near this. More likely it will be around 600m.

Howard Hughes
22nd May 2014, 10:25
From the Pilatus website:

Landing distance over 50 ft obstacle 2,525 ft 770 m

Balanced field length (MTOW, ISA, sea level, dry paved runway) 2,690 ft 820 m

If they can make those figures it shouldn't be a problem!

yr right
22nd May 2014, 10:33
super base at Broome is happening. Short jump to just about every where in the Kimberly's plus Broome hospital the preferred over Derby now, what ive been told wont be long before work starts on the base here. Why base them all down south were medical attention is a lot closer than up in that part of the world
Cheers

Hans Solo
22nd May 2014, 11:14
Im sure Wally wont mind paying his "Westops" dues for a couple of years flogging around in a PC-12, so he can finally get his hands on that nice new jet! :}

Bograt
22nd May 2014, 15:49
Base them up there to feed the new super hospital in Perth.

It's cheaper to run a fleet of aircraft than to try and build, and more difficult - staff, a new first-world facility in the northwest where the population is booming; grey nomads and youngsters alike.

FGD135
23rd May 2014, 04:13
I believe RFDS ops are AWK category?At the moment, yes, but with the rule changes that are coming, I am informed that they will be operating per charter rules. Therefore, the 1.67 landing factor will apply.

Landing distance over 50 ft obstacle 2,525 ft 770 mGidday Howard. That number is based on ISA temperature I would assume. For about 90% of the year, Jandakot would be above ISA. Significantly above for about 50% of the year, I would say.

Assuming the 1.67 factor, I would say there would be too many occasions when a landing at YPJT could not legally be made.

Base them up there ...When you consider the staffing, facilities and housing requirements, that is a very, very expensive way to do things, compared with basing them at Perth.

And, there is almost no tangible benefit in doing so. With an evacuation to Perth from a community in the remote Kimberley, the time impact on the RFDS is less if the PC24 comes from Perth. This is because the first stage of the retrieval would have to be done by the PC12.

VH-XXX
23rd May 2014, 04:34
How does the 1.67 factor work and is that for charter?


If a Chieftain needed 700 metres on paper, does it need 1,200 metres on a charter to be legal?

megle2
23rd May 2014, 05:00
Isnt it 1.67 for jets above 5,700 charter and 1.43 for turbo prop, not sure about PA31 C310 ect charter

Wally Mk2
23rd May 2014, 13:44
To you caring guys there 'Wally' doesn't do SE anymore especially in Med Ops, too dangerous so like to do direct entry on to new shinny toy jet TY:-):E:ok:

Wm2

morno
23rd May 2014, 23:04
You're too soft Wally, :E

Howard Hughes
24th May 2014, 08:50
Gidday Howard. That number is based on ISA temperature I would assume. For about 90% of the year, Jandakot would be above ISA. Significantly above for about 50% of the year, I would say.

Assuming the 1.67 factor, I would say there would be too many occasions when a landing at YPJT could not legally be made.

Correct ISA, but aerial work does not require factoring.

From CAO 20.7.1B

11.3 For subparagraph 4.1 (d) and paragraph 5.1, an aeroplane engaged in private, or aerial work, operations must be operated so that compliance with the landing requirements is demonstrated using data set out in:
(a) the flight manual; or
(b) the manufacturer’s data manual; or
(c) the approved foreign flight manual.
Note: The data contained in some manufacturers’ data manuals is unfactored and makes no allowance for degraded aircraft performance.

Source: casa.gov.au

Captain Nomad
24th May 2014, 11:47
Factoring or no factoring, if you knew the development plans for Jandakot airport you would know that runway length is not likely to be one of the long term problems - don't you think the RFDS would have thought about that also?! Remember this jet is still some years away...

FGD135
24th May 2014, 13:07
... but aerial work does not require factoring.
I have been reliably informed that, following the forthcoming rule changes, the "airwork" category will no longer exist (or will not be available to aeromedical operators).


The aeromedical operators will then have to operate to charter standards, which require the 1.67 landing distance factor for aircraft above 5,700 kg MTOW.


... if you knew the development plans for Jandakot airport ...
If there are any plans to extend the runways, then they are keeping them secret. The website (www.jandakotairport.com.au (http://www.jandakotairport.com.au)) lists their current development plans, but these are limited to food distribution facilities.


If you know of other plans, please tell.

Howard Hughes
24th May 2014, 20:01
I have been reliably informed that, following the forthcoming rule changes, the "airwork" category will no longer exist (or will not be available to aeromedical operators).


The aeromedical operators will then have to operate to charter standards, which require the 1.67 landing distance factor for aircraft above 5,700 kg MTOW.
I am well aware of the upcoming rule changes. With a move to evidenced based safety, my take on it is that CASA will not make aeromedical operators change what they have been doing to good effect, provided a strong safety case can be made.

There is also a NPRM regarding aeromedical operations which does have some scope for exemptions/changes to the more stringent PART 119/135.

FGD135
25th May 2014, 02:04
... provided a strong safety case can be made.
I don't envy the bloke who has to draw up the safety case.


We are talking about a single pilot operation, where the single pilot is a bleary-eyed 25 year old, flying his first jet, on a back-of-the-clock operation into a 1,100 metre gravel strip.


Can a safety case be made for dispensing with the 1.67 factor in these circumstances?

outnabout
25th May 2014, 02:31
Wally:


Your comment:
Seems like the landscape has changed & fantastic the WA section are leading the way......dunno where the $$$ are coming from but hey as they say.................


I just had a quick read of the annual report for the RFDS for the financial year ending 30 June 2013, and I'll tell you where the $$$ are coming from - from the Australian taxpayer, mainly.


From the annual report for the entire RFDS:
Where our funding comes from - Australian Government, 25%; State & Territory Governments, 45%; Fundraising 17%; Other (eg private contracts) 13%.


The nett surplus was $1.6m, with cash (or cash equivalents) of $24.5m.


Receipts from the Commonwealth Government: $72m to 30 June 2013; and a further $69.7m to 30 June 2012.


And the majority of the work is inter-hospital transfers, or clinic runs. Medi-vacs come in third.


Yes, the RFDS do a sterling job on emergency medical evacuations, no question, but not sure why we need the latest shiniest jet to take a doctor and a couple of nurses to a remote location to check on ear infections, skin cancers, or scabies.

morno
25th May 2014, 02:53
but not sure why we need the latest shiniest jet to take a doctor and a couple of nurses to a remote location to check on ear infections, skin cancers, or scabies.I think a quote like that goes to show the lack of knowledge on what goes on.

I very very highly doubt, RFDS will be using these jets for their Primary Health Care roles.

Yes the RFDS does do a lot of Primary Health Care (and it is going well beyond treating ear infections, skin cancers and scabies these days), which is a need that is great in remote area's. However, when there are aviation platforms that are becoming more readily available and more economical, for better aeromedical transfers/evacs, then why not get them?

The days of RFDS flying around in only King Air's and PC-12's are running out. Mainly because there are better ways to do the job which need to be accessed, otherwise they will find themselves lacking in the technology to provide their patients with the best health care available.

So the question that need's to be asked, is why SHOULDN'T the RFDS get jets?

morno

Towering Q
25th May 2014, 02:56
not sure why we need the latest shiniest jet to take a doctor and a couple of nurses to a remote location to check on ear infections, skin cancers, or scabies

RFDS Westops contract the clinic work out to charter companies, so the PC24 wont be involved in anything like you describe above.

Howard Hughes
25th May 2014, 05:00
We are talking about a single pilot operation, where the single pilot is a bleary-eyed 25 year old, flying his first jet, on a back-of-the-clock operation into a 1,100 metre gravel strip.
FGD135, with all due respect you have been pushing this misconception about inexperience since page one.

Firstly your average RFDS is pilot is not 25 years old, in fact the average would be more likely closer to double that and we come from a variety of backgrounds, including many with corporate jet time, regionals, RAAF and at least one ex 747 captain that I am aware of. The RFDS organisation (under it's many guises) is undergoing significant internal change Australia wide and will be ready to meet the many changes under the new CASR's.

I'm fairly sure as we move forward the RFDS will use less airports, however these airports will need to be better equipped and suitable for the aircraft types in operation at the time. If we are serious about providing the best medical service possible, jet aircraft are an inevitable evolution, particularly in WA where all of the 'critical first hour' (and then some) is taken up just getting to the scene.

I'm fairly sure RFDS (WA) will not undertake the process lightly and when the time comes to transition to jets there will be a significant experience in place to pass on their knowledge to those pilots who may fit your ideal of an RFDS pilot!

Cheers, HH :ok:

Captain Nomad
25th May 2014, 05:27
If there are any plans to extend the runways, then they are keeping them secret.

Not too secret really. Pretty easy to find with a Google search! :ok:

Jandakot Airport Master Plan 2014 includes construction of fourth runway and new aviation precinct | AviationWA (http://www.aviationwa.org.au/2013/12/16/jandakot-airport-master-plan-2014-includes-construction-of-fourth-runway-and-new-aviation-precinct/)

outnabout
25th May 2014, 06:10
Morno:


I am not up with Healthspeak, so am not sure what you mean by Primary Health Care roles....can you elaborate?


I am not arguing with or questioning the use of PC24s, King Airs, or PC12s for medical evacuation - I agree with you that, absolutely, get the latest and best for such a vital role.


I am questioning the use of these aircraft for inter-hospital transfers, and for clinic runs. It is my understanding that not all inter-hospital transfers are for patients who are in a critical condition requiring specialist medical attention on the flight.


Towering Q:
RFDS Westops contract some of the clinic runs out to charter companies.


Going by the annual report ending 30 June 2013, the figures quoted are for block hours, both RFDS and charter. Central Ops have the highest rate of charter hours - 8.9% of the total of all block hours are done by charter companies, all out of Alice Springs. Western Ops have 4.8%, South East section is 4.5%, while Queensland brings up the rear with 2.5%.


Please note - I am assuming that all charter block hours used are for clinic runs / hospital transfers. I am assuming that the total block hours refers to the total hours flown by the RFDS aircraft in all roles. I am willing to be corrected if these assumptions are in error.

morno
25th May 2014, 06:18
Inter-hospital transfers are not Charter.

Also, inter-hospital transfers can also include the transfer of time critical patients. They're not just the transfer of semi-healthy people.

Primary health care - same as the care you'd receive at a normal doctors clinic. However, the services of these are expanding. There's also Allied Health services (physio, mental health, etc.).

morno

Captain Nomad
25th May 2014, 06:33
'Hospital' is a broad term, but any hospital is only as good as the staff and services that it can provide. If you have a look at the WA health system you won't find much in the way of specialist care in the regional hospitals...

An 'inter-hospital transfer' of a cardiac patient from a hospital with no ability to deal with him/her appropriately can be just as important and urgent as a 'primary evacuation' of a cardiac patient on a station (for example).

Towering Q
25th May 2014, 08:33
RFDS Westops contract some of the clinic runs out to charter companies

I realise QLD and Central Section do things differently, but at Westops NONE of the PC12's do Clinic Flights.

PLovett
25th May 2014, 09:08
I will caveat my answer by saying that my knowledge of RFDS charter is now 6 years old and things may well have changed since then. However, the charters done out of Alice Springs were clinic runs, that is, taking a doctor and nurse (usually) to a community to undertake clinics at that community.

I also used to do a monthly clinic run out of Tennant Creek to the Barkly cattle stations for the RFDS. I never heard of any patient transfer flights or evacuation flights associated with those charters. In fact, the aircraft that I flew was the only one equipped for such a flight as it was set up for patient transfers from the Tennant Creek hospital. I am not saying it wasn't done, just I never heard of any. The RFDS decided to use the Tennant Creek aircraft as they decided it was safer flying than the driving they had done previously.

I also did some charter flights out of Darwin. Different company and I am sure they weren't through RFDS but possibly for NT Health. Same thing though, a doctor going to a community to conduct a monthly clinic.

The clinic runs were charters, the patient transfers were airwork.

Mick Stuped
25th May 2014, 09:36
PLovett, are you sure that clinic runs were conducted by RFDS under their AOC as far as I am aware both WA RFDS and Central(NT/SA and WA) only have an aerial work AOC.
Last I heard clinic runs were considered by CASA to be charter not Aerial work. This is why RFDS in WA and NT contract the clinic runs out. If they are doing clinic runs in RFDS aircraft then they must have special exemption from CASA to allow these operations or they have upgraded to a Charter AOC. However a quick search on CASA AOC search shows both WA and Central still only hold a Aerial Work AOC.
Must be a simple explanation.

PLovett
25th May 2014, 10:26
Mick, they were conducted under the charter company's AOC, not the RFDS. The RFDS would contract for the clinic run flight so as far as the company was concerned it was another charter. The RFDS set the minimum standards that the pilots had to meet and the company was subject to an RFDS audit prior to them agreeing to use the company.

The work I did for the RFDS was charter. However, the work I did on behalf of the Tennant Creek hospital was airwork on the company's AOC. The work I did out of Darwin was charter, again on the company's AOC. While I was in Tennant Creek I was occasionally tasked to do an evacuation which would otherwise have been done by the RFDS but for the fact they didn't have an aircraft available. However, this work was again through the Tennant Creek hospital and again was airwork under the company's AOC.

The whole issue of who is authorising the flight is perhaps a little clearer if you understand that all medical flights in the NT and possibly throughout Australia are at the request of the various State or Territory governments. The request goes through a government officer who authorises the contracted flight organisation to undertake the flight. In the south of the NT the flight organisation was the RFDS, in the north it was a division of Pearl Aviation (when I was there).

Apart from medical transfers and evacuations the RFDS runs an extensive medical service of clinics and GP practices. For example, the Tennant Creek GP is (or was then) an RFDS employee. It was established by the RFDS and staffed by them. It is primarily this service that the RFDS raises cash so heavily for. The aircraft side of it is a contract service paid for by the various governments.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

Swamp Duck
25th May 2014, 10:47
Haven't seen any bleary eyed 25 year olds in the RFDS. I've only met very highly experienced, very professional older pilots. The RFDS can still attract these individuals due to the excellent culture, great aeroplanes, the nature of their work and.most of all they still respect experience.

B190
25th May 2014, 11:32
Central Ops has charter on its AOC, and only uses Specific approved aircraft (pax configured PC12s) on the charters.The airmed PC12s are operated in the air work category.

Swamp Duck
25th May 2014, 11:53
So does QLD. Clinics operated under charter catagory. Evacs and hospital transfers airwork. Charter is on AOC

compressor stall
25th May 2014, 14:22
outnabout

It is my understanding that not all inter-hospital transfers are for patients who are in a critical condition requiring specialist medical attention on the flight.

Unless things have radically changed in the past few years, there has been a centralisation of medical services statewide to Perth.

e.g. Any labour pre 36 weeks is flown to Perth. No, not critical in your words but the way the health department play the game. But whilst you're already going to Perth, why don't you take someone who's of less medical priority along as well? Be careful how you read statistics.

And you need an understanding of the way things work. Currently, if you have a pickup in the Kimberley to Perth (read above) and if you can't do a swap half way down with another crew, then that's a crew and aircraft overnight in Perth. Which leaves the Kimberly short staffed and an aircraft and crew on the ground for the next 12 hours. Then the Headland crew has to cover for there… and on it goes. Something with speed and range (i.e. the jet) will prevent this from happening.

PS. Take what some others have told you here as fact. They know. :8

FGD135
25th May 2014, 15:30
Captain Nomad,

Thanks for that. You'd think that information would be prominent on the Jandakot airport website, not a website called "aviationwa". I did do a Google search but didn't see that.

I see from that "2014 Master Plan" that the main runways will indeed be extended - to 1,508 and 1,600 metres respectively. I suspect that will definitely make PC24 operations feasible all year round, and this is a good thing, given how choked Perth airport is.

Howard,

I have met several Western Ops pilots that would be aged in their mid-twenties. But that is really a moot point because:

1. The 1.67 factor will definitely apply;
2. The PC24 pilot group will be a different and separate group to the current PC12 group (because that is a cheaper way to do things).

If we are serious about providing the best medical service possible ...I think you will find that it's not about providing the best possible service, but rather, the best service that can be achieved with their budget. This is an important qualification because it highlights the financial realities. People tend to forget the financial ball that is chained to the service's ankle!




... and I'll tell you where the $$$ are coming from - from the Australian taxpayer, mainly.
outnabout,

That is were the operational funding has historically come from. For capital acquisition, such as the PC24 purchase, most or all of the money could come from the private sector. To fund this purchase, you can bet the RFDS will be going cap in hand to every corporation that does business in WA (especially the mining companies).

morno
25th May 2014, 23:19
but rather, the best service that can be achieved with their budget

Completely agree. However, without the hard numbers in front of me, I think you'd find that operating the PC-24 vs a PC-12, isn't as significant an increase as you might expect. Pilatus always do their homework, and the cost per nm of the PC-24 is quite good for a jet.

morno

outnabout
25th May 2014, 23:21
Thank you Morno (and others) I can see the case for using Flash, Shiny Jets for inter-hospital transfers due to time critical patients, crew re-location inconvenience (for want of a better word) and etc. I hadn't considered all that inter-hospital transfers involved.


However, still struggling to see the case for using FSJ for clinic runs.


Morno says - Primary health care - same as the care you'd receive at a normal doctors clinic. However, the services of these are expanding. There's also Allied Health services (physio, mental health, etc.).


B190 says - Central Ops has charter on its AOC, and only uses Specific approved aircraft (pax configured PC12s) on the charters.


So we have a PC12 - previously used for interhospital transfers / medivacs and now reconfigured to commuter seating (as described in the Annual Report) - funded by the Government / sponsors / fundraisers, carrying non-RFDS personnel (I believed Allied Health personnel are not RFDS employees but, as always, willing to be corrected) on a standard charter to a remote community to provide non-urgent medical treatment. Why does this work have to be done by the RFDS in a PC12 ( / King Air / eventually, possibly, PC24)?


In the figures I quoted on charter vs block hours, I do not believe that the charter hours represent all the clinic work available - however, as I am learning all the time, I am willing to be corrected.


FGD135 -
I applaud the RFDS for going to mining companies / corporations etc to fund their new jet. In today's world I believe that is SOP. However, you point out that the government funding is for operational expenses - I am extremely surprised that replacing aircraft doesn't count as an operational expense. In the charter organisations I've worked for, both aircraft replacement and maintenance have counted as operational expenses and needed to be factored into the running costs of the aircraft. Why is this not the case at the RFDS?


Compressor stall -
I am grateful that those with the knowledge on here are taking the time to answer my questions.

j3pipercub
25th May 2014, 23:32
Outnabout,

Are you asking why does the work have to be done by the RFDS?

OR

Why does the work have to be done in a PC12/B200?

morno
26th May 2014, 00:05
Thank you Morno (and others) I can see the case for using Flash, Shiny Jets for inter-hospital transfers due to time critical patients, crew re-location inconvenience (for want of a better word) and etc. I hadn't considered all that inter-hospital transfers involved.You're welcome. Always willing to educate others on the services that RFDS provides. Many people around the country just don't have a clue as to how much work they actually do. And it's not their fault. The days of just being there to pick up a ringer in a paddock after he's fallen off a motorbike are gone. Now they do that and so much more.

However, still struggling to see the case for using FSJ for clinic runs.I think you missed the part where I stressed that I very highly doubt any jet would be used for these. Think of the jet as the long distance, time critical machine, and the PC-12/B200 as the short distance, initial response, dirt machine.

carrying non-RFDS personnel (I believed Allied Health personnel are not RFDS employees but, as always, willing to be corrected)And I will correct you, :ok:. RFDS is a large provider of Allied Health Services in many states around the country now. You can find information about these services on their website.

In days past, a lot of the Clinic runs were done by charter companies. However, there were many more benefits to using their own aircraft and pilots. I'm not going to detail these because I can't.

It'd be safe to say that they've done more than just their homework on the jet/high speed platform subject. It's just been a case of finding the right machine for the job. Afterall, it'd be irresponsible of them to splurge on a nice jet that was only half suitable for the job. Now that the PC-24 has come along, maybe it ticks all the boxes.

morno

VH-XXX
26th May 2014, 00:22
Sounds like it's been on the cards for a while considering that the RFDS were involved in the design brief for the aircraft.

compressor stall
26th May 2014, 00:28
It was being talked about when I was there 10 years ago, but the right jet hadn't been found then.


outnabout
However, still struggling to see the case for using FSJ for clinic runs.


Why do you believe that a Fast Shiny Jet would be used for clinic runs?

Towering Q
26th May 2014, 00:45
However, still struggling to see the case for using FSJ for clinic runs.

Let me try and explain it this way...

QLD and Central Section use their own aircraft for Clinics, Westops don't.

Westops have ordered the PC24, QLD and Central Section haven't.

compressor stall
26th May 2014, 01:12
"I see", said the blind man, "So therefore the FSJ is going to used for clinic runs in the west!"


A classic syllogistic fallacy - an affirmative conclusion based on a negative premis.

Towering Q
26th May 2014, 01:30
Didn't the blind man say that to his deaf daughter?

Either way, I'd hate to be the first person to try and get a PC24 into Balladonia!:eek:

PLovett
26th May 2014, 02:36
If you can fly a Kingair/PC12 you can fly one of these things but I am sure some expert will get in there and make it more complicated than the space shuttle.

Yup...............CASA, judging by what they did to the operator who wanted to put a Cessna Mustang on their AOC.

pithblot
26th May 2014, 02:42
Or Ringers Soak:eek:

hawkerxp,

They just won't believe you, those experts. After all it does burn kerro!

Cue: Scooter jocks, night traps, 19 Yo.

Stationair8
26th May 2014, 02:47
Wonder whether when the Pilatus jet comes on line, they will rid themselves of the remaining B200's?

Swamp Duck
26th May 2014, 03:10
What's wrong with a B200?

Wally Mk2
26th May 2014, 14:51
It's great the 'Ruffdus' are being proactive about jets but lets not get ahead of ourselves here my dear fellow aviators:-) It's still Approx 3 yrs away & a lot can change in that time frame besides the jet is still to meet it's design specs (having not even left the ground as yet), am sure all deposits will have a 'get-out' clause just in case it's a lemon.


Wmk2

Howard Hughes
16th Dec 2015, 05:43
Love looking back at old threads, it'll be interesting to look at this one again in 2017! ;)

training wheels
17th Dec 2015, 05:09
Could be a few vacant PC12 slots for you to try out for, Wally. :ok:

What's happened to Wally? He used to be very active on here. Haven't seen him post in a long while.

Howard Hughes
22nd Jun 2019, 03:43
Love looking back at old threads, it'll be interesting to look at this one again in 2017! ;)
Well not 2017, but 2019 and the PC-24 is up and running in two States. It'd be great to hear from those flying to see if it has actually lived up to expectations re performance.

machtuk
22nd Jun 2019, 04:28
What's happened to Wally? He used to be very active on here. Haven't seen him post in a long while.

...yeah "where's Wally"?...….Going back thru old threads this name came up a few times?

UnderneathTheRadar
22nd Jun 2019, 04:57
https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/615489-rfds-pilatus-pc24.html

Scroll down the page a bit.....

harrryw
15th Jul 2019, 08:38
https://youtu.be/UFxk8_wUMSA
Nice video of another PC24 on dirt.

compressor stall
15th Jul 2019, 09:05
Love the footage from the GoPro under the wing at 16:40. Awesome machine.

Squawk7700
15th Jul 2019, 10:22
The PC24 will see these shores late 2017 early 2018. Expect to see at least 6 by 2019.

Not a bad prediction from October 2013 !

FGD135
16th Jul 2019, 10:09
Nice video of another PC24 on dirt.A little birdy told me that, after Central Section did that filming of FMP on the dirt strip, it was out of action for about 10 days for repairs caused by gravel damage.

Anybody can confirm?

machtuk
16th Jul 2019, 10:52
A little birdy told me that, after Central Section did that filming of FMP on the dirt strip, it was out of action for about 10 days for repairs caused by gravel damage.

Anybody can confirm?

Let's just say the type is not quite what the "Ruffdus" had expected!
reavaluation of its use is being reassessed as we speak

compressor stall
16th Jul 2019, 11:32
You two still salivating? Careful, you'll get dehydrated.

Alice Kiwican
16th Jul 2019, 20:56
One would think that the RFDS will use the PC12 to transfer patients from unsealed strips and the PC24 for sealed strips only at least for the immediate future

rcoight
17th Jul 2019, 00:08
A little birdy told me that, after Central Section did that filming of FMP on the dirt strip, it was out of action for about 10 days for repairs caused by gravel damage.

Anybody can confirm?

I can confirm that’s BS. Does that help?

LeadSled
17th Jul 2019, 00:58
Folks,
Can someone help me here?
Why would the PC-24 be inherently more liable for stone damage to the skin, compared to the PC-12, particularly given that the large engine running indicator at the front end of the latter tends to stir things up a bit, not a problem with the feared "jet".
Or is it just the "new is bad" affliction that is so prevalent in sectors of the AU aviation community --- where only criticism is permitted.
Tootle pip!!

compressor stall
17th Jul 2019, 01:19
Folks,
Can someone help me here?
Or is it just the "new is bad" affliction that is so prevalent in sectors of the AU aviation community --- where only criticism is permitted.
Tootle pip!!

A quick look at any of the PC 24 threads running reveals these two posters (or is it one) chirping up, crowing and wishing for the failure of the PC24. Be it rumours of airframe problems or needing to be an astronaut to fly one. They started back not long after it was announced.

I don’t doubt for a minute that there will be teething troubles as any first of type will attest. And the RFDS will be cranking over the hours far ahead of most PC24 operators so they’ll hit the problems first.

Fact is is it’ appears to be a fine modern aircraft, extremely capable but not without some limitations. Every aircraft ever made has them.

rcoight
17th Jul 2019, 02:38
A quick look at any of the PC 24 threads running reveals these two posters (or is it one) chirping up, crowing and wishing for the failure of the PC24. Be it rumours of airframe problems or needing to be an astronaut to fly one. They started back not long after it was announced.

I don’t doubt for a minute that there will be teething troubles as any first of type will attest. And the RFDS will be cranking over the hours far ahead of most PC24 operators so they’ll hit the problems first.

Fact is is it’ appears to be a fine modern aircraft, extremely capable but not without some limitations. Every aircraft ever made has them.


Well said.

The absolute crap spouted by one or two obviously either disgruntled ex-employees or competitors is pretty pathetic, really.

LeadSled
17th Jul 2019, 06:21
Folks,
I note that the next batch of assembly line positions have almost sold out, the "reservations" of several "Australian xsperts**" or the actual Australian experience had not dented the sales appeal of the aircraft, with, it appears, re-orders from satisfied batch one customers.
Clearly these customers are not heeding said AU pprune xsperts.
Tootle pip!!

** For those not in the know: X is the unknown quantity and spert is a drip under pressure.

Stationair8
17th Jul 2019, 06:36
LeadSled, talk on the street, is that a couple of Pilatus PC12 private pilot types are upgrading to the PC24 Jet.

LeadSled
17th Jul 2019, 07:33
LeadSled, talk on the street, is that a couple of Pilatus PC12 private pilot types are upgrading to the PC24 Jet.

Stationair8,
That does not surprise me, an upgrade from the PC 12 will be straightforward for any pilot who is reasonably competent.
The PC24 appears to me to be a delightfully simple and straightforward aeroplane, I would just love to get my hands on one as private transport ---- Lotto??
Now let's hear from the Xsperts.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Pilatus have a very long and consistent record of producing practical and long-lived aeroplanes, I have no doubt that the PC24 will be (already is) a worthy addition to the tradition.
Sadly, the only Pilatus time I have is on the piston Porter --- that is going back some, now.

rcoight
17th Jul 2019, 08:05
Stationair8,
That does not surprise me, an upgrade from the PC 12 will be straightforward for any pilot who is reasonably competent.
The PC24 appears to me to be a delightfully simple and straightforward aeroplane, I would just love to get my hands on one as private transport ---- Lotto??
Now let's hear from the Xsperts.
Tootle pip!!.

Not entirely the case - the instructors at Flightsafety have sent more than a few pilots home halfway through the course, and the FAA examiner made it very clear indeed this is not an aircraft for your average private pilot wanting to jump into their first jet. At the end of the day this is a large, fairly high performance jet in single-pilot terms.
It is not a Citation Mustang, or Cirrus jet.

Having said that, it handles beautifully, has no real vices and any pilot who has a decent amount of time in a 12NG (for familiarity with the avionics) and is both a competent instrument pilot as well as a decent hand-flyer should be able to get through.

Squawk7700
17th Jul 2019, 09:39
LeadSled, talk on the street, is that a couple of Pilatus PC12 private pilot types are upgrading to the PC24 Jet.




Someone told me a few years back that Simon Hackett had one on order.

There was also talk of Lindsay Fox buying one at the Avalon Airshow.

All hearsay of course :-)

LeadSled
17th Jul 2019, 13:38
Having said that, it handles beautifully, has no real vices and any pilot who has a decent amount of time in a 12NG (for familiarity with the avionics) and is both a competent instrument pilot as well as a decent hand-flyer should be able to get through.
Isn't that what I said??
As for some of the other comments attributed to FlightSafety, big it is not, it is very marginally faster than a Mustang around the circuit, just a couple of knots, a little faster at high levels, and last time I noticed, owners of aircraft doing the factory supplied course don't get "sent home". It is certainly no more technically difficult than the Mustang, as in NOT.
There are facilities and systems to handle pilots who are not full time professional pilots with existing jet/turboprop experience, and need more than the minimum time, either in the sim. or in the aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

Stationair8
17th Jul 2019, 23:34
Don’t worry LeadSled, I am due to win the big Powerball- so will be happy to take you for a jaunt in my new Pilatus 24.

The PC24 will look good in the hangar next to the new Porter.

rcoight
17th Jul 2019, 23:35
Isn't that what I said??
As for some of the other comments attributed to FlightSafety, big it is not, it is very marginally faster than a Mustang around the circuit, just a couple of knots, a little faster at high levels, and last time I noticed, owners of aircraft doing the factory supplied course don't get "sent home". It is certainly no more technically difficult than the Mustang, as in NOT.
There are facilities and systems to handle pilots who are not full time professional pilots with existing jet/turboprop experience, and need more than the minimum time, either in the sim. or in the aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

I agreed with you that a competent and experienced PC12 pilot should have no problems.

If you read what I said, I said it was “big” etc. in single-pilot terms.
Compared to a Mustang, it is more than twice as heavy, has well over double the thrust, is up to 100 kts faster in the cruise and it most certainly does have systems that a Mustang does not.
When were you at Flightsafety? It would seem an odd thing for an instructor and an FAA check airman to make up to tell us all that a number of pilots have been told they are wasting their time and money after a couple of sims, and that we should not consider this as an entry-level Jet.
Anyway, whatever. I’m not interested in arguing, and only came on here to call out the BS from a couple of the naysayers.
It’s a great aircraft. Cheers.

FGD135
18th Jul 2019, 01:40
I can confirm that’s BS. Does that help?
Thanks, rcoight.

It seems that Western Section have not done a single gravel landing with their PC24s, whilst Central has done just the one. Why the apparent avoidance of gravel?

rcoight
18th Jul 2019, 01:55
Thanks, rcoight.

It seems that Western Section have not done a single gravel landing with their PC24s, whilst Central has done just the one. Why the apparent avoidance of gravel?

No worries. I have no idea re WA section, but there's nothing I'm aware of that suggests we are avoiding gravel strips. Perhaps no gravel strip jobs have come up yet that needed the jet rather than the -12? We're only going to use the jet on jobs that need it, not the normal every day tasks.

Regarding the dirt landing by FMP, that was filmed re May 6/7. I subsequently flew it on May 9,10, and 13.
There was no issues caused by the dirt landing that grounded the aircraft for any period I'm aware of.
Cheers.

FGD135
18th Jul 2019, 02:39
Thanks, rcoight. Seems there is always lots of misinformation to contend with.

harrryw
18th Jul 2019, 04:15
I notice the US film has a "mudguard" deflector for dirt landings. Is this a new addition and do the Australian planes have one.

LeadSled
18th Jul 2019, 05:04
If you read what I said, I said it was “big” etc. in single-pilot terms.
Compared to a Mustang, it is more than twice as heavy, has well over double the thrust, is up to 100 kts faster in the cruise and it most certainly does have systems that a Mustang does not.
When were you at Flightsafety? It would seem an odd thing for an instructor and an FAA check airman to make up to tell us all that a number of pilots have been told they are wasting their time and money after a couple of sims, and that we should not consider this as an entry-level Jet.
Cheers.
rcoight,
When was I last at FlightSafety --- not recently, and I do know of pilots who have been sent back here --- which is more of a condemnation of AU pilot standards than anything else. None were "owners".

But I do have a deal of experience on aircraft of various sizes, all of which I had to demonstrate my ability to fly single handed (even when they were multi-crew aircraft, this was a company "thing" addressing unlikely but possible scenarios) and I do know the Mustang.

Anybody competent on the Mustang (or the PC12,) or any similar turboprop or jet) will, I am quite certain, have no problem on the PC-24. Obviously, my knowledge of the PC24 is theoretical, but it reads as a delightfully simple and straightforward aircraft. I would also suggest that person who is a designated Check Airman by FAA doesn't automatically make him/her an instant expert on what constitutes an entry level jet.

The differences in installed thrust or weight are neither here nor there, it is the book performance that counts, the handling of either will not be an issue. As I said, the speeds around the circuit are very similar. I would suggest that the differences in cruise speed are less significant, operationally, than many might assume ---- you just get from TOC to TOD a bit quicker.

Back to being "sent home" --- that is not how the owner/pilot who has just expended around AUD$13M is treated by Pilatus or any other similar manufacturer, re-read what I posted.

Tootle pip!!

rcoight
18th Jul 2019, 05:38
I notice the US film has a "mudguard" deflector for dirt landings. Is this a new addition and do the Australian planes have one.

FMP has it. Don't know about the WA aircraft.
Last time I flew FGM (the Pilatus demonstrator) it did not have the kit, but for all I know it may have it now.

rcoight
18th Jul 2019, 05:59
<stuff>

Righto, mate. Again, no argument. A competent pilot with decent PC12 time or other jet time should be fine.

It is, however, a fact that one owner placed his -24 on the market after failing to pass the course twice and giving up, and at least a couple of other pilots have been told they are wasting their time and money and to come back when they have more experience that would help them through the course.
I'm not suggesting this is unique to the -24 or that the -24 is some sort of space shuttle. I'd bet that happens from time to time on pretty much anything that requires a type rating.
Your comment on the FAA check airman is pretty disrespectful. This gentleman has flown everything from piston airliners to wide-body jets and practically every type of biz-jet imaginable up to and including Gulfstreams in an extraordinary career the likes of which most of us could only dream of. If he tells me that in his opinion the PC-24 should not be considered an entry level jet I'll listen to him. Especially as he's the guy who decides whether or not to sign me off!
Cheers

mattyj
18th Jul 2019, 09:48
It’s a single pilot swept wing Mach .7 or so, multi engined thing with a comprehensive suite of manuals, procedures and checklists/memory items etc that all need to be absorbed, rehearsed and demonstrated to the checkie. It’s no picnic..not everyone is cut out or current enough to pass the course