RFDS pilots commence industrial action
A comparison for Europeans.
You are leaving London in an aeromed B200 at 0100 local to pick up a patient from a dirt strip next to a small town with no fuel or wx forecast (and a population of 60). The strip 's 56nm south east of Geneva, lit by cat-eye reflectors with a couple of kero lamps at each end of the strip. There are no other airstrips with electric lighting or that are manned after hours, with the exception of Pisa (population 100) or Barcelona (population 2).
Geneva is the only town that has fuel, it also had 60 minutes holding all day, but now there is no TAF as it's after 1800 local (although it does give hourly METARS, usually with no cloud height). Pisa and Barcelona don't have TAFs at night either, or any form of medical facility.
London also has 60 minutes holding on its overnight TAF.
How would you plan that, and what fuel would you carry?
CS
(BTW - the above distances and directions correlate within 15nm of my old 'patch'.)
edit for clarification.....
You are leaving London in an aeromed B200 at 0100 local to pick up a patient from a dirt strip next to a small town with no fuel or wx forecast (and a population of 60). The strip 's 56nm south east of Geneva, lit by cat-eye reflectors with a couple of kero lamps at each end of the strip. There are no other airstrips with electric lighting or that are manned after hours, with the exception of Pisa (population 100) or Barcelona (population 2).
Geneva is the only town that has fuel, it also had 60 minutes holding all day, but now there is no TAF as it's after 1800 local (although it does give hourly METARS, usually with no cloud height). Pisa and Barcelona don't have TAFs at night either, or any form of medical facility.
London also has 60 minutes holding on its overnight TAF.
How would you plan that, and what fuel would you carry?
CS
(BTW - the above distances and directions correlate within 15nm of my old 'patch'.)
edit for clarification.....
Last edited by compressor stall; 6th Nov 2005 at 13:48.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404, mate, its a little immature to be name calling on an anonymous bulletin board don't you think..? 
For your information, B200's here in the UK are fully equiped for life saving ops, often carrying crash teams from A & E. They have 2 Pilots, so to say you cannot go anywhere with a flight crew of 2 is obviously wrong, would you not agree old boy? The fuel issue is a valid point, but the poster did not make mention of that, you see, if sweeping statements are made, they will be picked apart, quite necessary too, to aviod misunderstanding. A B200 can be operated sucessfully with 2 crew.
It was never my intention to denegrate anyone, but obviously you do not know my experience either!
I just wanted to point out inacurate postings, thats all.
As for the RFDS Pilots, yes they do deserve better terms and conditions. Here in the UK Aeromed Pilots, be that a Captain or a First Officer get a salary package on par with regional airline turbo prop crew, so using that yardstick, it looks like the RFDS guys are on an industry standard, again if I am wrong, someone will point that out.
For your information, B200's here in the UK are fully equiped for life saving ops, often carrying crash teams from A & E. They have 2 Pilots, so to say you cannot go anywhere with a flight crew of 2 is obviously wrong, would you not agree old boy? The fuel issue is a valid point, but the poster did not make mention of that, you see, if sweeping statements are made, they will be picked apart, quite necessary too, to aviod misunderstanding. A B200 can be operated sucessfully with 2 crew.
It was never my intention to denegrate anyone, but obviously you do not know my experience either!
I just wanted to point out inacurate postings, thats all.
As for the RFDS Pilots, yes they do deserve better terms and conditions. Here in the UK Aeromed Pilots, be that a Captain or a First Officer get a salary package on par with regional airline turbo prop crew, so using that yardstick, it looks like the RFDS guys are on an industry standard, again if I am wrong, someone will point that out.
Meeb,
To put things into a European perspective for you, say your operating the aeromedical B200 out of STN. The longest distances single pilot I did with a ventilated patient, doctor and nurse would be like flying from STN to Rome, Algiers, Vaernes, Gibraltar, Helsinki, Palermo, Umea, Sarajevo, Budapest, Warszawa, Minsk or Vilnius, all up about 9.5 hrs flight time in one day.
From memory the most fuel we could take was around 2900 lb due to the aircraft fit. The aircraft were fitted for the critical care of ventilated patients, stretcher loader, two stretchers, medical oxygen, cargo/flipper door.
I agree you could do anything in the UK two crew and maybe parts of France and Germany.
To put things into a European perspective for you, say your operating the aeromedical B200 out of STN. The longest distances single pilot I did with a ventilated patient, doctor and nurse would be like flying from STN to Rome, Algiers, Vaernes, Gibraltar, Helsinki, Palermo, Umea, Sarajevo, Budapest, Warszawa, Minsk or Vilnius, all up about 9.5 hrs flight time in one day.
From memory the most fuel we could take was around 2900 lb due to the aircraft fit. The aircraft were fitted for the critical care of ventilated patients, stretcher loader, two stretchers, medical oxygen, cargo/flipper door.
I agree you could do anything in the UK two crew and maybe parts of France and Germany.
Meeb
It wasn’t meant to be personal. It was a general observation about your ill-informed remarks to “Stallies” post. As has been stated on this thread, operating a B200 in Australia on Aero medical tasks can’t be compared to operating the same aircraft in Europe. The distances and availability of fuel are the biggest but not the only difference.
I would say it is wrong because as has been stated before Australia isn’t Europe. The distances, nature of the operation and the availability of fuel make it a completely different ball game.
It wasn’t meant to be personal. It was a general observation about your ill-informed remarks to “Stallies” post. As has been stated on this thread, operating a B200 in Australia on Aero medical tasks can’t be compared to operating the same aircraft in Europe. The distances and availability of fuel are the biggest but not the only difference.
For your information, B200's here in the UK are fully equiped for life saving ops, often carrying crash teams from A & E. They have 2 Pilots, so to say you cannot go anywhere with a flight crew of 2 is obviously wrong, would you not agree old boy?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not convinced about the value of two pilot crews in small aeroplanes. unless the workload demands it. We had a two pilot Westwind fly into the ground on a clear night. The second pilot did not save it. The Metro at Lockhart river had two pilots. The Qantas airliner at Canberra had two pilots, but the second pilot did not save it. The electronics did.
For the europeans.
Imagine europe with a population of only 20 million, and 18 million of those living in Italy, and you may get some idea of what happens in Australia. We haven't built the roads and infrastructure yet, except for a bit along part of the east coast.
There are people living and working way out there, and they need support. The population density is very low.
The theoreticians, manipulators, sales people etc say "bigger is better", and if we follow their advice we will have three or four dash 8's or something with a crew of 10 or so in each, providing very good service for a fraction of those who need it.
What is needed is a fleet of small aircraft, and that is what the much maligned GA operators do. Small aircraft can operate safely in the outback, and our RFDS pilots have admirably proven that. Recentlly I sent a PA32R on a 1400 km flight (not an RFDS flight)to pick up a man who had bad toothache, and was 700 km from the nearest dentist. He had taken a file to his own teeth. It was not nice.
For the europeans.
Imagine europe with a population of only 20 million, and 18 million of those living in Italy, and you may get some idea of what happens in Australia. We haven't built the roads and infrastructure yet, except for a bit along part of the east coast.
There are people living and working way out there, and they need support. The population density is very low.
The theoreticians, manipulators, sales people etc say "bigger is better", and if we follow their advice we will have three or four dash 8's or something with a crew of 10 or so in each, providing very good service for a fraction of those who need it.
What is needed is a fleet of small aircraft, and that is what the much maligned GA operators do. Small aircraft can operate safely in the outback, and our RFDS pilots have admirably proven that. Recentlly I sent a PA32R on a 1400 km flight (not an RFDS flight)to pick up a man who had bad toothache, and was 700 km from the nearest dentist. He had taken a file to his own teeth. It was not nice.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This argument about using 2 crew on Aeromed Ops in a B200 is missing the point. You have overlooked the main factor involved which is COST.
Yes, some might say "but how can you put a price on someone's life"? You can't but the point is, the RFDS (like every other operator) is always trying to screw it's staff and save money where it can. The RFDS aircraft are crewed by very experienced & professional pilots who safely operate single pilot ops Australia wide, day in day out. This is indeed admirable, but at the end of the day, it is still a GA operation. My point is, RFDS pilot salaries will never reflect what they're worth, bloody unfortunate and a big reason why so many pilots move on to the airlines within a couple of years.
Yes it would be nice to have another set of eyes & ears (co-pilot) at 0300 in the morning when you're on descent into your 3rd or 4th "black hole" approach for the night, but it 's all about the bottom line for the company, which is dollars.
Now in a perfect world, we would all be paid what we're worth and issues like fatigue would'nt be a problem. Yes fatigue is a very real issue on single pilot RFDS "back of the clock" ops but procedures are in place to manage it.
Having said that, rostering could always be improved to reflect this but once again it comes back to dollars and how many drivers are legally required to operate a particular base.
RFDS aeromed operations will never operate with 2 pilots in Australia purely and simply because of the cost invloved, regardless of how this is perceived by others to be related to the overall safety of the operation.
The later model B200's are equipped with all the sophistcated bells & whistles which are entirely sufficient to safely conduct single pilot ops.
Make no mistake, RFDS line pilots are paid NOWHERE NEAR what airline jocks are earning. It's nice to hear people say RFDS drivers are worth more, I totally agree but it's all about the company's attitude towards what's a Doctor/Nurse/Pilot worth ? The RFDS have a real problem when it comes to acknowledging the value of their pilots.
They see the transient nature of their pilots as a way of saying "if you don't think we're paying you enough, apply to the airlines". The fact is, the pool of experienced GA pilots (those who meet the minimum qualifications) who are actually prepared to work shift work, weekends/nights, public holidays, Christmas day, New Years Eve/day and Easter is drying up fast !
I'm not saying the RFDS are short of a dollar, not the case, they pay Aviation Consultants, Corporate Services Managers, Chief Medical officers and senior nurses tidy salaries
commensurate with experience.
RFDS drivers are underpaid, no doubt about it, but let's see a united and sustained fight for better pay & conditions for the current pilots. They deserve better and with enough support they can achieve a better outcome.
In my opinion, this is the answer, debating the validity about 2 crew is never going to be entertained by RFDS management.
Just for the record........NO I'm not a member of RFDS management, but I am close to the action !
EBA negotiations are currently in "progress"........watch this space !
Yes, some might say "but how can you put a price on someone's life"? You can't but the point is, the RFDS (like every other operator) is always trying to screw it's staff and save money where it can. The RFDS aircraft are crewed by very experienced & professional pilots who safely operate single pilot ops Australia wide, day in day out. This is indeed admirable, but at the end of the day, it is still a GA operation. My point is, RFDS pilot salaries will never reflect what they're worth, bloody unfortunate and a big reason why so many pilots move on to the airlines within a couple of years.
Yes it would be nice to have another set of eyes & ears (co-pilot) at 0300 in the morning when you're on descent into your 3rd or 4th "black hole" approach for the night, but it 's all about the bottom line for the company, which is dollars.
Now in a perfect world, we would all be paid what we're worth and issues like fatigue would'nt be a problem. Yes fatigue is a very real issue on single pilot RFDS "back of the clock" ops but procedures are in place to manage it.
Having said that, rostering could always be improved to reflect this but once again it comes back to dollars and how many drivers are legally required to operate a particular base.
RFDS aeromed operations will never operate with 2 pilots in Australia purely and simply because of the cost invloved, regardless of how this is perceived by others to be related to the overall safety of the operation.
The later model B200's are equipped with all the sophistcated bells & whistles which are entirely sufficient to safely conduct single pilot ops.
Make no mistake, RFDS line pilots are paid NOWHERE NEAR what airline jocks are earning. It's nice to hear people say RFDS drivers are worth more, I totally agree but it's all about the company's attitude towards what's a Doctor/Nurse/Pilot worth ? The RFDS have a real problem when it comes to acknowledging the value of their pilots.
They see the transient nature of their pilots as a way of saying "if you don't think we're paying you enough, apply to the airlines". The fact is, the pool of experienced GA pilots (those who meet the minimum qualifications) who are actually prepared to work shift work, weekends/nights, public holidays, Christmas day, New Years Eve/day and Easter is drying up fast !
I'm not saying the RFDS are short of a dollar, not the case, they pay Aviation Consultants, Corporate Services Managers, Chief Medical officers and senior nurses tidy salaries
commensurate with experience.
RFDS drivers are underpaid, no doubt about it, but let's see a united and sustained fight for better pay & conditions for the current pilots. They deserve better and with enough support they can achieve a better outcome.
In my opinion, this is the answer, debating the validity about 2 crew is never going to be entertained by RFDS management.
Just for the record........NO I'm not a member of RFDS management, but I am close to the action !
EBA negotiations are currently in "progress"........watch this space !
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting threads. As someone who is also "close to the action" but not management nor central section, I have to say that whilst I (and every other pilot in the organisation) knows that we are underpaid, I made that choice because the flying / job satisfaction you get in the RFDS is second to none. I have been a professional pilot for over 20 yrs and took a huge pay cut to join the RFDS - why? Because I hated my last flying job, which was dull and routine, everything that this job is not. Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to support an increase in pay, but realistically I don't expect this to happen, at least not in the short term. Regarding management (and I stress that I am not in any way or form one of them!), we have in our section I believe one of the best Aviation Managers you could wish for. Not only does he regularly fly the line (normally at night) but he has a 100% no shame no blame policy for all of his pilots who decide for any reason that they cannot fly due to fatigue/weather, in fact anything that is reasonable. I can tell you from experience that this umbrella alone is a major addition to flight safety as it removes any "commercial" pressure to get the job done. I say this because it is all too easy in these debates to tar all management in the same brush as penny-pinching **%$ who have no idea of what goes on at the coal face! Two pilot ops? - as "midlevels" has indicated it all comes down to money, does that mean that we are operating unsafely? Absolutely not. We have in place some robust SOP's for operating SPIFR and an equally robust fatigue management system. Couple this with some fairly high experience levels within the organisation and you get something as safe as can be reasonably expected. No organisation is perfect but IMHO anyone who has the opportunity to fly for the RFDS will never regret it and will learn more about flying and themselves than they thought possible..
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Environmental Capture and Operational Integrity
My respect for the service is absolute and genuine but the two posts above are intensely and deeply depressing.
Stockholm syndrome at a personal level regarding professional worth coupled with a frightening and bizarre variant of the insular Galapagos effect.
The flying is far more difficult and demanding than anywhere else in the first world but robust procedures means 2 professional pilots are unwarranted? The examples given to support the argument therefore mean you are happy to send your families and patients on a single crew Boeing flying medium/long haul? Surely not?
Could it be that away from your shores our population densities, intensity of ops and weather conditions mean once we get involved in fixed wing and rotary aeromed the culling of pilots and their passengers occurs at a much higher rate and the attendent evolutionary change of culture is far faster?
Example? North American Hems - more operations in a day than you manage in a year = accident rate trends which become very apparent, very quickly.
Regards to all,
Rob
Stockholm syndrome at a personal level regarding professional worth coupled with a frightening and bizarre variant of the insular Galapagos effect.
The flying is far more difficult and demanding than anywhere else in the first world but robust procedures means 2 professional pilots are unwarranted? The examples given to support the argument therefore mean you are happy to send your families and patients on a single crew Boeing flying medium/long haul? Surely not?
Could it be that away from your shores our population densities, intensity of ops and weather conditions mean once we get involved in fixed wing and rotary aeromed the culling of pilots and their passengers occurs at a much higher rate and the attendent evolutionary change of culture is far faster?
Example? North American Hems - more operations in a day than you manage in a year = accident rate trends which become very apparent, very quickly.
Regards to all,
Rob
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towers, would you indulge me... I am familiar with the Stockholm Syndrome, but I am not sure of what you mean in alluding to the Galapagos Effect w.r.t the above posts. I understand the Galapagos Effect as being an example of insularity in evolutionary biology -- not sure how it extends into applied psychology. Perhaps you could make your point another way?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towers summed that up perfectly and beat me to it...and said it so much better than I would have. I would have torn right into Midlevels and Apollo!
Strewth!...those two Turkeys are selling all RFDS pilots down the drain and the sooner they move on the better!
You've lost my support if the opinions of those guys is the norm!
Strewth!...those two Turkeys are selling all RFDS pilots down the drain and the sooner they move on the better!
You've lost my support if the opinions of those guys is the norm!
Rob,
Your correct that the RFDS is the result of the separate environmental and cultural responses that are different and distinct from those of the Europe.
The environment is in a large part results from large distances between population centers being sparsely populated, with corresponding level of sparse facilities, including runways, fuel, medical facilities, and unique regulatory requirements.
Few places in Australia have population centers above 250,000, I am told that’s is the critical mass of a population one needs to support an intensive care unit, the RFDS is the only link for some to such population centers and associated facilities.
I know places in the UK where BN-2 islanders are used single pilot for SAR and aeromedical work for much the same reasons why the B200s and PC12s are used single pilot.
In my view they fly the aircraft single pilot for a number of reasons, they include limited strip dimensions/construction, limited fuel supplies, large distances, and trying to match the capacity and capability of a road ambulance in an aircraft.
Whist it would be possible to use say a King Air 350 or C550 to remove the problems with fuel and distance to do the RFDS work, in Australia current regulations require surveyed performance data for aircraft above 5700 kg and a published instrument approach is required to operate into any location at night when flying aircraft above 5700kg.
Due to the regulatory constraints a B350 or C550 cannot be used to do a night landing on a public road or or unlit station strip to pick up a patient, this limits on the equipment one can use, which has a flow on effect the aircraft type, fit out, and staffing.
To land on a public road or or unlit station strip at night in the UK would be unheard of, due to the European environment. Australia does have a different environment to Europe or USA, it has a unique response to the environment, insular in your view, to those who it helps it’s a great lifeline.
Professional worth is a touchy subject, the pilots are being compensated for working in a difficult environment, working away from family and loved ones in a large part, and being in a remote area. In the resource sector, people working in remote areas are paid more than in city areas, the cost of living is higher, cost sending kids to school and university is higher, conditions are worse, the work environment very demanding.
As one person mentioned before salary levels in the UK for similar roles follow "regional airline turbo prop crew", which is more than a 737/A320 jet pilot gets in Australia. I am sure the RFDS pilots would be happy to receive the same remuneration as a “regional airline turbo prop crew" receive in the UK.
Using the yardstick of a salary package on par with regional airline turbo prop crew in the UK I am sure would be viewed by those RFDS pilots in Australia as a European Galapagos effect, and a Stockholm syndrome at a professional level of UK based people trying to push European standards onto how to best to provide essential medical assistance in a remote Australian setting.
Your correct that the RFDS is the result of the separate environmental and cultural responses that are different and distinct from those of the Europe.
The environment is in a large part results from large distances between population centers being sparsely populated, with corresponding level of sparse facilities, including runways, fuel, medical facilities, and unique regulatory requirements.
Few places in Australia have population centers above 250,000, I am told that’s is the critical mass of a population one needs to support an intensive care unit, the RFDS is the only link for some to such population centers and associated facilities.
I know places in the UK where BN-2 islanders are used single pilot for SAR and aeromedical work for much the same reasons why the B200s and PC12s are used single pilot.
In my view they fly the aircraft single pilot for a number of reasons, they include limited strip dimensions/construction, limited fuel supplies, large distances, and trying to match the capacity and capability of a road ambulance in an aircraft.
Whist it would be possible to use say a King Air 350 or C550 to remove the problems with fuel and distance to do the RFDS work, in Australia current regulations require surveyed performance data for aircraft above 5700 kg and a published instrument approach is required to operate into any location at night when flying aircraft above 5700kg.
Due to the regulatory constraints a B350 or C550 cannot be used to do a night landing on a public road or or unlit station strip to pick up a patient, this limits on the equipment one can use, which has a flow on effect the aircraft type, fit out, and staffing.
To land on a public road or or unlit station strip at night in the UK would be unheard of, due to the European environment. Australia does have a different environment to Europe or USA, it has a unique response to the environment, insular in your view, to those who it helps it’s a great lifeline.
Professional worth is a touchy subject, the pilots are being compensated for working in a difficult environment, working away from family and loved ones in a large part, and being in a remote area. In the resource sector, people working in remote areas are paid more than in city areas, the cost of living is higher, cost sending kids to school and university is higher, conditions are worse, the work environment very demanding.
As one person mentioned before salary levels in the UK for similar roles follow "regional airline turbo prop crew", which is more than a 737/A320 jet pilot gets in Australia. I am sure the RFDS pilots would be happy to receive the same remuneration as a “regional airline turbo prop crew" receive in the UK.
Using the yardstick of a salary package on par with regional airline turbo prop crew in the UK I am sure would be viewed by those RFDS pilots in Australia as a European Galapagos effect, and a Stockholm syndrome at a professional level of UK based people trying to push European standards onto how to best to provide essential medical assistance in a remote Australian setting.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stockholm Syndrome and the Galapagos Effect is when a paragraph like this makes complete sense to one cultural group and leaves the outsiders utterly baffled:
In some parts of the world we kill pilots and pax more quickly than you and the pressure to sort it out seems greater.
In other parts of the world they kill pilots and pax more quickly and shrug their shoulders. Nothing will change so why bother.
A gross oversupply of all things aviation - not just pilots - at below the cost of production seems to leave you with a foot in both those camps.
The posts worried me because they seemed to include an unspoken shrug of the shoulders.
We wish the RFDS folks the very, very best from the Towers and are honoured to be able to offer them a voice.
Regards
Rob Lloyd
Professional worth is a touchy subject, the pilots are being compensated for working in a difficult environment, working away from family and loved ones in a large part, and being in a remote area. In the resource sector, people working in remote areas are paid more than in city areas, the cost of living is higher, cost sending kids to school and university is higher, conditions are worse, the work environment very demanding.
In other parts of the world they kill pilots and pax more quickly and shrug their shoulders. Nothing will change so why bother.
A gross oversupply of all things aviation - not just pilots - at below the cost of production seems to leave you with a foot in both those camps.
The posts worried me because they seemed to include an unspoken shrug of the shoulders.
We wish the RFDS folks the very, very best from the Towers and are honoured to be able to offer them a voice.
Regards
Rob Lloyd
Rob,
I thought the Galapagos effect was used to describe how ones evolution is driven and constrained by ones environment.
From my personal RFDS dealings, I cannot think of a time where management would see that life or safety had a dollar value. The training they give is good, good equipment, good maintenance, and the grade of people who make it to line is of a high standard. Not everyone passes the training.
It was acceptable to say no thanks if fatigued for a flight, it was okay to say no to a flight if operational conditions warrant it, it was okay to ground an aircraft if unserviceable, it was okay not to refuel during an thunderstorm etc.
Medical staff would not pressure pilots to push on if they said no, they respected the "on the spot" "command decision" that needed to be made time to time.
I always had the support of my management, they valued their "family members" and equipment. I lost a few passengers for medical reasons, my conscious is clear, I was providing a service and was not going to risk my health or my passengers trying to save someone.
The job like any was not risk free. The RFDS trained and provided good staff, equipment and support to mitigate the risks. The Swiss cheese was not without holes in it, it was up to the PIC to have the situational awareness to ensure the holes didn’t line up.
From my dealings, it was very professional, safety was no accident. The only acceptable accident rate was zero.
People do appreciate the place you have provided to advertise their plight to their professional peers.
I thought the Galapagos effect was used to describe how ones evolution is driven and constrained by ones environment.
From my personal RFDS dealings, I cannot think of a time where management would see that life or safety had a dollar value. The training they give is good, good equipment, good maintenance, and the grade of people who make it to line is of a high standard. Not everyone passes the training.
It was acceptable to say no thanks if fatigued for a flight, it was okay to say no to a flight if operational conditions warrant it, it was okay to ground an aircraft if unserviceable, it was okay not to refuel during an thunderstorm etc.
Medical staff would not pressure pilots to push on if they said no, they respected the "on the spot" "command decision" that needed to be made time to time.
I always had the support of my management, they valued their "family members" and equipment. I lost a few passengers for medical reasons, my conscious is clear, I was providing a service and was not going to risk my health or my passengers trying to save someone.
The job like any was not risk free. The RFDS trained and provided good staff, equipment and support to mitigate the risks. The Swiss cheese was not without holes in it, it was up to the PIC to have the situational awareness to ensure the holes didn’t line up.
From my dealings, it was very professional, safety was no accident. The only acceptable accident rate was zero.
People do appreciate the place you have provided to advertise their plight to their professional peers.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget Europe, Even in PNG B200's are flown 2 crew. In fact, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia SAR aircraft are operated 2 crew. No matter how good single pilot training is, it's never as good as a second pilot.
For the benefit of the non b200 drivers, the comparison with Europe was to show that over some of the distances some sections of the RFDS cover, it cannot be done with two pilots as the aircraft in the medical fit don't have the fuel uplift to convert into range to do it.
When I was doing my line training (b200), on certain flights to remote areas (read my example above) I was left behind and the C&T flew it - it simply could not be done without my weight in fuel.
This is a digression from the point at hand, and probably deserves a thread of its own (and indeed has had in the past!). The lull in proceedings re negitiatons does give us a chance to digress.
When I was doing my line training (b200), on certain flights to remote areas (read my example above) I was left behind and the C&T flew it - it simply could not be done without my weight in fuel.
This is a digression from the point at hand, and probably deserves a thread of its own (and indeed has had in the past!). The lull in proceedings re negitiatons does give us a chance to digress.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh
With respect you miss the point, it's got nothing to do with the standard of training, Swiss Cheese or the culture.
Rob is right, it is Stockholm syndrome, they are captured by the "romance" of the RFDS ethos and the "difficulty" of the funding.
The RFDS found the money to go to turbines, when it was compelling but "impossible".
They will find the money to crew the aircraft, they just need an equally compelling reason to do so.
And for critical aeromed ops there should be no problems getting permanent dispensation or approval for the >5700kg aircraft types you mentioned. And I know what the rules are.
It is no more nor less difficult for a B350/C550 than it is for a B200/PC12. More sophisticated jets are certified for single crew ops and don't have the 5700kg problem, but it's still way smarter to have two guys up the front when it gets down and dirty.
I am 100% confident that a properly conducted safety case would demonstrate that an aeromed two crew B350 or C550 would be significantly safer in any of the conditions you described than a single crew anything.
Landing on a unlit strip, road or the use of an unpublished instrument approach are in and of themselves "emergency" operations, they are not even by RFDS standards "routine" so why make the punishment fit the crime.
That was then this is now and if there is a will there is a way.
and, macho men aside, there wouldn't be one RFDS pilot who wouldn't wish that he had someone riding shotgun for him in exactly the scenarios you describe.
It is also the single most compelling reason for them to be paid handsomely, they are after all doing the work of two men, whatever type they are driving.
With respect you miss the point, it's got nothing to do with the standard of training, Swiss Cheese or the culture.
Rob is right, it is Stockholm syndrome, they are captured by the "romance" of the RFDS ethos and the "difficulty" of the funding.
The RFDS found the money to go to turbines, when it was compelling but "impossible".
They will find the money to crew the aircraft, they just need an equally compelling reason to do so.
And for critical aeromed ops there should be no problems getting permanent dispensation or approval for the >5700kg aircraft types you mentioned. And I know what the rules are.
It is no more nor less difficult for a B350/C550 than it is for a B200/PC12. More sophisticated jets are certified for single crew ops and don't have the 5700kg problem, but it's still way smarter to have two guys up the front when it gets down and dirty.
I am 100% confident that a properly conducted safety case would demonstrate that an aeromed two crew B350 or C550 would be significantly safer in any of the conditions you described than a single crew anything.
Landing on a unlit strip, road or the use of an unpublished instrument approach are in and of themselves "emergency" operations, they are not even by RFDS standards "routine" so why make the punishment fit the crime.
That was then this is now and if there is a will there is a way.
No matter how good single pilot training is, it's never as good as a second pilot.
It is also the single most compelling reason for them to be paid handsomely, they are after all doing the work of two men, whatever type they are driving.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The local
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, where do we start with all this?
1. The RFDS are finding it hard enough recruiting experienced captains in the current environment let alone convincing f/o types to sit in the right hand seat of a B200/PC12 indefinitely.
With the very low rate of attrition in the RFDS, why would someone take a job as an f/o on a B200/PC12, possibly in Meekatharra or Broken Hill, with no prospect of a command anytime soon and no real career progression, when they could take a job with Skippers, Eastern, Rex et al, with the same level of experience, probably more money and a career path onto bigger aircraft, maybe even jets down the track.
2. It’s been said before, 2 pilots made no difference in Lochart River, Qantas in Canberra, Westwind in Alice Springs etc. etc. so lets just drop the 2 crew argument. Human errors exist in teams aswell and until we get technology to the level were it can slap us on the back of the hand if we reach for the wrong switch, accidents will continue to happen, 2 crew or no 2 crew.
3. I can’t speak for the PC12s but weights on the B200 are a big issue. If weather holding exists anywhere on a particular job and there is no refuelling available at your destination, the job can be very limited. Especially if you are carrying the very heavy neo-natal cot and sled along with accompanying medical teams.
The main culprit in these heavy aircraft is the fitting of the cargo door assembly for patient handling. The Queensland section do have a set up that doesn’t require the cargo door and saves about 200 odd kgs on operating weights, however I think it still requires 2 people to safely operate the patient loading and unloading and an empty ambulance stretcher attached to the platform at the bottom. The process with a cargo door system can safely be carried out with 1 person only, independent of any other equipment.
Let’s face it. The RFDS is a dead end job. Its for pilots who want something of a challenge in their day to day routine, who don’t mind operating B200s or pc12s for the remainder of their time left in the industry and are really not fussed about doing the airline thing. There is no career progression onto jets and 6 figure commands. So all we have to fight over are money and conditions of employment. And believe me, most RFDS pilots, although mindful of the history and financial sensitivities of the organisation, will not let that override there desire and determined effort to obtain a decent days pay.
Let’s not forget what this thread is about. RFDS pilots taking industrial action for improved money and conditions. So I don’t think it is fair to label all RFDS pilots as recipients to the “Stockholm syndrome” because of a couple of previous posts.
1. The RFDS are finding it hard enough recruiting experienced captains in the current environment let alone convincing f/o types to sit in the right hand seat of a B200/PC12 indefinitely.
With the very low rate of attrition in the RFDS, why would someone take a job as an f/o on a B200/PC12, possibly in Meekatharra or Broken Hill, with no prospect of a command anytime soon and no real career progression, when they could take a job with Skippers, Eastern, Rex et al, with the same level of experience, probably more money and a career path onto bigger aircraft, maybe even jets down the track.
2. It’s been said before, 2 pilots made no difference in Lochart River, Qantas in Canberra, Westwind in Alice Springs etc. etc. so lets just drop the 2 crew argument. Human errors exist in teams aswell and until we get technology to the level were it can slap us on the back of the hand if we reach for the wrong switch, accidents will continue to happen, 2 crew or no 2 crew.
3. I can’t speak for the PC12s but weights on the B200 are a big issue. If weather holding exists anywhere on a particular job and there is no refuelling available at your destination, the job can be very limited. Especially if you are carrying the very heavy neo-natal cot and sled along with accompanying medical teams.
The main culprit in these heavy aircraft is the fitting of the cargo door assembly for patient handling. The Queensland section do have a set up that doesn’t require the cargo door and saves about 200 odd kgs on operating weights, however I think it still requires 2 people to safely operate the patient loading and unloading and an empty ambulance stretcher attached to the platform at the bottom. The process with a cargo door system can safely be carried out with 1 person only, independent of any other equipment.
Let’s face it. The RFDS is a dead end job. Its for pilots who want something of a challenge in their day to day routine, who don’t mind operating B200s or pc12s for the remainder of their time left in the industry and are really not fussed about doing the airline thing. There is no career progression onto jets and 6 figure commands. So all we have to fight over are money and conditions of employment. And believe me, most RFDS pilots, although mindful of the history and financial sensitivities of the organisation, will not let that override there desire and determined effort to obtain a decent days pay.
Let’s not forget what this thread is about. RFDS pilots taking industrial action for improved money and conditions. So I don’t think it is fair to label all RFDS pilots as recipients to the “Stockholm syndrome” because of a couple of previous posts.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towers
“The flying is far more difficult and demanding than anywhere else in the first world but robust procedures means 2 professional pilots are unwarranted? The examples given to support the argument therefore mean you are happy to send your families and patients on a single crew Boeing flying medium/long haul? Surely not?”
Sorry Rob but there is simply no comparison. We are talking about a B200/PC12 not a Boeing. Remember the RFDS is a not-for-profit organization that relies largely from donations from the public. It operates in the General Aviation sector under the Airwork category. Whilst no one would argue that two pilots ops would be safer, look at it within the context of our organization and what we do. Is having a second pilot going to change our safety record? Since our accident rate is already VERY low I don’t think so. Be careful not to group us with North American HEMS organizations, have a look at our accident rates – there is NO comparison.
As we all know, aviation worldwide is in oversupply – it’s a sad fact of life. Pilots are underpaid, especially those in General Aviation such as ourselves, and the RFDS is considered one of the better paying outfits! As previously posted, the way ahead for us is to try and gain recognition for our “talents” through EBA negotiations and publicity.
“The flying is far more difficult and demanding than anywhere else in the first world but robust procedures means 2 professional pilots are unwarranted? The examples given to support the argument therefore mean you are happy to send your families and patients on a single crew Boeing flying medium/long haul? Surely not?”
Sorry Rob but there is simply no comparison. We are talking about a B200/PC12 not a Boeing. Remember the RFDS is a not-for-profit organization that relies largely from donations from the public. It operates in the General Aviation sector under the Airwork category. Whilst no one would argue that two pilots ops would be safer, look at it within the context of our organization and what we do. Is having a second pilot going to change our safety record? Since our accident rate is already VERY low I don’t think so. Be careful not to group us with North American HEMS organizations, have a look at our accident rates – there is NO comparison.
As we all know, aviation worldwide is in oversupply – it’s a sad fact of life. Pilots are underpaid, especially those in General Aviation such as ourselves, and the RFDS is considered one of the better paying outfits! As previously posted, the way ahead for us is to try and gain recognition for our “talents” through EBA negotiations and publicity.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo,
A graceful and considered argument but it still doesn't add up because it can't explain the rates of pay for the other occupants of the aircraft or indeed the costs of the aircraft itself. Taken to it's logical conclusion it should be a Navaho, new guy and a basic nurse. That isn't the case and it has been a long slog. The pilots are the last important step in modernisation and reform.
Secondly - I think the RFDS guys should use that internet thingy to find out and prove to themselves they are in a single pilot ghetto that isn't reflected elsewhere in the developed world.
You are blinding yourselves with Galapagos 'best practice.' It isn't best practice - it's justifying a crap deal and an insupportable safety case.
Please note that I'm not so far being shot down in flames by Australian pilots who have extensive experience of single crew night IFR and standard airline ops. The forum is heaving with guys who have done both as I did.
Mistakes can be frightening or embarrassing - I'll take the latter any day.
Regards to you all,
Rob
A graceful and considered argument but it still doesn't add up because it can't explain the rates of pay for the other occupants of the aircraft or indeed the costs of the aircraft itself. Taken to it's logical conclusion it should be a Navaho, new guy and a basic nurse. That isn't the case and it has been a long slog. The pilots are the last important step in modernisation and reform.
Secondly - I think the RFDS guys should use that internet thingy to find out and prove to themselves they are in a single pilot ghetto that isn't reflected elsewhere in the developed world.
You are blinding yourselves with Galapagos 'best practice.' It isn't best practice - it's justifying a crap deal and an insupportable safety case.
Please note that I'm not so far being shot down in flames by Australian pilots who have extensive experience of single crew night IFR and standard airline ops. The forum is heaving with guys who have done both as I did.
Mistakes can be frightening or embarrassing - I'll take the latter any day.
Regards to you all,
Rob
Cactus,
But how many accidents have been prevented by the second crewmember? And how more efficient is a two crew operation generally when there's lots of work (either in the ground or in the air) to be done? A lot, I suspect.
It’s been said before, 2 pilots made no difference in Lochart River, Qantas in Canberra, Westwind in Alice Springs etc. etc. so lets just drop the 2 crew argument.
