RFDS pilots commence industrial action
Gaunty,
I think you don’t know the motivation for people joining or staying with the RFDS, the reasons you have given were not the reasons why I joined, or others I know.
In your state, turbines are only used for the emergency and forward hospital transfer work, clinic runs and patient repatriation is either done by multi-engine or single engine piston aircraft, flown single pilot, or by road.
Any safety case I am sure you have previously been involved with such as SKC assumes the passengers have a regular exposure to the risk, being a medical service this is not the case. The RFDS is a medical service, not an airline, not a mining company, not a charter company. The real risk level of going by air is lower than by road, the real risk level for a patient being killed by accident during transport is lower than actually being in hospital.
There is no evidence to suggest that single pilot or two crew operations are more or less risky to the crew, which in the RFDS case includes the pilot and medical staff. There is evidence to suggest that people who are regular passengers in an aviation business are safer flying with a FAR 25/JAR 25 aircraft. These are transport category aircraft, for the transport of passenger in aviation businesses.
If you look at the flight safety foundation “CFIT checklist”, basically every risk mitigation point in that list the RFDS is exposed to, and according to the same checklist a single pilot non schedule operation (riskx1.2x1.5=1.8) has half the risk level multiplier of an international operation crossing 5 time zones (riskx3x1.2=3.6).
If I am repeating myself, the RFDS is a medical service, not an airline or charter company.
The only way to reduce the risk level to a patient to for them to only get critically ill right next to a major hospital, even then this maybe the most dangerous place for them to get ill, with in the order of 5000 people being accidentally killed through medical mistakes in Australia each year in hospitals. The second most dangerous place for the patient is in the road transport, the safest being in the aircraft.
I am sorry to have to disagree with yourself and Rob, the accident rates over the last 40 years have been reducing with a reduction of crew members, it has been the technology monitoring aircraft systems, and automation levels providing extra safety, not the extra crew member.
The automation and technology has itself lead to automation issues where two crew operations is of benefit, however the level of automation in a new passenger jet does not exist in an aircraft that can meet unpaved, narrow, short field requirements the RFDS operate into.
Can I be very clear, the RFDS does not go around flying unpublished instrument approaches. To suggest that just goes to show how out of touch you are with how the operation. To suggest that a C550 could do the job of a B200 for regular work also makes me think you are out of touch with what is “regular”, that little island just off the cost from where you live cannot handle an IFR C550, and its strip dimensions are more generous than a lot that the organization operates to.
Loading an unload a stretcher out of a normal lear or citation door is next to impossible, even the gentle ride a patient gets on the stretcher lifter through the cargo door for many fractures is unbearable.
That being said, I know new generation of modified business jets are being looked at for long haul operations like Alice Springs to Adelaide, or Broome to Perth etc, flown two crew, this is being looked at to supplement the current turbine fleet to keep resources where they are needed. They have not been looked at for evacuation style work, cannot do the job.
Like the military that do land at night into unlit strips, the RFDS does do regular circuit training with the pilots for night circuits to an unlit strip, regular check and training, regular instrument and night flying.
I have lost some friends overseas flying a two crew light jet in an aero medical operation, hit the ground in line with the runway similar to the Mt Gambier accident. Both cases could have been saved with GPWS.
If you could put a safety case forward shown that a two crew operation would be safer, I am sure the would embrace it, I am sure these risk assessments have already been done not showing the conclusion that yourself and Rob are driving for.
Cactus
For me I am looking years down the track, the reason for me leaving the RFDS was that I don’t think there will be a government pension around when I get to retire, I have to use my remaining working life saving enough to live on when I retire. I left because I was not being paid enough for me to retire with a standard of living I would be comfortable with.
Airlines and corporate flight departments don’t view the RFDS pilot as a dead end pilot.
I think you don’t know the motivation for people joining or staying with the RFDS, the reasons you have given were not the reasons why I joined, or others I know.
In your state, turbines are only used for the emergency and forward hospital transfer work, clinic runs and patient repatriation is either done by multi-engine or single engine piston aircraft, flown single pilot, or by road.
Any safety case I am sure you have previously been involved with such as SKC assumes the passengers have a regular exposure to the risk, being a medical service this is not the case. The RFDS is a medical service, not an airline, not a mining company, not a charter company. The real risk level of going by air is lower than by road, the real risk level for a patient being killed by accident during transport is lower than actually being in hospital.
There is no evidence to suggest that single pilot or two crew operations are more or less risky to the crew, which in the RFDS case includes the pilot and medical staff. There is evidence to suggest that people who are regular passengers in an aviation business are safer flying with a FAR 25/JAR 25 aircraft. These are transport category aircraft, for the transport of passenger in aviation businesses.
If you look at the flight safety foundation “CFIT checklist”, basically every risk mitigation point in that list the RFDS is exposed to, and according to the same checklist a single pilot non schedule operation (riskx1.2x1.5=1.8) has half the risk level multiplier of an international operation crossing 5 time zones (riskx3x1.2=3.6).
If I am repeating myself, the RFDS is a medical service, not an airline or charter company.
The only way to reduce the risk level to a patient to for them to only get critically ill right next to a major hospital, even then this maybe the most dangerous place for them to get ill, with in the order of 5000 people being accidentally killed through medical mistakes in Australia each year in hospitals. The second most dangerous place for the patient is in the road transport, the safest being in the aircraft.
I am sorry to have to disagree with yourself and Rob, the accident rates over the last 40 years have been reducing with a reduction of crew members, it has been the technology monitoring aircraft systems, and automation levels providing extra safety, not the extra crew member.
The automation and technology has itself lead to automation issues where two crew operations is of benefit, however the level of automation in a new passenger jet does not exist in an aircraft that can meet unpaved, narrow, short field requirements the RFDS operate into.
Can I be very clear, the RFDS does not go around flying unpublished instrument approaches. To suggest that just goes to show how out of touch you are with how the operation. To suggest that a C550 could do the job of a B200 for regular work also makes me think you are out of touch with what is “regular”, that little island just off the cost from where you live cannot handle an IFR C550, and its strip dimensions are more generous than a lot that the organization operates to.
Loading an unload a stretcher out of a normal lear or citation door is next to impossible, even the gentle ride a patient gets on the stretcher lifter through the cargo door for many fractures is unbearable.
That being said, I know new generation of modified business jets are being looked at for long haul operations like Alice Springs to Adelaide, or Broome to Perth etc, flown two crew, this is being looked at to supplement the current turbine fleet to keep resources where they are needed. They have not been looked at for evacuation style work, cannot do the job.
Like the military that do land at night into unlit strips, the RFDS does do regular circuit training with the pilots for night circuits to an unlit strip, regular check and training, regular instrument and night flying.
I have lost some friends overseas flying a two crew light jet in an aero medical operation, hit the ground in line with the runway similar to the Mt Gambier accident. Both cases could have been saved with GPWS.
If you could put a safety case forward shown that a two crew operation would be safer, I am sure the would embrace it, I am sure these risk assessments have already been done not showing the conclusion that yourself and Rob are driving for.
Cactus
For me I am looking years down the track, the reason for me leaving the RFDS was that I don’t think there will be a government pension around when I get to retire, I have to use my remaining working life saving enough to live on when I retire. I left because I was not being paid enough for me to retire with a standard of living I would be comfortable with.
Airlines and corporate flight departments don’t view the RFDS pilot as a dead end pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The local
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks swh. Great post by the way.
I agree, the RFDS salary doesn't pad the retirement fund very well at all and that is why sadly, i'll consider a better paying job if it presents itself as you obviously did. That job will also have to offer above all else, similar lifestyle advantages which will in itself be a big ask.
I am also aware that RFDS pilots can be highly regarded by Airlines and Corporate operations so taking a job as an RFDS pilot, as you suggested, will not hobble your career. What i was referring to is the limited career options you will have if you choose to stay with the RFDS. "Dead end job"
I agree, the RFDS salary doesn't pad the retirement fund very well at all and that is why sadly, i'll consider a better paying job if it presents itself as you obviously did. That job will also have to offer above all else, similar lifestyle advantages which will in itself be a big ask.
I am also aware that RFDS pilots can be highly regarded by Airlines and Corporate operations so taking a job as an RFDS pilot, as you suggested, will not hobble your career. What i was referring to is the limited career options you will have if you choose to stay with the RFDS. "Dead end job"
Whispering "T" Jet
1975 - Victorian Section RFDS based in Derby, Western Australia.
$18500 p.a. , RFDS car + running costs, accomodation and telephone. 8 days off a calender month, the rest, unofficially on call 24 hours / day. Anything outside CAO required Mercy Flight status with all the associated paperwork!
Six weeks annual leave and free travel on RFDS aircraft anywhere on the network.
Good job and loved the people I worked with.
$18500 p.a. , RFDS car + running costs, accomodation and telephone. 8 days off a calender month, the rest, unofficially on call 24 hours / day. Anything outside CAO required Mercy Flight status with all the associated paperwork!
Six weeks annual leave and free travel on RFDS aircraft anywhere on the network.
Good job and loved the people I worked with.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you RFDS guys are so underpaid to the point that it is criminal. Considering what you to do, I can’t believe that a RFDS Captain does not get the same remuneration as that received by a Regional Airline Captain. Sure, you don’t have to drive as many pax to the destination, but your shifts, the dodgy 1000 metre strips, bush night landings combined with the added pressure of knowing a life is at risk, in my book makes up for that.
A search through http://www.wagenet.gov.au shows that the Central Division RFDS pay their Communications Officer $43 596.
The same search shows that a first year pilot with the QLD Division gets $53 494, with some mention of a car and salary sacrifice that I couldn’t quite understand.
Wow, a whole 10 Grand without taking tax, super etc into account.
Wagenet also shows that the QLD Div award, at 5 years service the Captain gets the GA Award, (Turbine and CIR), + 25%. (That makes room for another post...how good is the GA award!!!!).
Again according to Wagenet, it would seem that RFDS has so many divisions and sub divisions, eg: Central, QLD, S/E Section, then Launceston, Essendon, Dubbo, Broken Hill, Mascot etc. Perhaps you guys should all get together and press your case as one whole unit (if that is possible of course)
BTW, 3 holer, tell me if my maths are wrong but, 364 days - 104 days (weekends off) - 30 days (6 weeks leave) = 230 days. 230 days X 24 = 5 520hrs (you state unofficially on call 24 call), that makes $18 500 =$3.35 an hour.
If I remember correctly I think the first Aussie Maccas was paying more than that in 1976,( they were in my town anyway).
Yep for the good ol' days...NOT.
Those us that donate to the RFDS could consider sending a little note with each donation expressing our disgust at the salary paid to these pilots
Anyway, good luck in the negotiations guys and btw, for your next EBA seriously think about putting the two crew issue on the table, let me tell you after I did 10 years flying a similiarTurbine I couldn't believe how nice (in fact f'n great) it was to have another opinion/checklist/someone to keep you alert etc sitting on my right.
Anything is doeable.
Anyway hope the negotiations go well, you certainly deserve a good outcome
A search through http://www.wagenet.gov.au shows that the Central Division RFDS pay their Communications Officer $43 596.
The same search shows that a first year pilot with the QLD Division gets $53 494, with some mention of a car and salary sacrifice that I couldn’t quite understand.
Wow, a whole 10 Grand without taking tax, super etc into account.
Wagenet also shows that the QLD Div award, at 5 years service the Captain gets the GA Award, (Turbine and CIR), + 25%. (That makes room for another post...how good is the GA award!!!!).
Again according to Wagenet, it would seem that RFDS has so many divisions and sub divisions, eg: Central, QLD, S/E Section, then Launceston, Essendon, Dubbo, Broken Hill, Mascot etc. Perhaps you guys should all get together and press your case as one whole unit (if that is possible of course)
BTW, 3 holer, tell me if my maths are wrong but, 364 days - 104 days (weekends off) - 30 days (6 weeks leave) = 230 days. 230 days X 24 = 5 520hrs (you state unofficially on call 24 call), that makes $18 500 =$3.35 an hour.
If I remember correctly I think the first Aussie Maccas was paying more than that in 1976,( they were in my town anyway).
Yep for the good ol' days...NOT.
Those us that donate to the RFDS could consider sending a little note with each donation expressing our disgust at the salary paid to these pilots
Anyway, good luck in the negotiations guys and btw, for your next EBA seriously think about putting the two crew issue on the table, let me tell you after I did 10 years flying a similiarTurbine I couldn't believe how nice (in fact f'n great) it was to have another opinion/checklist/someone to keep you alert etc sitting on my right.
Anything is doeable.
Anyway hope the negotiations go well, you certainly deserve a good outcome
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh I do not need to be patronised about what you think I may know or do not know about the RFDS. I have fought and won some significant battles alongside them in the past.
I sit on a board with one of their folks today.
BTW how is Stockholm this time of the year.
In the mid 80's our company designed and built "on spec" ( i.e. no orders in sight and around 250,000 1980s dollars on the barrel head) a big aeromed door for the Cessna 400 series. The brand spanking new C414A we used out of stock for it, is still around having passed through the Vic Police air wing.
I was personally responsible, from the manufacturers end, for the introduction of Conquest 1 and 11 to WA and Eastern Goldfields ops against some very very determined opposition from RFDS HO in Sydney as part of "their" fleet rationalisation.
Were it not for that, they would have been, at the command of HO, flying around in Mojave
and Cheyenne 11 aircraft, neither of which were capable of replacing the existing Navajo or C421B.
Their so called Aviation advisors even went to the US on a fully paid "fact finding tour" of the failing Piper and Beech factories but failed to find time to visit the Cessa factory right next door.
And yes they stiffed us royally when those types were so succesful, they needed some extra aircraft later.
I don't need a lesson in RFDS politics.
I would be fascinated to hear your justification of the difference that you admit exists and why you think that a patient is prepared to accept it just because he is not 100% well. Your comparison of road hospital deaths v aircraft risk is puzzling. Are you suggesting that because you are in extremis, you should accept a different standard of care in transit.
I will do better than that, I will say categorically it can. You make the point yourself that the operation is not RPT or charter, I also made the observation that it would only require a "aeromed" dispensation or somesuch from CASA to enable it.
Cessna designed the C550 as a B200 competitor, to do everything the B200, can do faster further higher and cheaper.
And it does.
It is only the idiosyncratic approach by our regulator and a whole bunch of pilots that prevents it from doing so, the CitationJet, 1, 2 and 2A are FAR23 certified AND they have the automation of which you speak i spades, but even that is no good to you when you have to turn it off.
Thats when you need
Oh and Lears and Citations with regular and aeromed doors are used routinely in the US and Europe, there does not seem to be a problem with patient comfort in so far as someone with serious trauma can be comfortable.
With respect most of the rest of your post is Stockholmitis and justification towards a predetermined result.
really, were they done by the same folks who wrote the NAS2c safety case.
The RFDS is no longer the "pastoral" based organisation it was, it is a big business, relying increasingly on Govt and mining company support and needs to start thinking like one.
It's all about posture.
Oh and BTW the mining company plant operator down the back, he is on minimum, $70,000 pa going towards $80-100K AND he doesn't have any quals beyond maybe experience on his bit of gear. All he has to do is get up, go to work, do his job under strictly controlled conditions and come home. He is NOT allowed to work alone on the minesite except under very strict circumstances.
I sit on a board with one of their folks today.
BTW how is Stockholm this time of the year.
In the mid 80's our company designed and built "on spec" ( i.e. no orders in sight and around 250,000 1980s dollars on the barrel head) a big aeromed door for the Cessna 400 series. The brand spanking new C414A we used out of stock for it, is still around having passed through the Vic Police air wing.
I was personally responsible, from the manufacturers end, for the introduction of Conquest 1 and 11 to WA and Eastern Goldfields ops against some very very determined opposition from RFDS HO in Sydney as part of "their" fleet rationalisation.
Were it not for that, they would have been, at the command of HO, flying around in Mojave
and Cheyenne 11 aircraft, neither of which were capable of replacing the existing Navajo or C421B.Their so called Aviation advisors even went to the US on a fully paid "fact finding tour" of the failing Piper and Beech factories but failed to find time to visit the Cessa factory right next door.
And yes they stiffed us royally when those types were so succesful, they needed some extra aircraft later.
I don't need a lesson in RFDS politics.
If I am repeating myself, the RFDS is a medical service, not an airline or charter company.
To suggest that a C550 could do the job of a B200 for regular work also makes me think you are out of touch with what is “regular”,
Cessna designed the C550 as a B200 competitor, to do everything the B200, can do faster further higher and cheaper.
And it does.
It is only the idiosyncratic approach by our regulator and a whole bunch of pilots that prevents it from doing so, the CitationJet, 1, 2 and 2A are FAR23 certified AND they have the automation of which you speak i spades, but even that is no good to you when you have to turn it off.
Thats when you need
another opinion/checklist/someone to keep you alert etc sitting on my right.
With respect most of the rest of your post is Stockholmitis and justification towards a predetermined result.
I am sure these risk assessments have already been done not showing the conclusion that yourself and Rob are driving for
The RFDS is no longer the "pastoral" based organisation it was, it is a big business, relying increasingly on Govt and mining company support and needs to start thinking like one.
It's all about posture.
Oh and BTW the mining company plant operator down the back, he is on minimum, $70,000 pa going towards $80-100K AND he doesn't have any quals beyond maybe experience on his bit of gear. All he has to do is get up, go to work, do his job under strictly controlled conditions and come home. He is NOT allowed to work alone on the minesite except under very strict circumstances.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope the following might be of use to the guys in the service - I kept my powder dry for a couple of days while I checked.
Lucky enough, here in the UK, for us in the Towers to help folks get started. Our latest guy is joining aeromed. B200. Right seat. AUD 55k basic. All ops 2 crew.
Regards to you all,
Rob
Lucky enough, here in the UK, for us in the Towers to help folks get started. Our latest guy is joining aeromed. B200. Right seat. AUD 55k basic. All ops 2 crew.
Regards to you all,
Rob
Gaunty,
Your loosing the plot, this is about getting pilots an increased wages, not what you think how the organization should operate, or what.
I had always wanted to fly for the RFDS, which means your claim along with Robs of "Stockholm Syndrome" is baseless, many I know in the organization are the same. I was never held captive by them, nor under tremendous emotional and/or physical duress, nor a victim of interpersonal abuse.
Do you actually know what "Stockholm Syndrome" syndrome is ? If you do how does it apply to me ?
Simple, its a medical service for the whole community including those in remote marginal areas, the aim or the organization is to provide medical assistance, the priority not being an aerial taxi service. The RFDS provides medical assistance by just about every kind of telecommunication or transport means, the aerial transport of patients is a small fraction of what the organization does.
The RFDS does total medical care from initial consultation with a doctor, enroute medical care, to final briefing at hospital.
I am unaware of any aviation company in Australia that can get medical assistance to a patient to evacuate a patient ( not just a hospital transport) with their own staff.
I can think of only two strips between your home town of Perth and Kalgoorlie that a C550 can land at night. The B200 would be close to 24 or so. Even closer to you, Rottenest Island is only available to Cat A&B aircraft, last time I looked that ruled out the C550 also.
Agreed Gaunty, when you have nice 1500-2500 m minimum runways all surveyed with performance an escape procedures that can handle these jets in 40+ degree days and blast all the nasty little hills and trees away so their magic FAR 25 performance numbers can mean something, then I am sure they will embrace your idea.
Even better to have decent doctors and hospitals everywhere.
However in the real world, maybe within 45 minute drive from you its realistic that the many a station the size of greater Perth may or small town may have a 1200mx18m strip with no instrument approach and/or lights means the closest that such equipment could come is some regional center, absolutely useless. Another nice bit of kit on the B200/PC12 is the ability to do a 3 point turn on a skinny runway, cannot do that with a C550.
The equipment is there to help people in marginal areas, not just a regional taxi to major centers.
Yourself and Rob are failing to recognize the standard of the strips the RFDS going into in regional areas don’t have any pavement in many cases, nor lights, nor instrument approaches. In North America and Europe they do.
I’m not interested in getting into a pi$$ing contest with you over this, unlike yourself I have worked for them as a pilot because I wanted to work for the organization. I have no axe to grind either way, I just think the boys and girls are worth more than what they presently get.
Any chance you get off your anti king air soap box and get back to the topic at hand ?
Your loosing the plot, this is about getting pilots an increased wages, not what you think how the organization should operate, or what.
I had always wanted to fly for the RFDS, which means your claim along with Robs of "Stockholm Syndrome" is baseless, many I know in the organization are the same. I was never held captive by them, nor under tremendous emotional and/or physical duress, nor a victim of interpersonal abuse.
Do you actually know what "Stockholm Syndrome" syndrome is ? If you do how does it apply to me ?
I would be fascinated to hear your justification of the difference that you admit exists and why you think that a patient is prepared to accept it just because he is not 100% well.
The RFDS does total medical care from initial consultation with a doctor, enroute medical care, to final briefing at hospital.
I am unaware of any aviation company in Australia that can get medical assistance to a patient to evacuate a patient ( not just a hospital transport) with their own staff.
Cessna designed the C550 as a B200 competitor, to do everything the B200, can do faster further higher and cheaper.
And it does.
And it does.
Oh and Lears and Citations with regular and aeromed doors are used routinely in the US and Europe, there does not seem to be a problem with patient comfort in so far as someone with serious trauma can be comfortable.
Even better to have decent doctors and hospitals everywhere.
However in the real world, maybe within 45 minute drive from you its realistic that the many a station the size of greater Perth may or small town may have a 1200mx18m strip with no instrument approach and/or lights means the closest that such equipment could come is some regional center, absolutely useless. Another nice bit of kit on the B200/PC12 is the ability to do a 3 point turn on a skinny runway, cannot do that with a C550.
The equipment is there to help people in marginal areas, not just a regional taxi to major centers.
Yourself and Rob are failing to recognize the standard of the strips the RFDS going into in regional areas don’t have any pavement in many cases, nor lights, nor instrument approaches. In North America and Europe they do.
I’m not interested in getting into a pi$$ing contest with you over this, unlike yourself I have worked for them as a pilot because I wanted to work for the organization. I have no axe to grind either way, I just think the boys and girls are worth more than what they presently get.
Any chance you get off your anti king air soap box and get back to the topic at hand ?
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's try paucity of expectation then swh.
Harder work, poor strips, few aids. Single pilot.
UK guy is right seat. He's there for safety and back up. He's earning the same as a trauma/IT nurse or a teacher.
The information is out there for the guys.
Regards
Rob
Harder work, poor strips, few aids. Single pilot.
UK guy is right seat. He's there for safety and back up. He's earning the same as a trauma/IT nurse or a teacher.
The information is out there for the guys.
Regards
Rob
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The local
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AUD 55k per f/o would add over AUD 6 mil per year to the national budget. (100+ captains = 100+ co-pilots)
It's proving hard enough to get a measly 3% on our base rate let alone 6 mil for an f/o.
It's proving hard enough to get a measly 3% on our base rate let alone 6 mil for an f/o.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh you can call it a p!ssing contest and an anti B200 crusade if you like, as long as you studiously continue to miss my point.
The concept of your involvement in a p!ssing contest suggests that you operate from some sort of superior point of view.
I may not have flown for them but I have worked closely with and personally been in and out of just about every strip they use and some others they wont, their database in this regard was/is widely used and respected. Besides your point is??
Cute but no cigar. If you understand the context of Stockholm Syndrome as used by Rob you would know that is has got nothing whatsoever to do with whether you wanted to fly for them since you were born or not, nor does it necessarily imply the abuse you describe.
Maybe I can spell it out in simpler language.
Point 1 I have no problems with the B200, Cessna built a turboprop, the Conquest 11, that outperformed it to the extent that when the time came they did not need any encouragement to stop production, as it was too close a performer to the Citation.
The only way the B200 can get its nose in front is by the use of "special" Raisbeck performance gear, either retroed or picked up by the manufacturer in the face of potential litigation, but that's a whole nother story.
Forget about the way FAR25 requirements are applied here regardless of the type of operation, you operate them the way they were intended in the US to FAR23 and "private ops" where necessary.
Don't need to blast away anything away from around the strips if you accept that there is no FAR 25 "escape" for a B200 then why not for a C550, with the bonus that you DO have extra performance if you need it.
You are stuck in the Oz paradigm, Rob said it better than I
The C550 can go ANYWHERE the B200 can and does in the US for the same or cheaper price.
The only difference is the standard of design and construction and one had jets the other turboprop.
You are correct we are not talking about NORMAL ops here and there is no impediment to a permanent dispensation for the RFDS aeromed ops beyond sorting CASA out.
Point 2 Lets not fixate on C550 then and talk about the process. Every exercise I have ever been involved in, including the RFDS over the last 30 or so years, has had the "pilots" involved busy telling me what you can't do and what they "think" is the answer = usually code for what they personally think is the go, and, worst of all, think wont threaten their employment by being too expensive or beyond their current license capabilities.
The first task is to establish what is fact and what is opinion or personal prejudice.
The second is to get that message across and make them understand, that the manufacturer has NOT designed this "new fangled thing" in isolation of the market and NEITHER is it in their gift to "second guess" the several gazillion dollars of research and certification test flying.
At that point you will run into the "listen sonny boy I've been flying for 500,000 hrs blah blah blah and I KNOW. you, the manufacturer or anyone else is flat out wrong.
I am happy to say that was not the case with the RFDS here, but there were a couple of non turbine pilots who felt quite threatened by the prospect of the conversion. When we got their head around the concept that the Conquest 1 was a turbine C421 and the 11 a turbine C404 and the C550 came out of the tweety bird and was conceived as a jet C421 there were not too many problems that didn't respond to proactive training.
To their professional credit they were the first to admit that trepidation.
Then you will have always have the "expert" on the current rules giving chapter and verse on what is and isn't "done" and why you cannot do this or that.
The ASEPTA concept would not have happened were we to have listened to them. You would not be able to fly Citations single pilot likewise.
You can either lead, follow or get out of the way.
It's a process that is absolutely inevitable and which you attempt to short circuit at your peril, it requires enormous patience and tact, some get it others dont.
You either start from the answer and work back to the question OR notice the WRONG WAY GO BACK sign and go back the right way.
And guess who is encouraging the less expensive or more "comfortable" staus quo. Not just the management but the very pilots themselves.
Whats this got to do with the thread at hand.
I've said it before, it's called posture. Sorry this is not found in the regs.
In simple words, "who is leading the band?", the RFDS CANT operate without aircraft, they NEED pilots, pilots should be at the front of the aviation decision making process and at the LEAST have the same "posture" as the rest of the team on board.
That can't be possible without equality of pay.
I am confused at you apparent willingness to consign the RFDS aviation component as some sort of poor cousin or necessary evil, in both their activities and the attitude towards what is and isn't acceptable in aviation terms to their patients. Unless you get that realigned within the organisation they will remain so.
First step get the posture right and then you have means to be heard as a peer proffessional.
2 crew might not happen for a bit but if it is not on the agenda it will never be budgeted nor achieved.
There has been much said about some sort of "higher calling'' of which I am personally cynical about people who openly claim it. There are few that I have met in any workplace situation who do not posses this attribute in one form another.
In any event, this is not OWNED by either the pilots or the medical staff in this situation, surely it must be a shared ideal, if you accept that, then they must ALL be compensated similarly.
The pilot after all has everybodies life in his hands en-route.
The concept of your involvement in a p!ssing contest suggests that you operate from some sort of superior point of view.
I may not have flown for them but I have worked closely with and personally been in and out of just about every strip they use and some others they wont, their database in this regard was/is widely used and respected. Besides your point is??
Cute but no cigar. If you understand the context of Stockholm Syndrome as used by Rob you would know that is has got nothing whatsoever to do with whether you wanted to fly for them since you were born or not, nor does it necessarily imply the abuse you describe.
Maybe I can spell it out in simpler language.
Point 1 I have no problems with the B200, Cessna built a turboprop, the Conquest 11, that outperformed it to the extent that when the time came they did not need any encouragement to stop production, as it was too close a performer to the Citation.
The only way the B200 can get its nose in front is by the use of "special" Raisbeck performance gear, either retroed or picked up by the manufacturer in the face of potential litigation, but that's a whole nother story.
Forget about the way FAR25 requirements are applied here regardless of the type of operation, you operate them the way they were intended in the US to FAR23 and "private ops" where necessary.
Don't need to blast away anything away from around the strips if you accept that there is no FAR 25 "escape" for a B200 then why not for a C550, with the bonus that you DO have extra performance if you need it.
You are stuck in the Oz paradigm, Rob said it better than I
Let's try paucity of expectation
The only difference is the standard of design and construction and one had jets the other turboprop.
You are correct we are not talking about NORMAL ops here and there is no impediment to a permanent dispensation for the RFDS aeromed ops beyond sorting CASA out.
Point 2 Lets not fixate on C550 then and talk about the process. Every exercise I have ever been involved in, including the RFDS over the last 30 or so years, has had the "pilots" involved busy telling me what you can't do and what they "think" is the answer = usually code for what they personally think is the go, and, worst of all, think wont threaten their employment by being too expensive or beyond their current license capabilities.
The first task is to establish what is fact and what is opinion or personal prejudice.
The second is to get that message across and make them understand, that the manufacturer has NOT designed this "new fangled thing" in isolation of the market and NEITHER is it in their gift to "second guess" the several gazillion dollars of research and certification test flying.
At that point you will run into the "listen sonny boy I've been flying for 500,000 hrs blah blah blah and I KNOW.
you, the manufacturer or anyone else is flat out wrong. I am happy to say that was not the case with the RFDS here, but there were a couple of non turbine pilots who felt quite threatened by the prospect of the conversion. When we got their head around the concept that the Conquest 1 was a turbine C421 and the 11 a turbine C404 and the C550 came out of the tweety bird and was conceived as a jet C421 there were not too many problems that didn't respond to proactive training.
To their professional credit they were the first to admit that trepidation.
Then you will have always have the "expert" on the current rules giving chapter and verse on what is and isn't "done" and why you cannot do this or that.
The ASEPTA concept would not have happened were we to have listened to them. You would not be able to fly Citations single pilot likewise.
You can either lead, follow or get out of the way.
It's a process that is absolutely inevitable and which you attempt to short circuit at your peril, it requires enormous patience and tact, some get it others dont.
You either start from the answer and work back to the question OR notice the WRONG WAY GO BACK sign and go back the right way.
And guess who is encouraging the less expensive or more "comfortable" staus quo. Not just the management but the very pilots themselves.
Whats this got to do with the thread at hand.
I've said it before, it's called posture. Sorry this is not found in the regs.
In simple words, "who is leading the band?", the RFDS CANT operate without aircraft, they NEED pilots, pilots should be at the front of the aviation decision making process and at the LEAST have the same "posture" as the rest of the team on board.
That can't be possible without equality of pay.
I am confused at you apparent willingness to consign the RFDS aviation component as some sort of poor cousin or necessary evil, in both their activities and the attitude towards what is and isn't acceptable in aviation terms to their patients. Unless you get that realigned within the organisation they will remain so.
First step get the posture right and then you have means to be heard as a peer proffessional.
2 crew might not happen for a bit but if it is not on the agenda it will never be budgeted nor achieved.
There has been much said about some sort of "higher calling'' of which I am personally cynical about people who openly claim it. There are few that I have met in any workplace situation who do not posses this attribute in one form another.
In any event, this is not OWNED by either the pilots or the medical staff in this situation, surely it must be a shared ideal, if you accept that, then they must ALL be compensated similarly.
The pilot after all has everybodies life in his hands en-route.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Jet AOK, the RFDS are operating Commercial contracts worth millions of $$$ across at least 3 of the Eastern states of Australia, yet they still claim to be a not-for-profit organisation! What a load of BS !
For those that are unaware, the RFDS are making tidy profits operating State Government contracts on an uneven playing field. The RFDS receives annual State and Federal funding along with the donations raised from the public.
With no disrespect to the wonderful hardworking women of the bush, gone are the days when the outback CWA tea party was a major contributor to the RFDS slush fund. The vast majority of the revenue raised now comes from Government contracts.
Gaunty, this thread is about better pay & conditions for RFDS pilots, not what aircraft types they should be operating.
Cactus, you are spot on, RFDS
management will never entertain the 2 crew idea in B200's.......they won't even pay their Captains what they're worth let alone finding the additional dollars to pay a 2nd crew member a half decent wage.
The argument about 2 crew RFDS Aeromed ops versus single pilot safety is not what the current RFDS drivers are seeking........they want to be recognised for their experience levels, professionalism & dedication and remunerated accordingly!
It all comes down to COST and the fact is RFDS management do not value their pilots in the same way they value the nurse and Doctor down the back!
It's a right "Royal" rip-off and everybody knows it, so the majority of pilots who get a better offer move on to the majors. Money can be found to remunerate CEO's, Aviation Consultants, Corporate Service Managers, Base Managers, Doctors & nurses so why not pilots?
The RFDS are not interested in any sort of retention policy and therefore thousands of dollars of the public's donated money gets spent on training new pilots to replace those that just left for a better deal somewhere else! Try telling me that's good economics!
It's not rocket science, pay the current drivers what they're worth and all of a sudden, the max exodus slows. Having said that, it's not always about money, some pilots (and nurses) move on because the constant grind of years of shift work and fatigue has worn them down and they simply need a change of lifestyle.
RFDS drivers do deserve better pay & conditions and a more favourable outcome can be achieved if a united and committed fight is maintained.
Public support is welcome !
For those that are unaware, the RFDS are making tidy profits operating State Government contracts on an uneven playing field. The RFDS receives annual State and Federal funding along with the donations raised from the public.
With no disrespect to the wonderful hardworking women of the bush, gone are the days when the outback CWA tea party was a major contributor to the RFDS slush fund. The vast majority of the revenue raised now comes from Government contracts.
Gaunty, this thread is about better pay & conditions for RFDS pilots, not what aircraft types they should be operating.
Cactus, you are spot on, RFDS
management will never entertain the 2 crew idea in B200's.......they won't even pay their Captains what they're worth let alone finding the additional dollars to pay a 2nd crew member a half decent wage.
The argument about 2 crew RFDS Aeromed ops versus single pilot safety is not what the current RFDS drivers are seeking........they want to be recognised for their experience levels, professionalism & dedication and remunerated accordingly!
It all comes down to COST and the fact is RFDS management do not value their pilots in the same way they value the nurse and Doctor down the back!
It's a right "Royal" rip-off and everybody knows it, so the majority of pilots who get a better offer move on to the majors. Money can be found to remunerate CEO's, Aviation Consultants, Corporate Service Managers, Base Managers, Doctors & nurses so why not pilots?
The RFDS are not interested in any sort of retention policy and therefore thousands of dollars of the public's donated money gets spent on training new pilots to replace those that just left for a better deal somewhere else! Try telling me that's good economics!
It's not rocket science, pay the current drivers what they're worth and all of a sudden, the max exodus slows. Having said that, it's not always about money, some pilots (and nurses) move on because the constant grind of years of shift work and fatigue has worn them down and they simply need a change of lifestyle.
RFDS drivers do deserve better pay & conditions and a more favourable outcome can be achieved if a united and committed fight is maintained.
Public support is welcome !
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midlevels
You are quite correct.
With respect, read
with;
you won't get heard without it.
I suspect we may be in heated agreement.
Type??? absolutely no axe to grind there beyond a rational appraisal and charging what it costs, commercially.
they compete with the commercial part of the industry, so how about they work towards the same standards.
As a not for profit org they should be leading not following and moving away from the supplicant mode of the past.
The pilots as a result seem to be at the end of the queue.
You are quite correct.
With respect, read
gone are the days when the outback CWA tea party was a major contributor to the RFDS slush fund. The vast majority of the revenue raised now comes from Government contracts.
I've said it before, it's called posture..............In simple words, "who is leading the band?"............
I suspect we may be in heated agreement.
Type??? absolutely no axe to grind there beyond a rational appraisal and charging what it costs, commercially.
The vast majority of the revenue raised now comes from Government contracts.
As a not for profit org they should be leading not following and moving away from the supplicant mode of the past.
The pilots as a result seem to be at the end of the queue.
Grandpa Aerotart
Lots of good points here and for what it's worth here are mine.
Having been the CP of a international medical retrieval op I can certainly agree that RFDS would have a degree of job satisfaction far above that for airline flying and that borders on a 'calling'...but dat don't pay da bills!!!
Having spent approaching equal time single pilot and two crewed jet/airline ops I feel they both have their place....SP is far more fun though
RFDS has proven that SP IFR can be done safely even when the flying is awash with extra risk factors. There seems to me to be little chance that RFDS will move to two crew ops for the main body of their work. Having said that the biggest risk mitigator in RFDS is appropriate experience...if they lose that by increasing attrition due conditions of service being incompatible with normal aspirations (owning a home, having children etc) then they risk increasing accident rates and it will not take many to destroy RFDS' wonderful record.
It seems to me passed time for RFDS to be consolidated. All the various regions with their attendant layers of management cannot be even close to cost effective....the old story...too many chiefs and not enough indians....or as is usual with modern management not enough money left after management to properly recompense the people at the coal face.
The RFDS exists for one reason only...aeromedical retrieval/evac...the crews (pilot,doctor and nurse) who man the aircraft are THE SINGLE most important employee group...the other employees exist ONLY to facilitate them.
A 50% reduction in the management at RFDS would not impact even slightly on the operation....the same reduction in doctors, nurses or pilots would ground the operation overnight....note I make no destinction between pilots and medical staff...they are equally essential....note the word EQUALLY.
Rob a question re your assertion that B200 co-pilots are being paid AUD55k in the UK.
Are they being paid this after applying current exchange rates or on a AUD$1.00 = GBP1.00 rate?
My Big Mac theory (a Big mac costs 5 pounds in UK and $5 in Oz) of relative pay rates across international boundaries suggest that for that to be the case those co-pilots are being paid GBP55K
Best of luck to you guys I hope you are sucessfull in negotiating a equitable package...but be aware that words like 'fair' and 'reasonable' don't exist...if you doubt me take a look what people get paid for playing games like golf, football etc.
Chuck.
Having been the CP of a international medical retrieval op I can certainly agree that RFDS would have a degree of job satisfaction far above that for airline flying and that borders on a 'calling'...but dat don't pay da bills!!!
Having spent approaching equal time single pilot and two crewed jet/airline ops I feel they both have their place....SP is far more fun though
RFDS has proven that SP IFR can be done safely even when the flying is awash with extra risk factors. There seems to me to be little chance that RFDS will move to two crew ops for the main body of their work. Having said that the biggest risk mitigator in RFDS is appropriate experience...if they lose that by increasing attrition due conditions of service being incompatible with normal aspirations (owning a home, having children etc) then they risk increasing accident rates and it will not take many to destroy RFDS' wonderful record.
It seems to me passed time for RFDS to be consolidated. All the various regions with their attendant layers of management cannot be even close to cost effective....the old story...too many chiefs and not enough indians....or as is usual with modern management not enough money left after management to properly recompense the people at the coal face.
The RFDS exists for one reason only...aeromedical retrieval/evac...the crews (pilot,doctor and nurse) who man the aircraft are THE SINGLE most important employee group...the other employees exist ONLY to facilitate them.
A 50% reduction in the management at RFDS would not impact even slightly on the operation....the same reduction in doctors, nurses or pilots would ground the operation overnight....note I make no destinction between pilots and medical staff...they are equally essential....note the word EQUALLY.
Rob a question re your assertion that B200 co-pilots are being paid AUD55k in the UK.
Are they being paid this after applying current exchange rates or on a AUD$1.00 = GBP1.00 rate?
My Big Mac theory (a Big mac costs 5 pounds in UK and $5 in Oz) of relative pay rates across international boundaries suggest that for that to be the case those co-pilots are being paid GBP55K
Best of luck to you guys I hope you are sucessfull in negotiating a equitable package...but be aware that words like 'fair' and 'reasonable' don't exist...if you doubt me take a look what people get paid for playing games like golf, football etc.
Chuck.
Silly Old Git
Chuck.
A fella told me today he starting as a Dash FO in UK on 20k pommy quids
That will as you know buy you sweet fa in Pommyland.
and.....
Things must have changed
30 years ago pilots were the lowest life form on the base.
The most important bloke was the radio man .
Then the committee members (some who didnt know where the aircraft was based)
A fella told me today he starting as a Dash FO in UK on 20k pommy quids
That will as you know buy you sweet fa in Pommyland.
and.....
The RFDS exists for one reason only...aeromedical retrieval/evac...the crews (pilot,doctor and nurse) who man the aircraft are THE SINGLE most important employee group...the other employees exist ONLY to facilitate them.
30 years ago pilots were the lowest life form on the base.
The most important bloke was the radio man .
Then the committee members (some who didnt know where the aircraft was based)
Grandpa Aerotart
Yup..and that equates to about AUD50k if you apply the exchange rate...but in reality equates to probably AUD 17-20k if you look at relative costs of living.
It is a common mistake made by pilots comparing packages across international borders...and just plain dumb
It is a common mistake made by pilots comparing packages across international borders...and just plain dumb
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
A conciliatory hearing was held yesterday with The AIRC.
Unfortunately we only had limited time to deal with the issues.
Each party basically presented their case and the commissioner then sent each party off to seperate rooms and spoke to us with what he thought was the best avenue to proceed. No further offers were tabled.
It appears the RFDS are not interested in paying penalty rates or overtime. Insofar as the overtime issue their claim is that we don't average more than 38 hours per week of actual duty time so they don't think its reasonable of us to ask for it... even though some of our rosters require around 47 hours per week on call. Anyone that is, has been or knows an RFDS pilot would be well aware that during the on call period there isn't a lot one can do other than wait for a phone call.
On another point management have made it quite clear to the commissioner that the salary rate in the GA award for a single engine pilot is 31k.
We have got another hearing set down for next Tuesday to continue the talks.
A conciliatory hearing was held yesterday with The AIRC.
Unfortunately we only had limited time to deal with the issues.
Each party basically presented their case and the commissioner then sent each party off to seperate rooms and spoke to us with what he thought was the best avenue to proceed. No further offers were tabled.
It appears the RFDS are not interested in paying penalty rates or overtime. Insofar as the overtime issue their claim is that we don't average more than 38 hours per week of actual duty time so they don't think its reasonable of us to ask for it... even though some of our rosters require around 47 hours per week on call. Anyone that is, has been or knows an RFDS pilot would be well aware that during the on call period there isn't a lot one can do other than wait for a phone call.
On another point management have made it quite clear to the commissioner that the salary rate in the GA award for a single engine pilot is 31k.
We have got another hearing set down for next Tuesday to continue the talks.
Last edited by medwun; 10th Nov 2005 at 05:02.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it would still be a PATHETIC arguement in comparing the S/E GA salary to the RFDS operations, how did they manage to forget the $4474 turbine allowance and the $4110 CIR allowance.
That makes the GA pay $39 232 not $31 000. Your management sound like they are really sticking it to you guys!!.
That makes the GA pay $39 232 not $31 000. Your management sound like they are really sticking it to you guys!!.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gen Ties
They haven't forgot about the CIR or turbine allowance and they are offering more than 39k. My point is that they are using the quoted S/E GA rate to demonstrate to the commissioner that they are 'overpaying' us!
Can you compare a PC12 operated in our environment and rosters alongside a C206 on a scenic out of some coastal tourist mecca on a sunny day? The GA award can and does.
There lies the basis of our issues.
They haven't forgot about the CIR or turbine allowance and they are offering more than 39k. My point is that they are using the quoted S/E GA rate to demonstrate to the commissioner that they are 'overpaying' us!
Can you compare a PC12 operated in our environment and rosters alongside a C206 on a scenic out of some coastal tourist mecca on a sunny day? The GA award can and does.
There lies the basis of our issues.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelieveable if it wasn't in Oz.
Chuckles et al make the most telling point of all, unless you pay for the experience and to keep it, then safety is compromised and the RFDS becomes a revolving door with all that corporate experience and intelectual property walking out through it to people who are prepared to pay.
For those who might have missed Robs comment about "Our latest guy ".
PPRuNe in the UK runs a Foundation that helps selected aspiring pilots under certain conditions.
The above is a product of.
medwun hang in there mate our thoughts are with you.
Lets see what transpires then us PPRuNers might have to get a bit more active, if you think that'll help.
Chuckles et al make the most telling point of all, unless you pay for the experience and to keep it, then safety is compromised and the RFDS becomes a revolving door with all that corporate experience and intelectual property walking out through it to people who are prepared to pay.
For those who might have missed Robs comment about "Our latest guy ".
PPRuNe in the UK runs a Foundation that helps selected aspiring pilots under certain conditions.
The above is a product of.
medwun hang in there mate our thoughts are with you.
Lets see what transpires then us PPRuNers might have to get a bit more active, if you think that'll help.