RFDS/Pearl handover
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<snip>
**First thing you should have done before you started saying nasty (and erroneous) things was to click on the button that says PROFILE for ITCZ. Not too many Darwin based 146 drivers out there selling airplanes for Pilatus!**
Lets clear the air, I was not being nasty or erroneous I was just asking an honest question remember the written word can be read with emotions from the reader that are just not there I have no beef with you
<snip>
**Try not to confuse yourself by calling that an argument. That is a statement. **
Many statements are just cause for an argument so long as the argument remains critical and sensible I cannot see the difference?
**I may as well say that I will never fly in an aeroplane, catch a taxi or ride in a train unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that the the operator WILL NOT FORGET THINGS OR MAKE MISTAKES under ANY circumstances. **
Bzzzzzzzt now you are becoming confused my point here was that are you telling me I am safer in a single than a twin OR just as safe in a single as a twin, IMHO I am safer with redundancy
**That is not the point. **
I'm afraid that is exactly the point
**Engine failures ... ..., not a systems redundancy issue. **
No argument here but this has nothing to do with single v's twin
<snip>
**Yes!!! But WHY?
Again, when a normal pilot, who probably has no intention of killing himself/herself by flying an aircraft into the ground, actually goes out and does that, single/twin/sixteen engines has absolutely nothing to do with it (Mt Gambier). He could have done exactly the same thing in a single engine aircraft. Apples = apples. **
No you are confused again, the issue is are singles as safe as twins, IMHO they are not therefore you are comparing IMHO apples and oranges
**EXCEPT
That if you have ever taken a peek inside an RFDS Kingair and an RFDS PC12, you will notice that the pilot interface is VERY different. Bucketloads of electromechanical guages and indicators replaced by 'tv screens' that have more in common with a new bizjet, while the Kingair cockpit is effective but stone age by comparison. **
Wow where have you been, I have seen inside both the PC12 and the LATEST B200 and really can't see much difference. When was the last time you looked inside the latest B200 the ones that the Sydney RFDS will be operating??
I**t is a lot easier to ... ...taxiing out on a MED 1.
Yep no problem with that
**It is a lot easier to fly a GPS NPA displayed on a 'tv screen' that matches the lines on your chart. Lot easier to manage your descent profile/vertical nav, too, that assimilating all the necessary information from several electromechanical gauges. **
The B200's that we will be flying will have the ability to transpose any moving map GPS display right over the CRT image on the HSI so I can't see what the problem is here? They will all be glass.
**I see this every day when I swop between 'non-EFIS' and 'EFIS' aircraft in the job. It is so much easier to manage an arrival into Darwin on a stormy night if you overlay the CB's onto your Nav display. Much more brainspace == more time to make a good decision. **
The new systems will have electronic checklists that talk to us, GPWS, Bitching bettys a glass system that can place radar, gps and any other info directly on the the glass screen right in front of your eyes. Not bad for a 20 year old system
**Anyway, the big difference that SEVERAL aeromed pilot that I am in touch with have said, is that it is often far easier to manage a difficult situation in a -12 than in the Kingair. **
The current fleet that we have have all done around 25000 hours some a little more some a little less. They should have been replaced ages ago. Now if you are comparing ours with the KingAir's that are operating in the NT I would much rather be flying ours. Infact when ours go up for sale I would not be at least surprised if that company purchased these old clapped out bits of junk to 'upgrade' their fleet. I would probably feel the same way they do
**Not my opinion, theirs. **
And that is my opinion :-)
**Yes, Echo, a Kingair shades a PC12 if...
you are well trained in one inoperative emergencies (many pilots are not)
you are current and up to date with your emergency drills (many are not)
you are not tired
you are operating in very familiar territory
you dont have other things on your mind **
A base check/IRT every six months with a line check to follow the next day if possible. A night check every 12 months. A written exam to follow the bi yearly check. EP's every 12 months with a comprehensive use of the Life raft in the qantas pool (god that water is cold) Far in excess of what CASA require but the standards are set by the NSWAA it is contractual.
There are no restrictions placed on the crew for currency, if you need to do an approach you just need to inform the flight nurse of what you are doing
To get in you need 3000TT 1000 hours Turbine Time, 250 night ATPL I think 3 IRT renewals. Its tough I know because at the moment the RFDS can't find the pilots with the requirements.
This plus the on going training keeps us up to date on most of the requirements of which you speak I think
**Now you may well say is that he shouldn't be an RFDS pilot if he/she is deficient or preoccupied. But hey, are you prepared to say that you have NEVER been in that situation, whether it was of your making or not? **
There have been plenty of times where I have thought that the aircraft has taken me and not me taking the aircraft but how does flying a sinlge make that any better or worse?
**Some pilots and passengers have died in engine failures in PC-12s. But not as many as have died per x thousand sectors or x thousand hours operating vs. same sectors/hours of multiengine ops. **
You are comparing an aircraft with a long history with one that has a short history, you should be a politician or lecturing in stats.
**I am still mulling it over. I went to work today sitting between four engines, and I like that. But a simple Google search will show you that simply having two engines, even turbine engines is not what will keep you and your pax alive. **
No but is sure helps
**I am not bagging Kingairs. They are a classic aircraft. But the average aeromed avionics fitout is dinosaur stuff. **
Yes agreed but your original statement/argument call it what you like was that we should look to the future and should replace dinosour stuff with the avionics etc of the PC12, I can tell you that the new B200's that we are getting have all that an more?
**I am more looking to find out where the 'break even' point is. **
Two aircraft with similar avionics systems one with two engines one with only one. End of story IMHO
**For example, compare the safety case for doing an ILS into a place like Kuala Lumpur (CTA) with hills and English-second-language controllers as against a VOR/DME into Paraburdoo (OCTA). Which is safer? Well, Flight Safety Foundation has put out a CFIT checklist which covers about 70 factors that add up to an overall hazard rating so that you can make an informed comparison. **
Yes I have done the approach into Monado (spelling) in Indonesia where the IAF the VOR on top of the mountain was working ?? the ILS was out and the LLZ was ok, now that was fun I can tell you
**Thats what I am hoping to discuss. Not just 'I don' t like them!' That doesn't mean that my mate Echo is wrong, he just didn't answer the question. **
I'm sure I did I just don't think you wanted to hear my answer
<snip>
**Might be time for a separate topic.**
On the contrary I think discussions like this are good for aviation and allow others to air their opinion on such matters. Don't take anything I have said or say personal they are just replies to your comments and are by no means meant to be nasty
**First thing you should have done before you started saying nasty (and erroneous) things was to click on the button that says PROFILE for ITCZ. Not too many Darwin based 146 drivers out there selling airplanes for Pilatus!**
Lets clear the air, I was not being nasty or erroneous I was just asking an honest question remember the written word can be read with emotions from the reader that are just not there I have no beef with you
<snip>
**Try not to confuse yourself by calling that an argument. That is a statement. **
Many statements are just cause for an argument so long as the argument remains critical and sensible I cannot see the difference?
**I may as well say that I will never fly in an aeroplane, catch a taxi or ride in a train unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that the the operator WILL NOT FORGET THINGS OR MAKE MISTAKES under ANY circumstances. **
Bzzzzzzzt now you are becoming confused my point here was that are you telling me I am safer in a single than a twin OR just as safe in a single as a twin, IMHO I am safer with redundancy
**That is not the point. **
I'm afraid that is exactly the point
**Engine failures ... ..., not a systems redundancy issue. **
No argument here but this has nothing to do with single v's twin
<snip>
**Yes!!! But WHY?
Again, when a normal pilot, who probably has no intention of killing himself/herself by flying an aircraft into the ground, actually goes out and does that, single/twin/sixteen engines has absolutely nothing to do with it (Mt Gambier). He could have done exactly the same thing in a single engine aircraft. Apples = apples. **
No you are confused again, the issue is are singles as safe as twins, IMHO they are not therefore you are comparing IMHO apples and oranges
**EXCEPT
That if you have ever taken a peek inside an RFDS Kingair and an RFDS PC12, you will notice that the pilot interface is VERY different. Bucketloads of electromechanical guages and indicators replaced by 'tv screens' that have more in common with a new bizjet, while the Kingair cockpit is effective but stone age by comparison. **
Wow where have you been, I have seen inside both the PC12 and the LATEST B200 and really can't see much difference. When was the last time you looked inside the latest B200 the ones that the Sydney RFDS will be operating??
I**t is a lot easier to ... ...taxiing out on a MED 1.
Yep no problem with that
**It is a lot easier to fly a GPS NPA displayed on a 'tv screen' that matches the lines on your chart. Lot easier to manage your descent profile/vertical nav, too, that assimilating all the necessary information from several electromechanical gauges. **
The B200's that we will be flying will have the ability to transpose any moving map GPS display right over the CRT image on the HSI so I can't see what the problem is here? They will all be glass.
**I see this every day when I swop between 'non-EFIS' and 'EFIS' aircraft in the job. It is so much easier to manage an arrival into Darwin on a stormy night if you overlay the CB's onto your Nav display. Much more brainspace == more time to make a good decision. **
The new systems will have electronic checklists that talk to us, GPWS, Bitching bettys a glass system that can place radar, gps and any other info directly on the the glass screen right in front of your eyes. Not bad for a 20 year old system
**Anyway, the big difference that SEVERAL aeromed pilot that I am in touch with have said, is that it is often far easier to manage a difficult situation in a -12 than in the Kingair. **
The current fleet that we have have all done around 25000 hours some a little more some a little less. They should have been replaced ages ago. Now if you are comparing ours with the KingAir's that are operating in the NT I would much rather be flying ours. Infact when ours go up for sale I would not be at least surprised if that company purchased these old clapped out bits of junk to 'upgrade' their fleet. I would probably feel the same way they do
**Not my opinion, theirs. **
And that is my opinion :-)
**Yes, Echo, a Kingair shades a PC12 if...
you are well trained in one inoperative emergencies (many pilots are not)
you are current and up to date with your emergency drills (many are not)
you are not tired
you are operating in very familiar territory
you dont have other things on your mind **
A base check/IRT every six months with a line check to follow the next day if possible. A night check every 12 months. A written exam to follow the bi yearly check. EP's every 12 months with a comprehensive use of the Life raft in the qantas pool (god that water is cold) Far in excess of what CASA require but the standards are set by the NSWAA it is contractual.
There are no restrictions placed on the crew for currency, if you need to do an approach you just need to inform the flight nurse of what you are doing
To get in you need 3000TT 1000 hours Turbine Time, 250 night ATPL I think 3 IRT renewals. Its tough I know because at the moment the RFDS can't find the pilots with the requirements.
This plus the on going training keeps us up to date on most of the requirements of which you speak I think
**Now you may well say is that he shouldn't be an RFDS pilot if he/she is deficient or preoccupied. But hey, are you prepared to say that you have NEVER been in that situation, whether it was of your making or not? **
There have been plenty of times where I have thought that the aircraft has taken me and not me taking the aircraft but how does flying a sinlge make that any better or worse?
**Some pilots and passengers have died in engine failures in PC-12s. But not as many as have died per x thousand sectors or x thousand hours operating vs. same sectors/hours of multiengine ops. **
You are comparing an aircraft with a long history with one that has a short history, you should be a politician or lecturing in stats.
**I am still mulling it over. I went to work today sitting between four engines, and I like that. But a simple Google search will show you that simply having two engines, even turbine engines is not what will keep you and your pax alive. **
No but is sure helps
**I am not bagging Kingairs. They are a classic aircraft. But the average aeromed avionics fitout is dinosaur stuff. **
Yes agreed but your original statement/argument call it what you like was that we should look to the future and should replace dinosour stuff with the avionics etc of the PC12, I can tell you that the new B200's that we are getting have all that an more?
**I am more looking to find out where the 'break even' point is. **
Two aircraft with similar avionics systems one with two engines one with only one. End of story IMHO
**For example, compare the safety case for doing an ILS into a place like Kuala Lumpur (CTA) with hills and English-second-language controllers as against a VOR/DME into Paraburdoo (OCTA). Which is safer? Well, Flight Safety Foundation has put out a CFIT checklist which covers about 70 factors that add up to an overall hazard rating so that you can make an informed comparison. **
Yes I have done the approach into Monado (spelling) in Indonesia where the IAF the VOR on top of the mountain was working ?? the ILS was out and the LLZ was ok, now that was fun I can tell you
**Thats what I am hoping to discuss. Not just 'I don' t like them!' That doesn't mean that my mate Echo is wrong, he just didn't answer the question. **
I'm sure I did I just don't think you wanted to hear my answer
<snip>
**Might be time for a separate topic.**
On the contrary I think discussions like this are good for aviation and allow others to air their opinion on such matters. Don't take anything I have said or say personal they are just replies to your comments and are by no means meant to be nasty
