RFDS/Pearl handover
RFDS/Pearl handover
Just wondering if anyone has any info on the recent YSSY air ambulance handover from Pearl to the RFDS?
Would like to know if the Pearl guys and girl got a job.
And did they have a win with their redundancy payouts.
Would like to know if the Pearl guys and girl got a job.
And did they have a win with their redundancy payouts.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, the Sydney line pilots and engineers current at transfer date were retained, after interviews with the RFDS. I think one or two pilots had found other employment with airlines, and positions had become available for 2 or 3 pilots. But that had more to do with naturala attrition than anything else, i think. Requirements are reasonably steep (3000 TT, 1000ME cmd, incl 1000 ME Turbine) which I believe is an NSW Ambulance requirement.
This info is reasonably accurate , to the best of my knowledge, someone else may be able to correct any discrepancies.
This info is reasonably accurate , to the best of my knowledge, someone else may be able to correct any discrepancies.
And do we know when the new aircraft will be arriving?
And do we know how many RFDS pilots gained positions and if there was external recruiting.
And p.s. for Woomera, thanks
And do we know how many RFDS pilots gained positions and if there was external recruiting.
And p.s. for Woomera, thanks
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ
I'm just taking a stab in the dark, but it just might be that extra PT6.
The PC12 is a VERY capable aeroplane, but I don't care what anyone says, two PT6's are better than one.
I'm just taking a stab in the dark, but it just might be that extra PT6.
The PC12 is a VERY capable aeroplane, but I don't care what anyone says, two PT6's are better than one.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As soon as someone flys an RPT heavy from SY-LAX in a single engine aircraft I'll rethink flying a single engine aircraft over Katoomba at 0300 on a dark and stormy morning. Untill then, I've got nearly 2000 hours in PT6 both -41 and -42 and (touch wood) they are a most reliable engine.
Till then as its my bum on the seat I like the redundancy
Till then as its my bum on the seat I like the redundancy
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm hearing knee jerk stuff here, I am typed on single, two and four engine aircraft. Anybody care to discuss it without the two-engines-always-good prejudice?
Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.
We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.
The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.
Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.
I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot
Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!
Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.
We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.
The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.
Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.
I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot
Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**I'm hearing knee jerk stuff here, I am typed on single, two and four engine aircraft. Anybody care to discuss it without the two-engines-always-good prejudice?**
Now I could very well be wrong here but you don't happen to *work for OR sell PC12's do you?
**Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.**
Absolutely no argument there
**We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.**
No argument there either
**The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.**
Bugga and you were going so well
The argument I pose here is that 2+ engines will ALWAYS be better than 1 engine. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that that engine WILL NOT FAIL under ANY circumstances.
Single engine airplanes are a fantastic cost saving device for the private operator who does not commit the lives and safety of other people to that fact. IMHO safety above all else should be placed before cost, no argument no debate. Have PT6's failed before? YES, will they ever fail again? YES. Until someone can tell me that I can SAFELY fly a PC12 accross Katoomba on a dark and stormy night or to Lord Howe Island with ABSOLUTELY no chance of the engine failing then I will always feel safer with redundancy.
**Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.**
Bzzzzzzzt sorry, you are now comparing apples and oranges. It would not have matterd if he were flying the space shuttle, (appologies to his family if they are reading this post). The issue here is a pilot that actually flew the aircraft into the ground with both engines turning. I'm not even going to bother asking how single engine aircraft would have made a difference
**I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot**
Or perhaps as I eluded to in the opening somebody with an avid interest in the propagation of PC12's in Australia.
**Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!**
No need for the flame suit if as you suggested it is discussed like professional aviators
Now I could very well be wrong here but you don't happen to *work for OR sell PC12's do you?
**Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.**
Absolutely no argument there
**We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.**
No argument there either
**The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.**
Bugga and you were going so well
The argument I pose here is that 2+ engines will ALWAYS be better than 1 engine. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that that engine WILL NOT FAIL under ANY circumstances.
Single engine airplanes are a fantastic cost saving device for the private operator who does not commit the lives and safety of other people to that fact. IMHO safety above all else should be placed before cost, no argument no debate. Have PT6's failed before? YES, will they ever fail again? YES. Until someone can tell me that I can SAFELY fly a PC12 accross Katoomba on a dark and stormy night or to Lord Howe Island with ABSOLUTELY no chance of the engine failing then I will always feel safer with redundancy.
**Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.**
Bzzzzzzzt sorry, you are now comparing apples and oranges. It would not have matterd if he were flying the space shuttle, (appologies to his family if they are reading this post). The issue here is a pilot that actually flew the aircraft into the ground with both engines turning. I'm not even going to bother asking how single engine aircraft would have made a difference
**I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot**
Or perhaps as I eluded to in the opening somebody with an avid interest in the propagation of PC12's in Australia.
**Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!**
No need for the flame suit if as you suggested it is discussed like professional aviators
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 to 3...a couple of spares/system redundancies.
3 to 2...still have a spare/system redundancy.
2 to 1...we're hangin' in there folks.
1 to 0...glide approach/no redundancy.
I'm yet to be convinced that having a single turbine engine is better than having 2, apart from the fact that you are twice as likely to have an engine failure.
But at least you should still be able to fly away from it in a multi turboprop.
All the wizz-bang technology in the so-called "modern" technology turbine single is worthless if the noise stops. I wonder what the Flight Nurses and Doctors think about that?
3 to 2...still have a spare/system redundancy.
2 to 1...we're hangin' in there folks.
1 to 0...glide approach/no redundancy.
I'm yet to be convinced that having a single turbine engine is better than having 2, apart from the fact that you are twice as likely to have an engine failure.
But at least you should still be able to fly away from it in a multi turboprop.
All the wizz-bang technology in the so-called "modern" technology turbine single is worthless if the noise stops. I wonder what the Flight Nurses and Doctors think about that?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: oz
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one of the main reasons NSWAA went with twins was because of the limitations imposed on s/e charter flights overwater. Lord Howe Island is part of their region and all Air Ambulance ops are now in the charter cat.
Last edited by alky; 1st Feb 2003 at 18:26.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Echo Beech..
Now I could very well be wrong here but you don't happen to *work for OR sell PC12's do you?
Or perhaps as I eluded to in the opening somebody with an avid interest in the propagation of PC12's in Australia.
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!
The argument I pose here is that 2+ engines will ALWAYS be better than 1 engine. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that that engine WILL NOT FAIL under ANY circumstances.
Try not to confuse yourself by calling that an argument. That is a statement.
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.
That is not the point.
Engine failures are not the only way people die in aircraft accidents. Yes, some do, and it should be eliminated, but this is the new millenium. Machines do fail, but it is the incredibly increased reliability that allows QF to operate a 'twin' over hundreds of miles of open ocean instead of only four engine jobs.
CFIT, lack of situational awareness, poor crew decision making, etc etc are now killing more pilots and pax than engine failures.
When a normal pilot (a respected career police officer but a low-ish hour pilot) flies a perfectly controllable aircraft into the ground after suffering a failure that he should have been trained to recognise and easily recover from, instead dies and kills a bunch of his mates with him, then you have a CONTROL and TRAINING and SUPERVISION issue, not a systems redundancy issue.
**Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.**
Bzzzzzzzt sorry, you are now comparing apples and oranges. It would not have matterd if he were flying the space shuttle, (appologies to his family if they are reading this post). The issue here is a pilot that actually flew the aircraft into the ground with both engines turning
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.
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.
It is a lot easier to have the automatics take care of repetitive and mundane tasks while the pilot runs the show.
It is a lot harder to forget to check essential systems like fuel, engine management and autoflight when taxiing out on a MED 1.
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.
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.
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.
Not my opinion, theirs.
Yes, Echo, a Kingair shades a PC12 if...
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?
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.
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.
I am not bagging Kingairs. They are a classic aircraft. But the average aeromed avionics fitout is dinosaur stuff.
I am more looking to find out where the 'break even' point is.
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.
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.
Jarse...
You are right, yes that is bad. But when I look back at piston flying days, I can remember five colleagues that had engine failures in C210/C206/C207. Everyone walked away. One was at night in IMC. Not just luck though that nobody was killed. I know of blokes who survived piston singles and died in piston twins. These singles were flown by inexperienced guys who didn't have any major control issues to figure out while they had their first really bad situation in an aeroplane. They also touched down with a minimal sink rate, at a relatively low speed, sitting behind a few hundred kgs of lycoming/continental battering ram.
I have also heard CFI's and chief pilots argue that sub-500 hr pilots and PPLs should not be given twin endorsements because they cant control them and/or they don't fly them enough to be current. Therefore twins less safe than singles. In a particular operational scenario.
I think that a lot of reasonable applications are binned simply because professional pilots have some old-fashioned ideas, or even antagonism against a job that credit 500 multi command to their airline job search.
I reckon there is a role for single engine turbine, and I think aeromed is one of them and certain low capacity RPT as well.
Might be time for a separate topic.
Now I could very well be wrong here but you don't happen to *work for OR sell PC12's do you?
Or perhaps as I eluded to in the opening somebody with an avid interest in the propagation of PC12's in Australia.
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!
The argument I pose here is that 2+ engines will ALWAYS be better than 1 engine. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that that engine WILL NOT FAIL under ANY circumstances.
Try not to confuse yourself by calling that an argument. That is a statement.
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.
That is not the point.
Engine failures are not the only way people die in aircraft accidents. Yes, some do, and it should be eliminated, but this is the new millenium. Machines do fail, but it is the incredibly increased reliability that allows QF to operate a 'twin' over hundreds of miles of open ocean instead of only four engine jobs.
CFIT, lack of situational awareness, poor crew decision making, etc etc are now killing more pilots and pax than engine failures.
When a normal pilot (a respected career police officer but a low-ish hour pilot) flies a perfectly controllable aircraft into the ground after suffering a failure that he should have been trained to recognise and easily recover from, instead dies and kills a bunch of his mates with him, then you have a CONTROL and TRAINING and SUPERVISION issue, not a systems redundancy issue.
**Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.**
Bzzzzzzzt sorry, you are now comparing apples and oranges. It would not have matterd if he were flying the space shuttle, (appologies to his family if they are reading this post). The issue here is a pilot that actually flew the aircraft into the ground with both engines turning
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.
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.
It is a lot easier to have the automatics take care of repetitive and mundane tasks while the pilot runs the show.
It is a lot harder to forget to check essential systems like fuel, engine management and autoflight when taxiing out on a MED 1.
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.
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.
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.
Not my opinion, theirs.
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
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?
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.
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.
I am not bagging Kingairs. They are a classic aircraft. But the average aeromed avionics fitout is dinosaur stuff.
I am more looking to find out where the 'break even' point is.
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.
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.
Jarse...
You are right, yes that is bad. But when I look back at piston flying days, I can remember five colleagues that had engine failures in C210/C206/C207. Everyone walked away. One was at night in IMC. Not just luck though that nobody was killed. I know of blokes who survived piston singles and died in piston twins. These singles were flown by inexperienced guys who didn't have any major control issues to figure out while they had their first really bad situation in an aeroplane. They also touched down with a minimal sink rate, at a relatively low speed, sitting behind a few hundred kgs of lycoming/continental battering ram.
I have also heard CFI's and chief pilots argue that sub-500 hr pilots and PPLs should not be given twin endorsements because they cant control them and/or they don't fly them enough to be current. Therefore twins less safe than singles. In a particular operational scenario.
I think that a lot of reasonable applications are binned simply because professional pilots have some old-fashioned ideas, or even antagonism against a job that credit 500 multi command to their airline job search.
I reckon there is a role for single engine turbine, and I think aeromed is one of them and certain low capacity RPT as well.
Might be time for a separate topic.
Last edited by ITCZ; 4th Feb 2003 at 08:41.