RFDS Single Pilot Operations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SouthEast Asia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFDS Single Pilot Operations
Why does the RFDS conduct single pilot operations? Namely when most of these operations are conducted in remote areas, with tough strips, some at night some in really hard meterological conditions. Plus the single pilot has to cope with the added stress that he/she must reach his/her destination as this may be a matter of life or death for the pax. Wouldn't this type of operation be more suited for a two pilot crew?
I am not in anyway insinuating that this may have been a factor in the Mt.Gambier crash, I'm just curious.
I am not in anyway insinuating that this may have been a factor in the Mt.Gambier crash, I'm just curious.
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just a matter of time before a PC12 bites the turf due engine failure. Then it will be a mad rush to re-fleet with B200's again. I just hope no ones hurt. 
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Soup Nazi ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Soup Nazi ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two crew on medical ops would be great but in many cases can prove a hinderence.
The medical fit out in most of these aircraft substantially increases the operating weight well in excess of any passenger config.
Problems already exist where teams of medics are unable to be transported due to this limitation and prevailing conditions.
A second pilot would only hinder this situation further.
Secondly, money is a big issue. The RFDS is a not for profit organisation and relies on government subsidies and donations in large. Although the efforts of fund raisers is truely commendable, operating a service with king airs and pc12s is not cheap and can demand far more money than can be donated.
Finally, with no offence to the low time pilots out there who are quite capable at there trade. A second pilot in these air craft with a great deal less experience than the PIC would not be of great help in the demanding environment that medical pilots find themselves in on a day to day basis. Look at Monarch for your examples. It could very well have saved the situation in MTG but it could also have compounded it. These aircraft are configured to be flown single pilot and when done right, can be managed very well.
The medical fit out in most of these aircraft substantially increases the operating weight well in excess of any passenger config.
Problems already exist where teams of medics are unable to be transported due to this limitation and prevailing conditions.
A second pilot would only hinder this situation further.
Secondly, money is a big issue. The RFDS is a not for profit organisation and relies on government subsidies and donations in large. Although the efforts of fund raisers is truely commendable, operating a service with king airs and pc12s is not cheap and can demand far more money than can be donated.
Finally, with no offence to the low time pilots out there who are quite capable at there trade. A second pilot in these air craft with a great deal less experience than the PIC would not be of great help in the demanding environment that medical pilots find themselves in on a day to day basis. Look at Monarch for your examples. It could very well have saved the situation in MTG but it could also have compounded it. These aircraft are configured to be flown single pilot and when done right, can be managed very well.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: YBBN
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to hear that in a some of the bigger US Aeromedical organisations the pilots are not told of the nature of the medical problem. Meaning that the pilot does not have extra pressure to "Get there Quick!"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had been of the understanding that the same applied here - the pilot is simply asked "Can you take us here, and bring back 1/2/3 etc patients?" The decision is based on the normal operational criteria, and has zip to do with the patient condition - which is often not as it is given anyway.
There have been several replies to this and other RFDS threads that seem to say otherwise though; I distinctly remember someone saying "Patient going flat, must go" in one thread, and "must fly through cyclonic conditions to treat the patient" in another.
There is no - repeat NO - clinical situation that warrants risking beyond the normal and regulatory operational practices, a multi million dollar a/c and up to 4-5 lives on board.
If AUS RFDS does not use the 'nil info' policy in tasking, it should consider adopting it.
What happened with this SA crash - who knows? Do these a/c have CVRs or FDRs? Don't they have GPWS and Radar altimetry? Was it a VCA from a NPA?
A tragedy for sure; even more so on top of the Eastland crash and at this time of year.
Regards
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Jamair ]
There have been several replies to this and other RFDS threads that seem to say otherwise though; I distinctly remember someone saying "Patient going flat, must go" in one thread, and "must fly through cyclonic conditions to treat the patient" in another.
There is no - repeat NO - clinical situation that warrants risking beyond the normal and regulatory operational practices, a multi million dollar a/c and up to 4-5 lives on board.
If AUS RFDS does not use the 'nil info' policy in tasking, it should consider adopting it.
What happened with this SA crash - who knows? Do these a/c have CVRs or FDRs? Don't they have GPWS and Radar altimetry? Was it a VCA from a NPA?
A tragedy for sure; even more so on top of the Eastland crash and at this time of year.
Regards
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Jamair ]
Bargearse I thought your response was very informative. The RFDS provides an excellent and unique service with very competent and dedicated staff. The RFDS operates very appropriate and cost effective aircraft (both B200 and PC12).
Before suggesting further expensive enhancements which may not be cost effective on a limited budget (including two crew operations in aircraft designed principally for single pilots operations), perhaps the armchair experts may care to wait for results from the investigation?
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Torres ]
Before suggesting further expensive enhancements which may not be cost effective on a limited budget (including two crew operations in aircraft designed principally for single pilots operations), perhaps the armchair experts may care to wait for results from the investigation?
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Torres ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Torres. By the nature of your post are you an employee of the RFDS?
The fact that some aircraft are designed around a single pilot operation has little to do with the stark reality of the nature of RFDS flying. Manufacturer's design single pilot aircraft such as those used by the RDFS in order to sell them to those who cannot afford two-pilot aircraft. It is then purely a matter of certification.
What must be taken into account by the operator is the operating environment. As an analogy, the Lancaster bomber with four engines was designed to be flown by a single pilot. But the wartime operating environment was obviously dangerous, and if the pilot was shot, then the aircraft was lost. So the RAF ensured that the aircraft always carried another pilot or someone trained to land the aircraft if the captain was dead.
But the aircraft was certified as single pilot.
As I said in an earlier post, the RFDS operate under the most demanding conditions day and night. I have the highest regard for the undoubted skills of their pilots. The fact remains that the operating environment of RFDS aircraft can be downright dangerous at times, exacerbated by medical emergencies where regardless of the weather and pilot fatigue factors, there will always be this desire by the pilot to do his best to save a patient - particularly a child.
If the addition of a second pilot on mercy flights is going to cause a gross weight problem, then it is the responsibility of the RFDS to address that problem. The accident files of ATSB and overseas safety authorities are not short of single pilot night circling approach accidents - usually fatal to crew and passengers. The Monarch accident revealed that the second pilot carried on that flight was not trained for the job - but only there to make it legal. Bargearse's assertation that his presence failed to prevent the accident is correct - but for the wrong reason. If the Monarch second pilot had been certified competent to act in all respects as the second crew member, then the result may have been different. It is defending the indefensible by stating that a second pilot in an RFDS aircraft would not add to the safety of the flight. Having said that, a second pilot would have to be properly trained for the task.
When a pilot whose vast experience of night RFDS operations is killed during a night non-precision approach in a single pilot operation, then clearly there is a need to take a long hard look at the single pilot policy espoused by the RFDS. This was no typical low hour CPL that met his death, but one of the most experienced pilots in Australia at night mercy flight operations.
This was an accident waiting to happen. Pity it took such a fine gentleman as Brian Smith.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
The fact that some aircraft are designed around a single pilot operation has little to do with the stark reality of the nature of RFDS flying. Manufacturer's design single pilot aircraft such as those used by the RDFS in order to sell them to those who cannot afford two-pilot aircraft. It is then purely a matter of certification.
What must be taken into account by the operator is the operating environment. As an analogy, the Lancaster bomber with four engines was designed to be flown by a single pilot. But the wartime operating environment was obviously dangerous, and if the pilot was shot, then the aircraft was lost. So the RAF ensured that the aircraft always carried another pilot or someone trained to land the aircraft if the captain was dead.
But the aircraft was certified as single pilot.
As I said in an earlier post, the RFDS operate under the most demanding conditions day and night. I have the highest regard for the undoubted skills of their pilots. The fact remains that the operating environment of RFDS aircraft can be downright dangerous at times, exacerbated by medical emergencies where regardless of the weather and pilot fatigue factors, there will always be this desire by the pilot to do his best to save a patient - particularly a child.
If the addition of a second pilot on mercy flights is going to cause a gross weight problem, then it is the responsibility of the RFDS to address that problem. The accident files of ATSB and overseas safety authorities are not short of single pilot night circling approach accidents - usually fatal to crew and passengers. The Monarch accident revealed that the second pilot carried on that flight was not trained for the job - but only there to make it legal. Bargearse's assertation that his presence failed to prevent the accident is correct - but for the wrong reason. If the Monarch second pilot had been certified competent to act in all respects as the second crew member, then the result may have been different. It is defending the indefensible by stating that a second pilot in an RFDS aircraft would not add to the safety of the flight. Having said that, a second pilot would have to be properly trained for the task.
When a pilot whose vast experience of night RFDS operations is killed during a night non-precision approach in a single pilot operation, then clearly there is a need to take a long hard look at the single pilot policy espoused by the RFDS. This was no typical low hour CPL that met his death, but one of the most experienced pilots in Australia at night mercy flight operations.
This was an accident waiting to happen. Pity it took such a fine gentleman as Brian Smith.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the land of blue grass
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson
Are you suggesting that the Flying Doctor pilot was shot?
Torres
I'm with you. Too much speculation into these accidents - NTSB would hardly be on the scene yet!
Are you suggesting that the Flying Doctor pilot was shot?
Torres
I'm with you. Too much speculation into these accidents - NTSB would hardly be on the scene yet!
Hudson In response to your question, I do not work for the RFDS and never have. Apart from the donations, I have no association with the RFDS and don't think I have ever been in any of their aircraft.
I have significant non flying commercial operational experience with Beech 200 aircraft and have lived in remote rural locations for many years.
I have the utmost respect for the RFDS and it's fine team of very experienced, professional pilots and medical staff.
Like most similar organisations, the RFDS has significant financial constraints. Despite those financial limits, the service quietly carrys out it's task in a very professional and reliable manner.
Two crew and additional on board aircraft navigation equipment etc may enhance safety and perhaps provide greater reliability - but at what cost? It is probably all a matter of priorities.
The RFDS safety and accident record is excellent, especially considering the environment in which they operate. I am aware of only two recent accidents, one involving a B200 cleaning up horses on a remote station strip at night (no injuries) and the present accident for which a cause has not yet been established.
Two crew would not have saved the aircraft (or the horses!) in the first accident and we do not yet know what impact, if any, two crew may have had in avoiding the second accident.
I am sure the RFDS will consider any recommendations resulting from the current ATSB investigation, in due course, when the investigation is finalised and a report published.
I have significant non flying commercial operational experience with Beech 200 aircraft and have lived in remote rural locations for many years.
I have the utmost respect for the RFDS and it's fine team of very experienced, professional pilots and medical staff.
Like most similar organisations, the RFDS has significant financial constraints. Despite those financial limits, the service quietly carrys out it's task in a very professional and reliable manner.
Two crew and additional on board aircraft navigation equipment etc may enhance safety and perhaps provide greater reliability - but at what cost? It is probably all a matter of priorities.
The RFDS safety and accident record is excellent, especially considering the environment in which they operate. I am aware of only two recent accidents, one involving a B200 cleaning up horses on a remote station strip at night (no injuries) and the present accident for which a cause has not yet been established.
Two crew would not have saved the aircraft (or the horses!) in the first accident and we do not yet know what impact, if any, two crew may have had in avoiding the second accident.
I am sure the RFDS will consider any recommendations resulting from the current ATSB investigation, in due course, when the investigation is finalised and a report published.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson,
"Mercy flights" on a whole are almost non existent these days. As I understand, the RFDS operate all of there flights in accordance with the regulations and generally use the MED1 priority for emergency jobs.
Even under a "Mercy flight" priority you will not find a pilot anywhere in the RFDS or other organisation that will ignore all other regs to save a life. As someone wrote previously, there could be 3 or 4 lives that could be lost on board the aircraft. There is no percieved pressure on the pilot to get the job done because a sick child needs to get to hospital.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Bargearse ]
"Mercy flights" on a whole are almost non existent these days. As I understand, the RFDS operate all of there flights in accordance with the regulations and generally use the MED1 priority for emergency jobs.
Even under a "Mercy flight" priority you will not find a pilot anywhere in the RFDS or other organisation that will ignore all other regs to save a life. As someone wrote previously, there could be 3 or 4 lives that could be lost on board the aircraft. There is no percieved pressure on the pilot to get the job done because a sick child needs to get to hospital.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Bargearse ]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an expat Aussie. I'm desperately saddend by this dreadful accident. In line with this thread I thought I point out that in the UK all turbine public transport, which includes air med here, are required to be 2 crew ops and not merely 2 pilots, there is a difference. I believe the night circling approach in marginal wx to be about the most demanding there is and demands a 2 crew op. My sincere condolences to the family of a professional aviator who lost his life in the service of his fellow man in my home state and best wishes for a speedy recovery to the flight sister.
Isn't it sad that the government saves hundreds of millions of dollars by not building adequate hsopital facilities for such a remote country as Australia, and then ask the community to support fixed and rotary wing EMS to transport people to the few facilities they have built? Why dont they either A) Build the facilities, or B) Fund the transportation system in lieu?
I have to agree thoroughly with the policy of not telling the pilot the medical situation - does the RFDS not do this? The question from the medical people should be - can you or cant you legally do it? If you cant do it legally, what rules need to be broken, and what are the risks involved with these rule transgressions, and how do you minimise them? Then the medical people decide if they would like to request a mercy flight based on the risk management outlined in the AIP - I.E. Life or Death with NO other means of transport, NO other medical care available, NO delay to improving conditions is acceptable, etc, etc.
To single pilot ops, I agree with several of the sentiments expressed above. Just because the accident involved a single pilot does not mean that this is the reason for the accident, nor that all single pilot flights should be stopped. That is akin to saying all night flights should be stopped, or all B200 flights should be stopped. The problem with second pilots, however, has been that they are traditionally trained to meet minimum legal requirements rather than be a fully functional crew member a la the bigger airlines, reference Monarch. This training means MONEY. That brings us back to governmental support.......and around we go.
I have to agree thoroughly with the policy of not telling the pilot the medical situation - does the RFDS not do this? The question from the medical people should be - can you or cant you legally do it? If you cant do it legally, what rules need to be broken, and what are the risks involved with these rule transgressions, and how do you minimise them? Then the medical people decide if they would like to request a mercy flight based on the risk management outlined in the AIP - I.E. Life or Death with NO other means of transport, NO other medical care available, NO delay to improving conditions is acceptable, etc, etc.
To single pilot ops, I agree with several of the sentiments expressed above. Just because the accident involved a single pilot does not mean that this is the reason for the accident, nor that all single pilot flights should be stopped. That is akin to saying all night flights should be stopped, or all B200 flights should be stopped. The problem with second pilots, however, has been that they are traditionally trained to meet minimum legal requirements rather than be a fully functional crew member a la the bigger airlines, reference Monarch. This training means MONEY. That brings us back to governmental support.......and around we go.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two trained pilots are better than one - I don't think there can be any argument about that - so it must come down to economics. As for the Kingair - you can very safely and successfully run a two pilot operation in them (I have done it in the B200 and B350), and also save time. It should be looked at as an option.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be arguments here that are the reverse of what they should be.
Notwithstanding that the RFDS does wonderful work for our Australian community and have a most repectable reputation , there are some basic principles that should apply to aircraft selection for a particular job.
In the airline scene, among other things, you need to look at city pairs, pax numbers, airport capabily etc., and then select the aircraft for the role.
Similarly in the RAAF, the role will dictate radius of action, type of operation (fighter/transport/maritime etc) and then select the aircraft and equipment.
For the RFDS operation the obvious sensitivities are such things as payload – one or more patients – medical support, one or more nurses, many night operations, in-flight diversions – safety issues like one or two pilots etc..
When one considers the money found for the “Pacific solution” for the boat people, couldn’t some be found for the welfare of our own people - crew and passengers?
It would be my conclusion that the RFDS role has expanded and has become more regulated and professional over the years, that it is time to re-assess the aircraft used…………and wouldn’t that start with a two pilot operation?
Just a thought!
Notwithstanding that the RFDS does wonderful work for our Australian community and have a most repectable reputation , there are some basic principles that should apply to aircraft selection for a particular job.
In the airline scene, among other things, you need to look at city pairs, pax numbers, airport capabily etc., and then select the aircraft for the role.
Similarly in the RAAF, the role will dictate radius of action, type of operation (fighter/transport/maritime etc) and then select the aircraft and equipment.
For the RFDS operation the obvious sensitivities are such things as payload – one or more patients – medical support, one or more nurses, many night operations, in-flight diversions – safety issues like one or two pilots etc..
When one considers the money found for the “Pacific solution” for the boat people, couldn’t some be found for the welfare of our own people - crew and passengers?
It would be my conclusion that the RFDS role has expanded and has become more regulated and professional over the years, that it is time to re-assess the aircraft used…………and wouldn’t that start with a two pilot operation?
Just a thought!
Q1: Can I do it (No: Don't Go,Y:Go to 2)
Q2: Can I do it safely (No: Don't Go, Y:Goto3)
Q3: Can I do it legally(No: Don't Go, Y:Go)
These are the three basic questions I ask myself before an evac. It is fairly self explanatory. The nature of the patient is irrelevent (yes, I am human), but my family, nurse and doctor and the RFDS trust me to make the right decision. Thats what I get paid for.
Re: 2 Pilots: A B200 is an easy and enjoyable aircraft to fly single pilot, and RFDS pilots are well trained to do this, however 2 trained pilots are usually better than one. But until government funding changes, 'it ain't gonna happen'. If you have a problem with that, talk to your local member.
Having said that, no one knows what happened, and won't until the ATSB are finished. Conjecture is pointless.
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: clear to land ]
Q2: Can I do it safely (No: Don't Go, Y:Goto3)
Q3: Can I do it legally(No: Don't Go, Y:Go)
These are the three basic questions I ask myself before an evac. It is fairly self explanatory. The nature of the patient is irrelevent (yes, I am human), but my family, nurse and doctor and the RFDS trust me to make the right decision. Thats what I get paid for.
Re: 2 Pilots: A B200 is an easy and enjoyable aircraft to fly single pilot, and RFDS pilots are well trained to do this, however 2 trained pilots are usually better than one. But until government funding changes, 'it ain't gonna happen'. If you have a problem with that, talk to your local member.
Having said that, no one knows what happened, and won't until the ATSB are finished. Conjecture is pointless.
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: clear to land ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time and again I see people becoming agitated and urging people to stop speculating about probable causes of accidents. This is a *forum* - in other words, a medium for debate. Of course people want to talk about accidents and probable causes, because it is human nature to connect with others to try and make sense of it all (hands up who got on the phone after seeing the 767's hit the World Trade Centre...). Is it therefore so wrong for people to get on here and talk about these things?? QED
Just a thought on funding - if the Government isn't lobbied for an increase, then how do we expect funding to increase? It is sad to say, but sometimes the aftermath of an accident is the best time to argue for change in procedures and funding.
Just a thought on funding - if the Government isn't lobbied for an increase, then how do we expect funding to increase? It is sad to say, but sometimes the aftermath of an accident is the best time to argue for change in procedures and funding.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are all missing the point here!!!!
The RFDS are a very tight ship and to prove it I quote from the newspaper
"He was the first permanent flying doctor pilot to be killed in the service since 1928. A casual pilot was killed in 1981."
I think that is the best bloody track record I have heard of in a long while.
Now sure maybe a second pilot might have stopped this accident, but then again who really knows???? I'm sure the RFDS would look at this option if they were losing more airframes...
I mean **** and F/A18 is highworkload too!!But do ya see the RAAF wanting to make it a two crew everytime they lose one???
The bottom line is you can get killed even just getting out of bed the wrong way..Nothing is safe, no matter what you do.
Brian was a FINE aviator and a really TOP BLOKE!!..You will be missed.
Cheers
The RFDS are a very tight ship and to prove it I quote from the newspaper
"He was the first permanent flying doctor pilot to be killed in the service since 1928. A casual pilot was killed in 1981."
I think that is the best bloody track record I have heard of in a long while.
Now sure maybe a second pilot might have stopped this accident, but then again who really knows???? I'm sure the RFDS would look at this option if they were losing more airframes...
I mean **** and F/A18 is highworkload too!!But do ya see the RAAF wanting to make it a two crew everytime they lose one???
The bottom line is you can get killed even just getting out of bed the wrong way..Nothing is safe, no matter what you do.
Brian was a FINE aviator and a really TOP BLOKE!!..You will be missed.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one situation that only 2 pilots will ever be able to remedy and that is subtle incapacitation of the PF.By all accounts the pilot on this aircraft was a well respected professional so I doubt whether his abilties or judgement are likely to be a contributing factor but in recent cases of Kingairs coming to grief it was incapacitation of the only pilot on board that caused the tragedy.