Merged: Pel Air vs RFDS for the Air Ambulance contract in Australia
B350 is a single pilot aircraft unless your company selects to operate as multi crew.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cairns
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with the other posters, the B350 is a single pilot aircraft.
However the current AUS regulations have input in the crewing situation; single pilot is ok in the PVT category, but in either CHT or RPT two crew is required as the type is over 5700 kg.
So in the context of this issue it will depend (if the B350 is the typeto be used) on whether the operation is considered to be PVT or CHT.
Tend to think that if dispensations are given to this operator it may open a few flood gates that CASA may not want to open.
Perhaps it would be simplier to amend the regulations to modernise the weight categories so as to allow the single pilot use of the aircraft such as the B350 in single pilot CHT use. However I really don't see the wheels of progress meshing with the timeframe of the contract change.
BTW, the 350 is a great machine and (depending on operational requirments of course) does have many advantages over the 200, however these advantages need to weighed up against the disadvantages found within the current > 5700kg regulatory requirements.
However the current AUS regulations have input in the crewing situation; single pilot is ok in the PVT category, but in either CHT or RPT two crew is required as the type is over 5700 kg.
So in the context of this issue it will depend (if the B350 is the typeto be used) on whether the operation is considered to be PVT or CHT.
CASA might issue pel air with a dispensation for the B350 non aid Night approaches due to >5'700 kgs's weight req's. I'm sure there is a work around the problem
Perhaps it would be simplier to amend the regulations to modernise the weight categories so as to allow the single pilot use of the aircraft such as the B350 in single pilot CHT use. However I really don't see the wheels of progress meshing with the timeframe of the contract change.
BTW, the 350 is a great machine and (depending on operational requirments of course) does have many advantages over the 200, however these advantages need to weighed up against the disadvantages found within the current > 5700kg regulatory requirements.
I do not know of any requirement for 2 pilots for the B350 just because it is being operated in Charter category. I am happy to be corrected though.
There may be a requirement for a cabin attendant if the aircraft is carrying more than 15 passengers IAW CAO 20.16 Para 6
6 Cabin attendants
6.1 Subject to subsection 6A, aircraft engaged in charter or regular public
transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger
complement as follows:
(a) aircraft carrying more than 15 but not more than 36 passengers shall carry
a cabin attendant, except that aircraft:
(i) carrying not more than 22 passengers, at least 3 of whom are infants
or children; and
(ii) crewed by 2 pilots;
need not carry a cabin attendant if the duties and responsibilities of the
flight crew concerning the briefing and control of passengers in normal
and emergency operations are specified in the operations manual;
Most operators of aircraft capable of this number of passengers chose to use 2 pilots as CAO 20.18 mandated 2 crew if the aircraft was not fitted with an autopilot. Very few of these aircraft ( Metro 3/23, B1900, EMB 110 etc) have autopilots.
Jetcraft operated some of their Metro’s single pilot and also Jerry McGowan operated his B1900D’s single pilot on the night freight operation.
I doubt that the B350 would be capable of being configured for more than 15 passengers especially in a medical configuration.
I am specifically not commenting on any use of the B350 in RPT operations.
There may be a requirement for a cabin attendant if the aircraft is carrying more than 15 passengers IAW CAO 20.16 Para 6
6 Cabin attendants
6.1 Subject to subsection 6A, aircraft engaged in charter or regular public
transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger
complement as follows:
(a) aircraft carrying more than 15 but not more than 36 passengers shall carry
a cabin attendant, except that aircraft:
(i) carrying not more than 22 passengers, at least 3 of whom are infants
or children; and
(ii) crewed by 2 pilots;
need not carry a cabin attendant if the duties and responsibilities of the
flight crew concerning the briefing and control of passengers in normal
and emergency operations are specified in the operations manual;
Most operators of aircraft capable of this number of passengers chose to use 2 pilots as CAO 20.18 mandated 2 crew if the aircraft was not fitted with an autopilot. Very few of these aircraft ( Metro 3/23, B1900, EMB 110 etc) have autopilots.
Jetcraft operated some of their Metro’s single pilot and also Jerry McGowan operated his B1900D’s single pilot on the night freight operation.
I doubt that the B350 would be capable of being configured for more than 15 passengers especially in a medical configuration.
I am specifically not commenting on any use of the B350 in RPT operations.
Black Maria,
I'm not first-hand familiar with all the aerial medical work being flown in Australia. But at least some of it is niether PVT, or CHTR (and it's obviously not RPT). It falls under AWK - so is commercial in nature but not subject to some of the requirements written for CHTR/RTP.
And I too suspect you're correct in your statement about "wheels of progress" and real world, acceptable time to put something in place. Perhaps CASA could include this change in their document re-write...
PCX,
Perhaps the nurse is considered to be a crew member and cabin attendant, giving briefings to pax etc.
But yeah they would be going well to get 15+ onboard anyway...
And it's got an autopilot...
CR.
I'm not first-hand familiar with all the aerial medical work being flown in Australia. But at least some of it is niether PVT, or CHTR (and it's obviously not RPT). It falls under AWK - so is commercial in nature but not subject to some of the requirements written for CHTR/RTP.
And I too suspect you're correct in your statement about "wheels of progress" and real world, acceptable time to put something in place. Perhaps CASA could include this change in their document re-write...
PCX,
Perhaps the nurse is considered to be a crew member and cabin attendant, giving briefings to pax etc.
But yeah they would be going well to get 15+ onboard anyway...
And it's got an autopilot...
CR.
Looking up the B350 in Business and Commercial Aviation, they show it as a single-pilot aircraft.
CASA issued a dispensation for Impulse to operate the B1900C/D single pilot on night freight.
CASA issued a dispensation for Impulse to operate the B1900C/D single pilot on night freight.
If CASA issued Impulse a dispensation to operate the B1900 single pilot on night freight what rule or requirement did they issue the dispensation against.
Some pilots seem to think that, just because an aircraft is over 5700kg MTOW it must be crewed by 2 pilots and the Captain must have an ATPL.
For aircraft certified as single pilot, and for IFR ops, fitted with an autopilot as per CAO 20.18 this is not the case as far as I know.
If I have missed something I am happy to be corrected with the relevant reference.
Again I am not commenting on the requirements for RPT only charter and airwork.
Some pilots seem to think that, just because an aircraft is over 5700kg MTOW it must be crewed by 2 pilots and the Captain must have an ATPL.
For aircraft certified as single pilot, and for IFR ops, fitted with an autopilot as per CAO 20.18 this is not the case as far as I know.
If I have missed something I am happy to be corrected with the relevant reference.
Again I am not commenting on the requirements for RPT only charter and airwork.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Conargo Pub
Age: 39
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA issued a dispensation for Impulse to operate the B1900C/D single pilot on night freight.
Impulse operated the 1900's single pilot for years on night fright and Jetcraft/Toll continue to operate their Metro 3/23'single pilot. Only requirement is to have a serviceable autopilot.
It is not just about one or two pilots, it is about no aid aerodromes. Perhaps I am wrong, I was once before, just ask my old CP.
DD
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know two crew is not required in AWK CAT, Navaid at night is required and I cant see any dispo for this, Captain required to hold ATPL and all airports must meet balanced field length requirements.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN is correct.
Single pilot aero-med is deemed AWK category.
When tasked to places like YBAD, YGDA,YCBR and YLCG etc the 200 could be used so no doubt the bean counters are looking at ways to get around the no aid night issue.
My sources tell me the tender includes a combination of 200/350.
Single pilot aero-med is deemed AWK category.
When tasked to places like YBAD, YGDA,YCBR and YLCG etc the 200 could be used so no doubt the bean counters are looking at ways to get around the no aid night issue.
My sources tell me the tender includes a combination of 200/350.
Obviously this thread/subject has some firing Q's left right & center.
I don't wish to add too much here in detail as there is a lot of personal involvement here for me & my work colleges.
Some facts though seeing as this is all fast becoming pulblic knowledge:
There was options for various airframes to be used for the new contract.
(actually the old Beech wasn't named, there's no req for a KingAir as such but is obvious as no other airframe can do the current task) All B200, All B350 or a combo for both, the latter presents all sorts of issues re availability to perform the contract with a particular type not being available due maint issues as an Eg.(that's just my opinion too) A combo would almost require more airframes than a dedicated type to cover all contingencies.
AWK is the Cat for Aero Med BUT the contractor would also require to have CHRT on their AOC as well (obviously Pelair has I would imagine) as some tasks are not within the current contract AeroMed associated & therefore would fall outside the AWK Cat if the B350 was being considered for that non AWK particular task, (if that makes sense!).
Some airfields currently being serviced by the B200 would have to be dropped off the ALA's reg (due tire press for Eg.) if an all B350 fleet was utilized,this the Air Ambo's are aware of.
"ZZZ" Good question. In my opinion the B350 is a waste for 90% of the Vic Ops. Too small a state Vic is.
As for non aid AD's at Ngt? Well it's a wank anyway in my opinion. What difference is there from a B350 to a B200 that removes that ability? Bugga all! Still SP ops, still Cat B, and a Vref of around 5 kts or so over the B200, yep I can see the sense in not allowing the B350 to do what ist's bro does now.......NOT! 12500lbs have the rule makers thinking oh it's far more complex to operate now it's over that 'brick-wall' figure.............there's your biggest problem, the goons behind the rule book!
So for now we wait & see. As I said in my previous we at EN have a great crew from the guy who sweeps the shop floor right up to the CP, shame to see all that flushed away due possibly to $$$$$
Personally I'm okay with Pelair being awarded the new contract (when it's signed) I agree to fair play & a level playing field as anyone is entitled to bid as long as they can at the end of the day provide the same safe & efficient services we have been offering for many years(at a cost), there in lies the $50Mill question! It all comes at a cost, so what cost safety?
Good luck to all my work mates & those directly effected by this decision.
Wmk2
I don't wish to add too much here in detail as there is a lot of personal involvement here for me & my work colleges.
Some facts though seeing as this is all fast becoming pulblic knowledge:
There was options for various airframes to be used for the new contract.
(actually the old Beech wasn't named, there's no req for a KingAir as such but is obvious as no other airframe can do the current task) All B200, All B350 or a combo for both, the latter presents all sorts of issues re availability to perform the contract with a particular type not being available due maint issues as an Eg.(that's just my opinion too) A combo would almost require more airframes than a dedicated type to cover all contingencies.
AWK is the Cat for Aero Med BUT the contractor would also require to have CHRT on their AOC as well (obviously Pelair has I would imagine) as some tasks are not within the current contract AeroMed associated & therefore would fall outside the AWK Cat if the B350 was being considered for that non AWK particular task, (if that makes sense!).
Some airfields currently being serviced by the B200 would have to be dropped off the ALA's reg (due tire press for Eg.) if an all B350 fleet was utilized,this the Air Ambo's are aware of.
"ZZZ" Good question. In my opinion the B350 is a waste for 90% of the Vic Ops. Too small a state Vic is.
As for non aid AD's at Ngt? Well it's a wank anyway in my opinion. What difference is there from a B350 to a B200 that removes that ability? Bugga all! Still SP ops, still Cat B, and a Vref of around 5 kts or so over the B200, yep I can see the sense in not allowing the B350 to do what ist's bro does now.......NOT! 12500lbs have the rule makers thinking oh it's far more complex to operate now it's over that 'brick-wall' figure.............there's your biggest problem, the goons behind the rule book!
So for now we wait & see. As I said in my previous we at EN have a great crew from the guy who sweeps the shop floor right up to the CP, shame to see all that flushed away due possibly to $$$$$
Personally I'm okay with Pelair being awarded the new contract (when it's signed) I agree to fair play & a level playing field as anyone is entitled to bid as long as they can at the end of the day provide the same safe & efficient services we have been offering for many years(at a cost), there in lies the $50Mill question! It all comes at a cost, so what cost safety?
Good luck to all my work mates & those directly effected by this decision.
Wmk2
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when you compare leasing used aircraft, the costs of a B200, a B350 (and a B1900D for that matter) are all fairly similar (around $35000 to $45000 US per month I believe and hugely overpriced) and we all know how much (or how little) it costs to get an FO on the payroll so I reckon the price difference must lie elsewhere!! (not saying where though..I'm not sure)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mel
Age: 45
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only benefit I can see with the 350 over the 200 is a newer airframe.
Maybe the pressurization system is a tad better.
The next step could be towards PC12 etc.
However I don't agree with that one.
What other twin turboprop could do the job?
Or maybe back to the Be200 with the blackhawk engine conversion
Maybe the pressurization system is a tad better.
The next step could be towards PC12 etc.
However I don't agree with that one.
What other twin turboprop could do the job?
Or maybe back to the Be200 with the blackhawk engine conversion
I think you'll find there isn't a lot of difference between a B200 and a B350. Slightly different engines (still a PT6), and the B350 is a tad bigger.
They both come with Proline 21 these days, and the new B200's rolling off the production line now are now equipped with the same environmental systems as those on the B350.
So I'm struggling to see where there's any significant difference,
.
morno
They both come with Proline 21 these days, and the new B200's rolling off the production line now are now equipped with the same environmental systems as those on the B350.
So I'm struggling to see where there's any significant difference,
.morno
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The only difference is the extra 30cms in the fuselage! Oh and the additional running costs, particularly over the short sectors Victoria...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Conargo Pub
Age: 39
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ER-ZZZ
This is a family web site. Please do not use obscene swear words like that again 
For gods sake man, my kids read this stuff.
DD
The next step could be towards PC12 etc.
For gods sake man, my kids read this stuff.
DD
"DD" I had a chuckle with yr comments, gee I hope yr not female there with being known as "DD" The PC12 (or any SE for that matter) won't be considered whilst those that dream up the contract req's in Vic have common sense:-)
"LB" although I have to agree with you to some extent 20.7 means zip at the end of the day with these 2 airframes. The Govt don't know sh1t from clay here & obviously use advisers for such contractual decisions, that's where that ends. (the only good thing these people did was to exclude SE Airframes.........phewwwwwwwwww!!!
The 200 & 350 both perform exceptionally well, like the 12500lbs cutoff thingy there has to be a line in the sand no more no less.The segmented climb req's for 20.7 A/C are good & well for large heavy A/C but we are talking about a tonne or so here in difference.The only advantage I can see with the 350 is it can carry more further, the latter not being a real issue in Victoria.Other than that no other advantage at all as far as I can see.
Look get a good fleet of 200GT's all decked out with say access to a small jet (regardless of whom is operating them) & lets get on with it! Going down the 350 path will just create unnecessary headaches & ultimately cost more at the end of the day.
Wnk2
The PC12 (or any SE for that matter) won't be considered whilst those that dream up the contract req's in Vic have common sense:-)"LB" although I have to agree with you to some extent 20.7 means zip at the end of the day with these 2 airframes. The Govt don't know sh1t from clay here & obviously use advisers for such contractual decisions, that's where that ends. (the only good thing these people did was to exclude SE Airframes.........phewwwwwwwwww!!!
The 200 & 350 both perform exceptionally well, like the 12500lbs cutoff thingy there has to be a line in the sand no more no less.The segmented climb req's for 20.7 A/C are good & well for large heavy A/C but we are talking about a tonne or so here in difference.The only advantage I can see with the 350 is it can carry more further, the latter not being a real issue in Victoria.Other than that no other advantage at all as far as I can see.
Look get a good fleet of 200GT's all decked out with say access to a small jet (regardless of whom is operating them) & lets get on with it! Going down the 350 path will just create unnecessary headaches & ultimately cost more at the end of the day.
Wnk2