Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Merged: Pel Air vs RFDS for the Air Ambulance contract in Australia

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Merged: Pel Air vs RFDS for the Air Ambulance contract in Australia

Old 17th Jul 2009, 02:28
  #101 (permalink)  
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,127
You are now being poked by the same stick that you use with so much glee and enthusiasm at PC12 drivers.
Yeah, you tell him Stallie!
Towering Q is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 03:54
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 389
So what is the climb performance in PC-12 like with an engine failure after take-off?

If the PC-12 is so good, why then do the NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian governments all require a multi-engine turboprop for their air ambulance contracts? Their consultants must be aware of the advantages of the PC-12 but for some reason don't put it up a viable option to the various state governments, I wonder why?

Nice for the RFDS boys that choose to fly the PC-12 to tow the company line.

Plenty of PPRuNe experts seem to bag the old technology B200 and its poor single engine climb performance. Get a B200 maunual and you will see that it still has a reasonable climb figure after t/o of around 500 fpm at MTOW provided you fly it right like any twin engine aircraft. Fortnutely for me I did my B200 endorsement many years ago with Flight Safety in the USA, so plenty of EFATO etc. Not like a lot of you guys who get the good old Ozzie GA B200 endorsement with some expert who knows 3/10 ths of sweet FA about the aeroplane etc.

A few years back talking to a guy who was consulting to a state health department his personal belief was that a two crew Cessna Citation certified to FAR23, pilots sent to Flight Safety every twelve months, was the only thing that he would actually recommend as it ticked all the boxes and didn't leave him or the agency exposed to legal action in case of an accident.
CharlieLimaX-Ray is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 04:05
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
So what is the climb performance in PC-12 like with an engine failure after take-off?
(gee never heard that one before)

No-one knows. It's never happened. Marginally better than an upside-down kingair?

If the PC-12 is so good, why then do the ........governments all require a multi-engine turboprop for their air ambulance contracts?
Who knows? Flat earth?Too efficient maybe?
FourBalls is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 05:01
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,714
CLX,

PC12 engine out performance has nothing to do with trying to explain the difference between B200 and B350 certification.

If your comment "Pprune experts seem to bag the old technology B200 and its poor single engine climb performance" was directed at me then:

1. thanks for calling me an expert
2. I am not bagging the B200. I used to happily fly them. (As I used to happily fly a PC12). However no matter what training you got, no matter how much of a top gun you are, you cannot go past the fact that a B200 can operate out of strips that leave it with nowhere to go or stop in case of an engine failure. This is legal and happens.

I have never said that the B200 is unsafe. However the B350 is more safe due to its certification criteria. What is the safest thing? Well not flying of course.

Is the B200 safe for the operation? My opinion is yes. Does the government have the right to demand a FAR23 certificated aircraft? Yes it does.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 06:49
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 174
As Iv'e said it before I'm scared of sharks and I can't swim that well so I'm quite comfortable cruising across to lord howe in the old B200.
B200 climbs quite nicely on 1 donk despite the certification crap.

The Dog
Under Dog is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 09:07
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,958
Wally MK2, I bet you a Mars Bar that the RFDS will continue operating the Victorian Air Ambulance contract way past 2011.

Like the idea of a Cessna Citation for air ambulance work.

Compressor Stall what basically is the difference in the B200 and B350, apart from the CAO20.7.1b compliance? Basically the same airframe apart from bigger engines, longer fuselage and the dual-feed inverter system. The actual airframe is still built the same and shares a large number of common parts with the B1900, B200, C90, Queenair series, Twin Bonanza and B18 aircraft.

CLX, made a valid point in relation to why the government departments request a twin turbo-prop for aero medical work. Must really irk the Pilatus agents in Australia.

Just keep in mind the original Beagle 206 that the RFDS operated in NSW, were certified below 5700kgs but came with charts and also certification to show a positive rate of climb with an engine failure after take-off, all happily accepted by DCA back in the late 1960's.
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 09:55
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
The main reason that Health Departments insist on twin engine aircraft ?

Most of the consultants that they employ,and who produce the tender documents, are self labelled experts who have lost touch, a long time ago, with the real world of aviation.
Desert Duck is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 10:35
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 174
Up an at'em Wally you've got our support down there. By the way your spot on about the 350.

The Dog
Under Dog is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 12:17
  #109 (permalink)  
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: 56
Posts: 3,488
Mr Duck, I think you will find it has more to do with the political clout of the the people who ride in the back!
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 12:21
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: blackstump
Posts: 24
I think the reason asnsw fly the b200 over the pc12 even though of the economic benefiets is the requirement to sometimes go to lord howe and norfolk. I vaguely remember talking to somebody from MRU about that issue.
redleader78 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2009, 17:30
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 57
Posts: 864
Re the C90 at TWB I am given to understand there was some anecdotal evidence to suggest pilot incapacitation, which could not be proved or disproved due to the outcome.
Jamair is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2009, 08:18
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,572
That's ok "LB" no need to slip into the flack jacket no personal attacks from me:-)
Not everyone understands that the the diff between the 200 & 350 is little regardless of that 20.7 mythical umbrella:-)Each to their own beliefs:-)

If yr in need of our services worrying about who or how the plane is operated will be the least of yr worries, you wanna get saved & go Med 1 don't ya?
The Vic Govt tender has been or will need to be modified to accept the 350 airframe & all it's limitations, that's the cokc up with it all!. I still maintain that the 350 is a total waste for our Ops.

Capt Wally (Wmk2 is having a rest)

p.s...............Just for the record "LB" yeah been there done that with 2 crew 20.7 Ops even OS...........too easy, little challenge:-)
Capt Wally is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2009, 13:33
  #113 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Conargo Pub
Age: 35
Posts: 92
pc12togo, TKFS

Sorry to offend. Just trying to add a bit of humour to a sad time for Wally and associates. It is never easy to hear you are going to lose your job as most of us Gen X and older, pilots have probably done at least two of three times on the way to the 'GLORY' of a life in aviation.

I have nothing against PC 12's. I have never flown one but ALMOST everyone I know that has speaks highly of them. The only thing I don't like about them is the fact they seem to remove the PIC's sense of humour as part of the endorsement.

If deep down a PC12 makes you feel inadequate, or angry, just think of this and you may well crack a smile. I am homosexual, I have got red hair. I got beat up at school and I have got an islander endorsement.

Like Capt Wally said

The PC V B200 is purely personal choice, that argument ends there:-)
Lets just hope that Stationair8 is correct;
Wally MK2, I bet you a Mars Bar that the RFDS will continue operating the Victorian Air Ambulance contract way past 2011.
Wally and mates down there in Vic. Good luck with the change over, lets hope Pel Air have the brains to bring on the experience that sort of job needs and take you guys on with similar conditions.

DD (not bra size)

Last edited by Dances With Dingoes; 18th Jul 2009 at 15:03.
Dances With Dingoes is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2009, 10:54
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 28
davidgrant

Any of you guys had a look at the Piaggio avanti 11.
Made as a dedicated ambulance aircraft...under the magic 5700KG
400Knots..41,000 ft...sea level cabin to FL280, stand up cabin, six feet wide.
a third cheaper to run than the 350 also a lot cheaper to run...maybe someone's not thinking outside the box?
davidgrant is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2009, 11:47
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Conargo Pub
Age: 35
Posts: 92
400Knots..41,000 ft...sea level cabin to FL280, stand up cabin, six feet wide.
True Dat? How they go on dirt/rock runways?

May just be the salvation for the Air Ambo/ medevac service contracts Australia wide for the RFDS IF that is all true.

Might even blow the rocks off our northern friends. Lets show this little bit of joy to Fury Lep and see what he can extract from this little PEARL.

Especially the cost part.

YouTube - X PLANE 9 Piaggio Avanti P180

SHHHHHHHHH. Do not tell Pel Air

DD

Last edited by Dances With Dingoes; 19th Jul 2009 at 12:07.
Dances With Dingoes is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2009, 23:52
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics...idsId=00970017
illusion is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2009, 23:55
  #117 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 724
Pel-Air gets Victoria

Pel-Air is preferred choice for air ambo
TWT is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2009, 12:01
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 538
The PC 12 Vs B200/350 thing is a dead issue, the FACT is the B200 & 350 are safer, period. As for the safety of the B200 Vs 350 well the B200 is more flexible as it can operate in the NORMAL category as well as the transport FAR 23 BFL category. Both are as safe as each other when operated in the tranport category.

The 350 is 36 inches (1 metre) longer than the B200 and much better lifter.

Edit: The RFDS is not done done yet with EN, it ain't over till its over!

Last edited by Soup Nazi; 23rd Jul 2009 at 12:25.
Soup Nazi is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2009, 00:01
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 110
OK, I really didn't want to wade into this again as it has been done to death, but when I read statements like the one above by Soup Nazi where THEIR OPINION is presented as unarguable FACT, it's difficult to stay silent...

The following is taken directly from the Piper website, from a discussion on the safety records of various types of aircraft:

"We reviewed the NTSB’s Aviation Accident Database, specifically in the 10 year period between 1998 and 2007. We also reviewed other reports that attempted to summarize accident trends.
What we found confirmed many widely held beliefs, but also included a few surprises.
It was interesting to compare the safety of single and multi-engine turboprop aircraft. Their overall, engine related, and fatal accident rates were very similar. Their fatal engine related accident rates were very low. However, the single engine turboprop aircraft had one-third of the engine related fatal accident rate compared with multi-engine turboprops.Whether that difference can be attributed to the lower stall speeds and thus lower impact speeds of single engine aircraft or attributed to the reduced pilot workload following an engine shutdown is unknown, but the effect on fatal accidents was clear."

I have edited for brevity but there is more there for those interested enough to look, including a chart and so on.

If someone can provide a link to other studies which have come to different conclusions (thus backing up their opinion) please do so.

In the meantime I'll keep flying the PC-12, and will feel quite safe doing so.

And for the guys at YMEN I sincerely hope you do keep the contract. For mine I think it would be disgraceful for it to go elsewhere, but if it does good luck to you all in finding other work.

Last edited by rcoight; 24th Jul 2009 at 00:06. Reason: spelling
rcoight is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2009, 05:42
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 538
rcoigt
Fair enough.

Wally
I reckon the Beech are leaving themselves wide open if they don't come up with a King Air replacement. It's an old design that is built very well and is sooo good to fly however, its slow, not enough room inside, its heavy and has limited range with medical gear on board. If the PC12 had two donks they would have stopped building King Air's years ago.

Last edited by Soup Nazi; 24th Jul 2009 at 06:04.
Soup Nazi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.