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

[Dances With Dingoes]

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)

[davidgrant]

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?

[Dances With Dingoes]

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/ medivac 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

[illusion]

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics...idsId=00970017

[TWT]

Pel-Air gets Victoria

Pel-Air is preferred choice for air ambo

[Wally Mk2]

The "Pig" (Piaggio) I'm sure was briefly looked at by the boffins but at the end of the day was highly impracticable for the Vic Ops. There is simply no need for it's capabilities here in Vic. Got nothing against the A/C, would love to fly one seeing as it has TWO engines
The type isn't operated here in Oz at all. There would be little if any support around the country for the type other than say a half doz in specialist ops. Even if the Vic Govt thought okay lets get the new contractor to operate these 'Pigs' then the cost to set up a new type & train everyone remotely involved in the Ambo ops would be enormous, far outweighing the cost advantages over the old Becch. The type isn't even suitable for our ops due not having a cargo door for strecther loading, OH&S issues would kill off that issue dead! The canard wing for Eg would be a huge concern not to mention it's abilities to operate into rough dirt strips & those rear facing props, spells dnager in our ops. I'd like a dollar for everytime I've started the old Beech up being able to see both 'head chopping' devices clearly upon start-up only to swing around & see a person or two in close prox to my plane just watching this happens a lot at country airstrips where country people just like to watch (voyeurism).

Scene set at a small country airstrip at night. Brand new type (Pig) recently introduced so EVERYBODY is getting used to this new plane & it's odd shape. Low light, raining an ambulance turns up at the airfeild with a very sick patient. It's 3am & everybody is tired & stressed, rush rush rush, it happens, we are human. The ambo driver backs the truck (as we call 'em) up towards the A/C as he has done so for years with the B200 & CRUNCH!!!!!!!!!! hits the canard sqauare on & damages it big time as you would expect................what do we have now? An A/C that is U/S & most likely will be that way for quite a while, make it into a good cubby house for the local aero club perhaps 'cause it's not as if you could stick some 100 MPH tape on it !..........not to mention what about the sick person at the time?
Hypothetical? yeah in some ways but if it has anything to do with aviation it WILL happen!

Beech know all this & have a captive market, it would be a foolish man/Co. to produce a new airframe type these days to go head to head with Beech.

For now the old Beech will live on just means somebody else will be at the 'wheel'.


Wmk2

p.s...........I'll take that Mars bar now thnxs mate

[PPRuNeUser0161]

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!

[rcoight]

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.

[Wally Mk2]

"rcoight" I haven't weighed into the old debate too much here with this thread as we all agree it's been done to death. But despite all the evidence that SE Turbo props are safer & they probably are "stats wise" (Stats won't keep me safe but a spare engine out ther either to the left or rigt of me will) it comes down to personal choice at the end of the day. I know I wouldn't want to fly one 'cause "I" believe they are not as safe, again my choice. I've said it a few times here over the years that ergonomically the PC sh1ts all over the old Beech technology (the Beech reminds me of an old FC Holden) but that's where it ends for me
The Vic contract for many many years has never allowed for SE airframes & for good reasons. I know why but am not going to devulge too much into that here, been there done that:-)

Yr right "SN' the RFDS ain't done yet but will be by June30th 2011 bar for some unforseen reason.
Okies more to come am sure but we are still down there at "Twin World" doing out job day & night with the best team I have ever worked with, that will be the shame of it all, the break-up of a well oiled SAFE team


Wmk2

[PPRuNeUser0161]

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.

[Wally Mk2]

"SN" yr right of course as far as design goes but in today's economic climate it would be a very brave Co. whom could or would embark on building a new type these days to go head to head with Beech to produce a better 'mouse trap' Just won't happen in the foreseeable future I reckon.
It's a bit like the "Pig" as I mentioned in a previous post they (Piaggio) wouldn't have a snow flakes chance in hell here in Oz for many years to come if ever in our time purely because nobody again in today's current crappy climate will take on a new airframe type here in Oz never lone use it for a dedicated service such as an flying ambulance.
So for now we have one choice for those who believe in safety & 2 choices for those that believe in garden gnomes & saving money Not on my watch Mr



Wmk2


EDIT for Freight Dog:-)

I did read something about that some time ago but I still stand by my words that we won't see a Beech competitor especially for Aero Med work for a very long time:-)
Socata as mentioned are not sure what will power their NT (New Twin) at this stage but if it is to be turbo fans then that's not in the same league as the old Beech anyway:-)

[FGD135]

rcoight,

Unless I'm missing something, that statistic you quoted tells only a small part of the story. This was the statement:

However, the single engine turboprop aircraft had one-third of the engine related fatal accident rate compared with multi-engine turboprops.

I don't believe that statistic considers engine failures in the twin which did not go on to result in an accident. I believe it only considers those cases where there was an actual "accident" - and the respective fatality rate.

So, all those cases where the twin lost an engine but continued on to land safely are not considered - which makes that particular statistic almost meaningless.

Or am I missing something?

[rcoight]

Yes, you are missing something.

As you say, those stats refer only to ACCIDENTS, whether in a single or twin is not the point.

It also doesn't count all the times a single-engine turboprop loses the engine and lands safely, thus not counting as an "accident".

Many studies of the accident statistics have come to the same conclusion:

That is: If you lose an engine, you are less likely to die if it was the only engine, rather than one of two.

To put it simply; the FATAL ACCIDENT RATE (ie. fatal accidents per x hours flown across the whole fleet) after an engine failure is, for single-engine turboprops, 1/3 of that for multi-turboprops.

Everyone has a very entrenched opinion on "safety" and those figures may seem completely the opposite of what one would expect, but they are the FACTS...

Perhaps those who put together the requirements for various contracts are less interested in the truth than the perceived truth...

If someone has an analysis of the accident statistics that suggests the opposite of what I have shown, please go ahead and show us all.

I won't hold my breath...

Note: I am only commenting on the "bag the safety of the PC12" debate, not on the B200 v B350 debate, which is another thing altogether. I do find it extremely amusing that those who are happy to bag the PC12 about "safety" get all up in arms about any suggestion that the B350 is safer than the B200!!

LOL!!

[Wally Mk2]

Oh I love it when the debate goes beyond the original thread I try to sit on my hands but it's hard
Govt contracts such as the one under discussion here am sure get ALL the facts before a decision is made because when it comes to money the Govt are the biggest thieves & want it for the cheapest price (afterall they are spending yours & my money here). The PC would be the obvious choice as far as money is concerned, none better probably. But when we add in 'safety' to a contract then that's a whole other story as we have witnessed in the Vic Govt contract now for many years. I can recall a few years ago now when working for another crowd whom flew Pollies around the countryside. Twins where always used & 2 pilots for that matter most of the time so you see anything to do with the Govt means in their eyes safety is No 1, am okay with that train of thought too
One can Analise stats 'till ya blue in the face but if yr out at night in IMC just having taken off from a non aid AD with high terrain in the vicinity, gone into less than VMC at say around 700ft & you loose an engine hands up those that would say (swearing on their manhood or womanhood) they would rather be in a PC than the old Beech?..........................hmmmm funny about that! So it has little to do with the stats that say it's safer in a SE than a twin in any situation. Am sure it is safer in a PC for Eg given the right circumstances after an engine failure but we don't always fly/live in the 'right' circumstances world now do we?
Ah sh1t who cares anyway, the countries going down the gurglier might as well gone down in a twin!
Step right up please............NEXT


Wmk2

[rcoight]

Of course, you are quite right Wally

Governments are only interested in the FACTS, they would not be at all interested in the "spin".
Only what's best for everyone...

LOL!

[Echo Beech]

Have been following the thread to see if anything useful is said, so far if I had a filter you could kill about 95% of it

I think there are two possible reasons that the NSWAA don't go for the PC12 IMHO.

First off, when the RFDS contract was announced way back in 2001 single engine aircraft were in the tender. Before the tender was officially released it was leaked to the media that PC12's or more correctly SE aircraft was to be an option. The papers reported this and the "safety" issue raised its ugly head. With in one but certainly less than two weeks, any reference to SE aircraft was removed from the tender.

For me personally, and this is just MHO, I with my training feel I can handle an EFATO which is probably the most significant and therefore like the fact that I have two noise makers. But, having said that, we fly to LHI, we sometimes fly either to make first light or leave just prior to last light. I can tell you right now, there is no way I want to be floating in the middle of the pacific ocean at night in the middle of winter because I suffered an engine failure on my only donk. The stats all tell us that a ditching at sea is not a good outcome for the people up the pointy end any how.

Lastly, having done Stats at Uni for three years all I can say is this, "there are lies damned lies and then there are statistics" quoted by many
Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[scarediecat]

Its a real shame to see Ambulance Victoria negotiating with Pel Air at this stage of proceedings. The current experience level at the EN base is outstanding. Something money can't buy. We all know its just business when selecting a new tender, but occasionally it should'nt.

The Ambulance Victoria spokesman today said "For the patient it won't be any different, it will just be different planes and different pilots. It was a tender process and an alternative company was identified".

If it is true regarding the desire for B350's, I dare say the experience will be different for many patient's considering there will be less available aerodromes! Less available aerodromes means less Air Ambulance coverage for our country friends.

But Im sure Ambulance Victoria know what they are doing . Let's hope so!

[PPRuNeUser0161]

I have a great idea. Seen as the RFDS is going to lose significant revenue to help fund the traditional operations perhaps they should look at picking up a couple of RPT routes. Lets see, they could promote on time flights that always go, your baggage will arrive with you, newer aircraft and for a tax deductable donation they could take you where you want. Then lets see who wants to protect their patch.

Aeromedical is the business of the RFDS, REX profits go O/S. The Australian taxpayer will pick up the difference on this one. Real good!

[Dances With Dingoes]

Just wondering, since the thread keeps coming back to one engine or two, safety, and especially the media, lets just buy new twins and shut one engine down, day or night and even on revenue flights, screw the regs. We can do it because it is training that 'has to be done sometime'. We will save on fuel and component time. "It's not dodgy it is just economics". Then we can put in a bid that will be lower than the RFDS and get the contract. "And by the way, even though we have CAR 217 we are not a training comapny".

Excuse my ramblings, but if there were such a company, I think there is, legal or not they may just be a formidable force in future Air Ambo/ Airmedical contracts.

Safety is not the only potential victim of cost cutting, ethics can be precariously positioned as well.

Bugga

Soup Nazi, Fight FIRE WITH FIRE, haha. LOVE YA WORK

DD

[Dances With Dingoes]

Anyone know if the extra hours have been awarded on the QLD contract yet? If so who got them?

Also when are the NSW and NT contracts to be renewed? I am thinking that may be an interesting rumble now that RFDS are aware there is a very serious competitor out there looking like it is after more and more of the aero med work.

DD