Northern Territory Aeromed Contract
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm...........this has all the makings of another NT government debacle. 
I hope I am wrong because the people of the NT deserve better than to have essential services being used as a political plaything.
I hope I am wrong because the people of the NT deserve better than to have essential services being used as a political plaything.
Silly Old Git
I hope I am wrong because the people of the NT deserve better than to have essential services being used as a political plaything.
How nice it must be to be the NT Government. You can basically F@CK SH1T up time after time, then release a media report blaming someone else. Unless I'm wrong, the major delays that lead to Kok Vaskalis statements (Jaba's prev post) were related to aircraft - and that was their choice based on price.
Perhaps Pearl would like to rebutt this baloney, but can't - there's a lucrative contract to be announced in the near future... When was any Government contract, in the whole history of Government contracts, awarded entirely on merit? (And that includes both price and service delivery).
Watch it all turn into an even bigger joke, shambles, disgrace, than it already is. If you're remote in the top end, DON"T GET SICK OR INJURED!!!
The NT Government is incapable of doing anything this important even half acceptablely (this is a Government that can't even provide reliable electricity to an Australian capital city, and not a very big one at that).
Their motivation is to farm it out entirely, so that they can wag their finger at a contractor if there is a bad outcome. Watch their faces when they get the price. Will anything change?
In my observations, morale is now non-existent (nurses, pilots, doctors), compared to what it was (even with the shortcomings that always were present). It will stay that way or get even worse. My tip is for (d'uh!!) more resignations in the final months (thanks MB, how much was the payout, exactly?!) - will there even BE a service in April, May??!!
NT Government, HANG YOUR HEAD.
Melodramatic? Maybe, but that's how I see it. I hope I'm wrong...
CR.
Perhaps Pearl would like to rebutt this baloney, but can't - there's a lucrative contract to be announced in the near future... When was any Government contract, in the whole history of Government contracts, awarded entirely on merit? (And that includes both price and service delivery).
Watch it all turn into an even bigger joke, shambles, disgrace, than it already is. If you're remote in the top end, DON"T GET SICK OR INJURED!!!
The NT Government is incapable of doing anything this important even half acceptablely (this is a Government that can't even provide reliable electricity to an Australian capital city, and not a very big one at that).
Their motivation is to farm it out entirely, so that they can wag their finger at a contractor if there is a bad outcome. Watch their faces when they get the price. Will anything change?
In my observations, morale is now non-existent (nurses, pilots, doctors), compared to what it was (even with the shortcomings that always were present). It will stay that way or get even worse. My tip is for (d'uh!!) more resignations in the final months (thanks MB, how much was the payout, exactly?!) - will there even BE a service in April, May??!!
NT Government, HANG YOUR HEAD.
Melodramatic? Maybe, but that's how I see it. I hope I'm wrong...
CR.
I understand that the RFDS (WA) has had three (3) engine failures on PC12 aircraft in the past 4 months or so. THANKFULLY no one hurt or paint scratched. As they happened in day VMC on the ground or on climb out.
Does anyone know more?
Does anyone know more?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most unusual???
It appears that there is something most unusual going on with the airmed contract.
It reminds me of Aman aviation and the coastwatch contract years ago.
The N.T. airmed contract should be operated by a N.T. company, crewed by territorians, and the government should pay the necessary price to get a proper, local service in place, without the need for the operator to go raising funds through public subscription, bequests etc.
It is beginning to look as if this is becoming a political football, and first prize in a lottery for the financial speculators. The same people who stuffed up the world economy.
We should also be told why the contract is being cancelled early and what evidence this is based on.
It reminds me of Aman aviation and the coastwatch contract years ago.
The N.T. airmed contract should be operated by a N.T. company, crewed by territorians, and the government should pay the necessary price to get a proper, local service in place, without the need for the operator to go raising funds through public subscription, bequests etc.
It is beginning to look as if this is becoming a political football, and first prize in a lottery for the financial speculators. The same people who stuffed up the world economy.
We should also be told why the contract is being cancelled early and what evidence this is based on.
The N.T aeromedical service has always had its political issues, not so much with the aircraft provider and it's associated services but more the medical side of the operation dating back as far as it goes, too many arms operating independently.
Clearly someone in government is seriously pissed off over all these constant issues over time, so who's going to be blamed, directly or indirectly the same person in any aviation business, the pilot.
I have no doubt this is going to be a bullsup from the start, purely because of the reasons for doing it.
I can see this will end up a PC-12 operation, the move to cheaper single engine aircraft, a small hidden away element of a much bigger grander change.
I can tell you despite what engine manufacturers say, the failure rate of a turbine engine is once every 4000 hrs, I'm living proof of that and I would have had my 5th late last year had it not been for a late roster change, so I'm still due, the frequency is unchanged.
In the Northern Territory, at night, you can kiss your arse and everyone aboard goodbye, wishful thinking if anyone suggests you might pull that one off. God himself would have to be on board.
This puts the incumbent pilots in a difficult position, do I fly on and hope for the best, hang up my boots or move on, one things certain, the northern territory aeromedical service in any form isn't worth dying for.
Goodluck guys, my thoughts are with you all during these difficult coming months.
Clearly someone in government is seriously pissed off over all these constant issues over time, so who's going to be blamed, directly or indirectly the same person in any aviation business, the pilot.
I have no doubt this is going to be a bullsup from the start, purely because of the reasons for doing it.
I can see this will end up a PC-12 operation, the move to cheaper single engine aircraft, a small hidden away element of a much bigger grander change.
I can tell you despite what engine manufacturers say, the failure rate of a turbine engine is once every 4000 hrs, I'm living proof of that and I would have had my 5th late last year had it not been for a late roster change, so I'm still due, the frequency is unchanged.
In the Northern Territory, at night, you can kiss your arse and everyone aboard goodbye, wishful thinking if anyone suggests you might pull that one off. God himself would have to be on board.
This puts the incumbent pilots in a difficult position, do I fly on and hope for the best, hang up my boots or move on, one things certain, the northern territory aeromedical service in any form isn't worth dying for.
Goodluck guys, my thoughts are with you all during these difficult coming months.
Looking into my crystal ball for inspiration and answers, perhaps they might use a Westwind for overwater and long distance medivacs, and then base 2 PC-12's in Darwin, and a PC-12 in Gove and Tindal?
Like to know what the Paspaley family did wrong?
Like to know what the Paspaley family did wrong?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S8, I don't think the Paspaley family did anything wrong.
Their links though were to the opposition side of politics and in the NT that is enough to have the ground cut out from under your feet. Once the powers that be had an excuse (old aircraft) to end the contract, they did.
'Tis going to be very interesting watching someone reinvent the wheel if the incoming company doesn't pick up the displaced Pearl drivers.
Their links though were to the opposition side of politics and in the NT that is enough to have the ground cut out from under your feet. Once the powers that be had an excuse (old aircraft) to end the contract, they did.
'Tis going to be very interesting watching someone reinvent the wheel if the incoming company doesn't pick up the displaced Pearl drivers.
Bottums Up
That's a long bow PLovett. The Labor Govt was elected in the NT in 2001. 9 years to cut the ground from under Pearl's feet? And, you shouldn't be too surprised at Paspaley connections to both CLP & Labor thinking people.
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 failure rate of a turbine engine is once every 4000 hrs
Five failures? You are above average my friend!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC, you may be right on their connections but I still stand by the comment that they didn't do anything wrong. My understanding was that Pearl had the contract for the northern half due to links dating back to the LCP days in power.
The fact that there are two contracts for the NT beggars belief with a very ill defined line in the middle. It reaches ludicrous proportions when a third party is sometimes tasked to transport patients across the "border". That it works is due to the professionalism of the flight and medical crews involved.
The fact that there are two contracts for the NT beggars belief with a very ill defined line in the middle. It reaches ludicrous proportions when a third party is sometimes tasked to transport patients across the "border". That it works is due to the professionalism of the flight and medical crews involved.
Xeptu,
What absolute nonsense crap that is that you came up with.
Until a few weeks ago, PC-12's had been operating for about 15 years in Australia before the first in-flight shutdown. That's at a guess, somewhere in the vicinity of 350,000hrs+ of operation.
Knowing the capabilities of the PC-12, I would quite happily fly one any time of the day or night, in any weather conditions.
I wish all you PC-12 bashers would just cut the crap until you've got time in the machines.
rant over
morno
What absolute nonsense crap that is that you came up with.
Until a few weeks ago, PC-12's had been operating for about 15 years in Australia before the first in-flight shutdown. That's at a guess, somewhere in the vicinity of 350,000hrs+ of operation.
Knowing the capabilities of the PC-12, I would quite happily fly one any time of the day or night, in any weather conditions.
I wish all you PC-12 bashers would just cut the crap until you've got time in the machines.
rant over
morno
It is a better cabin (constant cross section) but PT-6's DO FAIL. It is all about options-a B200 WILL fly away on 1 at MAUW! The crew and patients are owed maximum reliability, not minimum cost!
Did having 2 engines help the poor bugger at Toowoomba?
Didn't a British Airways 747 have a failure of all FOUR engines once?
The Gimli Glider, need I say more?
The PC-12 cabin is built to withstand a force of around 20G. IF your engine did fail, and IF you were so be that unlucky that you were out of gliding range of somewhere (we're talking say 50nm's @ 20,000ft, nil wind), then you'd have to be even unluckier I think (unless you just didn't even try) to not survive in a cabin built to that strength.
I don't have exact statistics, but world wide, I believe there have been no fatal accidents that have related to an in-flight shutdown of a PC-12, that have been handled correctly.
I'd like all these single engine, IFR, turbine bashers, to provide me with cold hard facts, that there are more fatal accidents from the result of an in-flight shut down on a single engined, turbine powered aircraft, than that of a multi-engine turbine powered aircraft. If somebody can, I will remain corrected. But I have a feeling I won't be.
Time to wake up and look at reality people, and not your own biased opinions. Single engine, turbine powered, IFR operations are becoming more and more common. In Australia especially, the hoops you need to jump through for ASETPA approval is immense, and then the constant engine data monitoring that goes on with these machines especially, will pick up even the slightest change in engine operation, before you would even notice it in the cockpit.
Cost aside, do you think people would be buying them in the large numbers they are, if there were people constantly dieing in the machines?
For the record, I fly both PC-12 and B200, and I feel just as safe in the PC-12 as I do the B200.
morno
Didn't a British Airways 747 have a failure of all FOUR engines once?
The Gimli Glider, need I say more?
The PC-12 cabin is built to withstand a force of around 20G. IF your engine did fail, and IF you were so be that unlucky that you were out of gliding range of somewhere (we're talking say 50nm's @ 20,000ft, nil wind), then you'd have to be even unluckier I think (unless you just didn't even try) to not survive in a cabin built to that strength.
I don't have exact statistics, but world wide, I believe there have been no fatal accidents that have related to an in-flight shutdown of a PC-12, that have been handled correctly.
I'd like all these single engine, IFR, turbine bashers, to provide me with cold hard facts, that there are more fatal accidents from the result of an in-flight shut down on a single engined, turbine powered aircraft, than that of a multi-engine turbine powered aircraft. If somebody can, I will remain corrected. But I have a feeling I won't be.
Time to wake up and look at reality people, and not your own biased opinions. Single engine, turbine powered, IFR operations are becoming more and more common. In Australia especially, the hoops you need to jump through for ASETPA approval is immense, and then the constant engine data monitoring that goes on with these machines especially, will pick up even the slightest change in engine operation, before you would even notice it in the cockpit.
Cost aside, do you think people would be buying them in the large numbers they are, if there were people constantly dieing in the machines?
For the record, I fly both PC-12 and B200, and I feel just as safe in the PC-12 as I do the B200.
morno
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and no.
Not long ago a C208 that was approved for ASEPTA operations had a chip detector light illuminated and it landed on a road a few miles south of Alice Springs airport with pax on board. If it had been a chieftain it would have been able to land at the airport.
Whether we like it or not, the facts are that a twin engined aircraft performs much better than a single, and the pilot has more options after an engine failure in flight. That is an undeniable fact.
PT6's DO fail. That is also an undeniable fact. They are more reliable than piston engines, but they are NOT infallable.
It is also a fact that single engined aircraft have done much good work in Australia in the past, and will do so in the future. Singles are simpler and less demanding and so less mistakes are made in singles.(all things being equal.)
We have a crazy idea that singles are not suitable for instrument flying, and this is wrong.
Whether we like it or not, the facts are that a twin engined aircraft performs much better than a single, and the pilot has more options after an engine failure in flight. That is an undeniable fact.
PT6's DO fail. That is also an undeniable fact. They are more reliable than piston engines, but they are NOT infallable.
It is also a fact that single engined aircraft have done much good work in Australia in the past, and will do so in the future. Singles are simpler and less demanding and so less mistakes are made in singles.(all things being equal.)
We have a crazy idea that singles are not suitable for instrument flying, and this is wrong.
Bravo, morno!
Finally, some sensible comment from someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of the rubbish that comes from the usual suspects who've probably never been near a PC12.
I can tell you that you are right - a study of the (NTSB) statistics has clearly shown that there is a significantly higher fatal accident rate for twin turbine aircraft than for single turbine aircraft after the failure of an engine.
In other words, if you are in a turboprop aircraft and an engine fails, you are more likely to die if that aircraft is a twin that if it is a single.
That is a FACT, which is conveniently ignored by the dinosaurs whose standard response is to dream up some ludicrously unlikely scenario and then triumphantly state that their B200 would bring them home safe while the poor PC12 driver would be a flaming wreck on the ground...
Again I'll ask the questions:
How do you explain the accident statistics that show a lower fatal accident rate for turbine singles than for turbine twins?
And given those FACTS, how do you come up with your mantra that "two engines are ALWAYS SAFER than one?"
Oh, and before anyone says "Yes, but the stats don't count all the times a twin loses an engine and lands safely, consider that they also don't count all the times the single loses its engine and lands safely. The statistics only count ACCIDENTS"
Finally, some sensible comment from someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of the rubbish that comes from the usual suspects who've probably never been near a PC12.
I can tell you that you are right - a study of the (NTSB) statistics has clearly shown that there is a significantly higher fatal accident rate for twin turbine aircraft than for single turbine aircraft after the failure of an engine.
In other words, if you are in a turboprop aircraft and an engine fails, you are more likely to die if that aircraft is a twin that if it is a single.
That is a FACT, which is conveniently ignored by the dinosaurs whose standard response is to dream up some ludicrously unlikely scenario and then triumphantly state that their B200 would bring them home safe while the poor PC12 driver would be a flaming wreck on the ground...
Again I'll ask the questions:
How do you explain the accident statistics that show a lower fatal accident rate for turbine singles than for turbine twins?
And given those FACTS, how do you come up with your mantra that "two engines are ALWAYS SAFER than one?"
Oh, and before anyone says "Yes, but the stats don't count all the times a twin loses an engine and lands safely, consider that they also don't count all the times the single loses its engine and lands safely. The statistics only count ACCIDENTS"
The same stats are also valid for piston twin vs piston single.
There are also a hell of a lot more turbine twins flying around
So yes if you want to do percentages I'd love to see percentage of the fleet of PC12/C208 engine failures that led to fatalities from a failure vs the percentage of turbine twins in the fleet that led to fatalities from a failure.
There are also a hell of a lot more turbine twins flying around
So yes if you want to do percentages I'd love to see percentage of the fleet of PC12/C208 engine failures that led to fatalities from a failure vs the percentage of turbine twins in the fleet that led to fatalities from a failure.