Why not use Aussie owned machines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not use Aussie owned machines
Today I hear Lyndon's C130 doing a freight run to Port Vila and it's for our government. Doesn't australia have c130's with crew that train all year round to take care of stuff like this? Ultametly we pay (tax payers) for this kind of thing but when it actually comes time to use the asset we employee a company that takes all proceeds overseas??? Seems crazy
The RAAF only has 12 Hercs. Take out a couple in the ME, a couple in maintenance, a couple in Vanuatu, some supporting other activities so using a chartered machine saves frames/time and money. Most militaries supplement their uplift with chartered in machines....nothing new in this!
Pilot 58
Lynden Air Cargo have been periodically basing a Herc in Brisbane to serve the Pacific islands. You will probably find that the aeroplane was sitting idle anyway so it makes sense to use it to move some aid supplies to Vanuatu.
In addition to C-130s, the RAAF have been using C-17s on cyclone relief.
Lynden Air Cargo have been periodically basing a Herc in Brisbane to serve the Pacific islands. You will probably find that the aeroplane was sitting idle anyway so it makes sense to use it to move some aid supplies to Vanuatu.
In addition to C-130s, the RAAF have been using C-17s on cyclone relief.
Pilot 58,
Many years ago, Australia briefly had a local based civil Herc (I think it might be owned by Lynden now, but not certain) but it was, even then, completely uncompetitive.
A large proportion of Defense contract work is done by foreign carriers, because Australian prices (largely caused by CASA imposts) are uncompetitive. Even with smaller aircraft, like small jets used for medical evacuations, Australian operators can no longer compete, despite Australian salaries for pilots bordering on the poverty level.
It is cheaper to position a medivac aircraft from Singapore to the mid Pacific, to fly a patient to Brisbane, and then position back to Singapore, than fly a similar aircraft Brisbane- Pacific destination - Brisbane with no dead legs.
Almost all Qantas bulk freight (that is not carried on passenger aircraft) is carried on foreign (incl. NZ) contractors. NZ aircraft are increasingly prominent in Australian domestic freight.
Lynden and Lynden PNG have the only C-130Hs permanently in the SW Pacific, over the last 10+ years they have provided much disaster relief capacity for the Australian Government, at competitive prices.
Do you get the general drift here??
Tootle pip!!
PS 1: CASA is close to driving Gippsland Aeronautics/Mahindra out of Australia, thanks to CASA's obstructive antics with certification of the new GA8 models and derivatives.
My guess is that they will transplant to the USA, the Indian aviation bureaucracy behave like they were CASA trained.
PS2: Years ago, Ansett bought a Caribou for operations in PNG. DCA imposed operating limitations, that denied the Caribou's unique characteristics, resulted in payloads less than a DC-3/C-47 out of the same highlands strips. The current nonsense is nothing new.
Many years ago, Australia briefly had a local based civil Herc (I think it might be owned by Lynden now, but not certain) but it was, even then, completely uncompetitive.
A large proportion of Defense contract work is done by foreign carriers, because Australian prices (largely caused by CASA imposts) are uncompetitive. Even with smaller aircraft, like small jets used for medical evacuations, Australian operators can no longer compete, despite Australian salaries for pilots bordering on the poverty level.
It is cheaper to position a medivac aircraft from Singapore to the mid Pacific, to fly a patient to Brisbane, and then position back to Singapore, than fly a similar aircraft Brisbane- Pacific destination - Brisbane with no dead legs.
Almost all Qantas bulk freight (that is not carried on passenger aircraft) is carried on foreign (incl. NZ) contractors. NZ aircraft are increasingly prominent in Australian domestic freight.
Lynden and Lynden PNG have the only C-130Hs permanently in the SW Pacific, over the last 10+ years they have provided much disaster relief capacity for the Australian Government, at competitive prices.
Do you get the general drift here??
Tootle pip!!
PS 1: CASA is close to driving Gippsland Aeronautics/Mahindra out of Australia, thanks to CASA's obstructive antics with certification of the new GA8 models and derivatives.
My guess is that they will transplant to the USA, the Indian aviation bureaucracy behave like they were CASA trained.
PS2: Years ago, Ansett bought a Caribou for operations in PNG. DCA imposed operating limitations, that denied the Caribou's unique characteristics, resulted in payloads less than a DC-3/C-47 out of the same highlands strips. The current nonsense is nothing new.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We are heading down Easa track and Ga in Europe is all dead."
Yes and no to that proposition 58.
EASA in name but uniquely Australian in character.
When it costs a hundred grand and takes eighteen months or so to get a light jet on an AOC, what do you reckon the bill would be for a Herc? Probably more than the aircraft is worth.
Yes and no to that proposition 58.
EASA in name but uniquely Australian in character.
When it costs a hundred grand and takes eighteen months or so to get a light jet on an AOC, what do you reckon the bill would be for a Herc? Probably more than the aircraft is worth.
Folks,
Be absolutely clear, Australia's "EASA like" rules are absolutely nothing like EASA, despite continued CASA claims.
Just one example -- In EASA land, an Exposition is an application for something ---- not a bleeding great manual (even if exposition is French for manual) as it is in the CASA system.
The reason for GA's destruction in Europe has many fathers, except in pilot licensing JAA/EASA has had limited effect on GA, most of GA is still administered by national authorities.
To get around the JAA/EASA PPL rules, most western European countries have created national PPLs, far more simple than our Part 61 PPL, which is a bit like an EASA PPL on steroids.
Make no mistake, we are not destroying aviation in Australia (not just GA) by following EASA --- as I said, our "reformed" rules are nothing like EASA, we are very competently destroying aviation in Australia without external assistance.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of the most destructive elements is most western European countries charge full motor car fuel excise on Avgas for GA use, the cost of fuel is horrendous.
Be absolutely clear, Australia's "EASA like" rules are absolutely nothing like EASA, despite continued CASA claims.
Just one example -- In EASA land, an Exposition is an application for something ---- not a bleeding great manual (even if exposition is French for manual) as it is in the CASA system.
The reason for GA's destruction in Europe has many fathers, except in pilot licensing JAA/EASA has had limited effect on GA, most of GA is still administered by national authorities.
To get around the JAA/EASA PPL rules, most western European countries have created national PPLs, far more simple than our Part 61 PPL, which is a bit like an EASA PPL on steroids.
Make no mistake, we are not destroying aviation in Australia (not just GA) by following EASA --- as I said, our "reformed" rules are nothing like EASA, we are very competently destroying aviation in Australia without external assistance.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of the most destructive elements is most western European countries charge full motor car fuel excise on Avgas for GA use, the cost of fuel is horrendous.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still begs the question Leadie,
almost all the aircraft we operate here are made in the USA. Even airline types made in EASA land are made to meet FAA standards, thats where the market is.
Them that have modelled their rules on FAA rules seem to have thriving industries.
The USA has far better safety outcomes than we do in Australia despite the thousands of pages of what our regulator calls regulations.
Isn't it a "No Brainer"???
almost all the aircraft we operate here are made in the USA. Even airline types made in EASA land are made to meet FAA standards, thats where the market is.
Them that have modelled their rules on FAA rules seem to have thriving industries.
The USA has far better safety outcomes than we do in Australia despite the thousands of pages of what our regulator calls regulations.
Isn't it a "No Brainer"???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most operator here in Aus refuting Adsb will be now forced to totally over capitalise on IFR aircraft with the USA only introducing in 2020 after avionics company's catch up with cost affective solutions. We are really making this industry too hard and not affordable. But maybe that's what they want ? It's safer not to fly right?
Most operator here in Aus refuting Adsb will be now forced to totally over capitalise on IFR aircraft with the USA only introducing in 2020 after avionics company's catch up with cost affective solutions. We are really making this industry too hard and not affordable. But maybe that's what they want ? It's safer not to fly right?
Thornbird,
Everything you said is perfectly logical and factually correct.
That doesn't make the slightest difference to a CASA "iron ring" group who are adamantly and resolutely opposed to anything "yankee".
Sadly, there is a substantial cohort in industry who have the same view, and "prefer" EASA because it is not "yankee".
We really are our own worst enemies, and it is not limited to aviation --- the NSW Labor election campaign is one of the most blatantly dishonest campaigns I have ever witnessed, and a group of former Labor Premiers and prominent former Labor Ministers have said exactly the same thing --- but voters are swallowing it??
Tootle pip!!
Everything you said is perfectly logical and factually correct.
That doesn't make the slightest difference to a CASA "iron ring" group who are adamantly and resolutely opposed to anything "yankee".
Sadly, there is a substantial cohort in industry who have the same view, and "prefer" EASA because it is not "yankee".
We really are our own worst enemies, and it is not limited to aviation --- the NSW Labor election campaign is one of the most blatantly dishonest campaigns I have ever witnessed, and a group of former Labor Premiers and prominent former Labor Ministers have said exactly the same thing --- but voters are swallowing it??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what the NSW or Queensland elections have got to do with the original question but answering the original question.
LS ,yes that Herc was in the Lyndon fleet.It was VH CYD and when last here in 2013according to the Adastron website,was N404LC.
I suspect that operating Hercs is a pretty expensive operation because the new purchase price is not cheap due to their military design. There is also the problem of limited availability of used ones due to the US restrictions on who can have them. There has to be a good reason as to why there are so few civil operators of an aircraft that has been in production since 1955.The only non fire bombing types for available hire seem to be Lyndon and Safair.
I was under the impression that except for the 2 HARS examples, all the Caribous that went up for tender at Oakey went to a company who intended to convert them with P&Ws using Snow conversion kits and use them in just a situation as the current emergency? What happened to that project? If that had happened then they would be available and Australian owned.
Wunwing
LS ,yes that Herc was in the Lyndon fleet.It was VH CYD and when last here in 2013according to the Adastron website,was N404LC.
I suspect that operating Hercs is a pretty expensive operation because the new purchase price is not cheap due to their military design. There is also the problem of limited availability of used ones due to the US restrictions on who can have them. There has to be a good reason as to why there are so few civil operators of an aircraft that has been in production since 1955.The only non fire bombing types for available hire seem to be Lyndon and Safair.
I was under the impression that except for the 2 HARS examples, all the Caribous that went up for tender at Oakey went to a company who intended to convert them with P&Ws using Snow conversion kits and use them in just a situation as the current emergency? What happened to that project? If that had happened then they would be available and Australian owned.
Wunwing
Wunwing,
The Ansett Caribou to which I refer was a civil aircraft, bought by Ansett for use in PNG, back in the 1960's. Nought to do with ex-RAAF aircraft.
Re. C-130, don't forget that the L-382G ( Lynden etc)etc Hercules are civil aircraft, not converted military aircraft. Safair are the first customer for the civil version of the C-130J --- which was built to conform to FAR Part 25 from scratch.
<http://www.aussieairliners.org/dhc-4/vh-bfc/vhbfc.html>
Wonderful thing, Google>
Tootle pip!!
The Ansett Caribou to which I refer was a civil aircraft, bought by Ansett for use in PNG, back in the 1960's. Nought to do with ex-RAAF aircraft.
Re. C-130, don't forget that the L-382G ( Lynden etc)etc Hercules are civil aircraft, not converted military aircraft. Safair are the first customer for the civil version of the C-130J --- which was built to conform to FAR Part 25 from scratch.
<http://www.aussieairliners.org/dhc-4/vh-bfc/vhbfc.html>
Wonderful thing, Google>
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
I know about the Ansett Caribous as I worked on them as an apprentice.
I was refering to the RAAF Caribou disposal a little while ago.After the RAAF donated a few to museums and 2 went to HARS to fly, as I understand it,the rest were sold to a company who proposed to modify them with PT6s (Snow Aviation conversion) and charter them for relief work etc.I understood them to be an Australian operator and if it is happening or had happened, they would be exactly as comments here would indicate should happen, an Australian operated relief airline.
As far as Safair/Lynden and assorted other civil Herc operators are concerned, I never said the aircraft were ex miltary. However there are a few around the world that are. For example Aboitz in the Philpines, operated a few ex RAAF, A models.What I said was that the US Govt seems to restrict the Herc sales including civil versions .A few years ago I did some work on setting up such an operator. We certainly ran into a few walls that would indicate that.My opinion seems to be backed up by the fact that the civil Hercs are pretty old for front line aircraft which would indicate restricted aircraft, restricted spares, limited market or huge purchase costs.
If you look at the military operators you will also see that a few operate the civil version because at the time they were a larger fuselage than the miltary ones.
Google may be our friend but sometimes US foreign policy is not Australian's or anyone elses friend.
Wunwing
I know about the Ansett Caribous as I worked on them as an apprentice.
I was refering to the RAAF Caribou disposal a little while ago.After the RAAF donated a few to museums and 2 went to HARS to fly, as I understand it,the rest were sold to a company who proposed to modify them with PT6s (Snow Aviation conversion) and charter them for relief work etc.I understood them to be an Australian operator and if it is happening or had happened, they would be exactly as comments here would indicate should happen, an Australian operated relief airline.
As far as Safair/Lynden and assorted other civil Herc operators are concerned, I never said the aircraft were ex miltary. However there are a few around the world that are. For example Aboitz in the Philpines, operated a few ex RAAF, A models.What I said was that the US Govt seems to restrict the Herc sales including civil versions .A few years ago I did some work on setting up such an operator. We certainly ran into a few walls that would indicate that.My opinion seems to be backed up by the fact that the civil Hercs are pretty old for front line aircraft which would indicate restricted aircraft, restricted spares, limited market or huge purchase costs.
If you look at the military operators you will also see that a few operate the civil version because at the time they were a larger fuselage than the miltary ones.
Google may be our friend but sometimes US foreign policy is not Australian's or anyone elses friend.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 23rd Mar 2015 at 06:56.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem Wunwing that fortunately whoever was contemplating the "relief airline" saw the light in time before they squandered the farm on an impossible dream.
Under the Australian regulatory regime such a venture could never be viable without massive government subsidy, better to take your $$$ and if you have to invest in aviation, do it in a country with sensible rules like New Zealand.
Aviation in Australia is finished unless there is major reform in the way it is regulated, its become so "Safe" nobody can afford it.
Under the Australian regulatory regime such a venture could never be viable without massive government subsidy, better to take your $$$ and if you have to invest in aviation, do it in a country with sensible rules like New Zealand.
Aviation in Australia is finished unless there is major reform in the way it is regulated, its become so "Safe" nobody can afford it.
