well I'll be...... doesn't suprise me that CHC missed out on it, chc management couldn't catch a cold....

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/11/17/16271_ntnews.html

the report proposes 5 year contract with 2 x 1 year extensions,

is it really feasible to spend millions on brand new pc12's or kingairs for such a short period???

So did Jayrow replace the CHC S76 at Tindal for the RAAF SAR contract?

no thats still there, I just thought it was logical assumption that the nt guamint would seek to use an aircraft (chc 76) already stationed at tindal esp as it does stuff all flying & could easily cover both contracts with very few clashes but maybe the RAAF wasn't to keen who knows....

me & my stupid logical thoughts :ugh:

No it would come down to crewing problems, who pays for the extra pliots to cover the on call night shifts etc! Thats if you want a full 24 hour service.

As others have mentioned in here, S/L cabin is a big consideration along with safety & reliablity when it comes to medivac retrievals. (Clinic runs are a diff story) All of the above can only be achieved by one airframe that is available new & that's the B200. (4get the P180, not practicable)Not a 'van' & not a PC12.
And rightly so as another member has pointed out some members of the medical farternity won't fly in SE A/C as per union directives for Eg. Was the case down Sth with AAV contract back in 2000 & still is in place, & for good safety reasons.

WMK2

p.s.........yes it's Capt Wally, been re-born after being 'shot down':ok:

Strewth Wally, what happened?.
Hey, I know the Van isn't a contender. I just threw it in there for bites (and I got a couple too) :ok: :}
It is a capable aircraft that will do a lot of the work for a lot less than is being presently spent, but there is a mindset within the RFDS that will see it hard to ever be realized. :rolleyes:

Can't believe I'm doing this, but anyway.... must be bored...



Really?

Then how come Central Section has been doing exactly that with PC12's now for 13 years and re 100,000 hours?

Obviously nobody told them...


Whilst the arguments re "tiger country" in the south-east of the country have merit, I'm not sure that the NT can be put in the same boat, and as such either the PC12 or the B200 would do the job fine.

And why would the Avanti II be ruled out altogether?
It doesn't have the big door and probably isn't suitable for outback strips, but I know it has at least been "looked at" as a fast, economical option for tasks like transplant patients or pick-ups between capital cities etc.

Wally - be careful not to get opinion mixed up with fact. It serves no other purpose than to undermine your facts.

Ahhh you guys make me laugh:) Opinions opinions is all they are.
My facts are really my beliefs, facts to me not to you:)
'rc' well I don't need to explain what I said really but the word SAFETY is amongst my words, you simply can't get the same level of SAFETY with a single as against a twin:ok: And as for the P188? no contest, don't forget it's all about operating costs when it comes to contracts etc in the aeromed field & the more expensive less useable P188 won't ever get up!
I know when I used to fly an old LR35 (around 30 yrs old) on aeromed flights all over the pacific the Dr's & nurses would always bitch about how cramped it was with no toilet (well none that anyone would actually use that is) etc. When I asked as to why we didn't have better suited planes (comfort wise) I was told that when it came to Med retrievals conducted under an insurance claim the LR35 was the best, the CHEAPEST & that's all that an insurance Co thinks about:-)
I know the AAV down Sth here passed by the design of the P188 for the next contract briefly but after some sense was drilled into them they agreed to leave the type alone for various reasons. Apart from none being in this country with no spares back up, probably no engineers on type not to mention a whole new training system being needed for everyone concerned with thye P188 the COST would be out of the question. One other being the speed. In the SE section it (P188) would save little time. Our average sector time is 35 mins @ around FL160. The P188 would be a waste of it's abilities for us, it's only fast at the top end of it's design ceiling, probably in the 30+K Alt. The cargo door or it's non existance in the P188 is a huge issue, OH&S wouldn't allow for any of the ambo members never lone the pilots to load a patient without some form of mechanical assistance. The inablity not to be able to use short dirt strips (at this point in time) is another no no, so for that type the list goes on & on.
So again I say the B200 is the ONLY airframe that is acceptable, I don't make the rules/requirements of our contract for instance I just happen to agree with them:). All other sections opperate the PC12 bar us, terrain is but one issue.

Like I have said a zillion times, the PC12 is a great plane am sure, just not for us:)

WMk2

Wally,
How many PC-12's have you seen crash due engine failure, in Australia in the last 13 years?

How many PC-12's have you seen crash due engine failure, in Australia in the last 13 years? Today 18:39
True Morno
Just don't want to be the first to have to ditch on the way to Lord Howe.

The Dog

Tinpis

Is the complete report in the public domain yet ?

Me neither...:eek:

Quiet night UD?;)

'Morno' fortunately none have crashed here in OZ, elsewhere is another matter though and as my esteemed colleges have said I/we don't want to be the first, simple really:ok:

WMk2:)

BTW do a Google search typing in PC12 engine failures, I think even though there has been few crashes due engine failure compared to the B200 (because there are zillions of Beechs about compared to a hand full of PC12's) they (PC12) are 3 times more likely to crash due that event. Interesting reading that's for sure.:) But at the end of the day if yr happy flying IMC at night in ANY single then yr my hero!:}

Not ANY single, but more than happy to do it in a PC12.

yes fair enough 'Q' not 'any' single. But fortunately the pilots down my way won't fly a SE of any type in our ops so we are 'safe' in more ways than one:ok: Each to their own but luckily common sense prevails where it counts:)


WMk2

Come on TQ, Me and you both flew Grasshopper in the dark..(Thats when those really big white knobs and buttons were useful)........ you going to trust that machine over any turbine single?????. I have been doing overwater ops in the van for quite a while now with 13 pax each way, and none of them ever worried about one turbine. I would shudder at the the thought of going off shore with grasshopper. (Hell, I used to have panic attacks about driving the trilander anywhere over the land in daylight, and that had three engines...but thats another story):E

Safer??
 

If all else is the same, and at a high level, the a twin is safer than a single.
However, if the skill level of the pilots is allowed to fall, then the single is the safest machine, because it is simpler and better mannered.
It is however strange that "suicidal turnbacks" that have killed many, suddenly became safe when the single engined turboprop came along.
And the PT6 (which is a good engine) was suddenly deemed infallible even though there are known failures and forced landings in Australia and overseas.

I certainly wouldn't deem the PT-6 infallible, but certainly less fallible the the old IO540........ and by a long shot. that would be why the TBO is 5000hrs against 1800hrs. Just because you have a pair of them doesn't make it any safer, in fact it doubles the chance of an engine failure.
I'm sure if we dig around in Pprune, there will be the same arguments repeated in more than one thread. I am sure that the RFDS would have done a study on the risks involved before they delved into the world of SEIFR.
Now two PT-6's would be a whole different story. :E

There was that overwater bit at 'the head of the bite' between Forrest and Ceduna, but I was always too busy enjoying the view to worry about engines stopping.:eek:

The aircraft aren't the only problem...
 

A lot of talk about the aircraft here, and fair enough too - that's a big issue.

No one has said much about the crew shortage. It's pretty common to have delays for a U/S King Air, or fly a spectrum unit because the Aeromed ships are in the shed, but it's also pretty common to see delays for lack of crew. The only way to ensure dispatch (with respect to crew) is to roster 8 hour standbys. 12 into 11 DOES NOT FIT - even if you could fly "half a job" and hand off to the next crew.

Yet it has been like that most of this year, and some of the last I think.

I haven't had a chance to read the report yet.

CR.

You have enough pilots to cover the roster, including the late night operations, delays with patients, training, holidays, sick leave and all the other things that can go wrong.

IMHO the PC12 is a great machine.

You do not need to search too far back into the PPRUNE archives to read all the chest beating and bravado espoused by some about the Cessna Caravan ( also a great aircraft ), people stating the aircraft was statistically not ever going to have a engine failure and subsequently take a life.

Well that has been proven incorrect a great number of time.

An engine failure in any aircraft is not an "IF" statement, it is a "WHEN" statement, granted the turbine engine is expodentially more reliable than a piston, instead of an engine failure every 10,000 hours as suggested in pistons it may be every 100,000 hours for a turbine, but it does happen.

So in 100,000 flight hours a Baron will have 20 engine failures, very very unlikely to have two fail at the same time and the single engine turbine will have one, combining good gliding range with a well trained pilot, well it may infact be a good outcome.

For a B200 it will have two engine failures in the same 100,000 hours, the likelyhood of both emgines failing at the same time is any ones guess, and a B200 will climb at max weight on one engine.

The succes in the implementation of the single engine turbine into the trusted IFR role may be a Pyrrhic victory in the long term ( in your face Wiz ), time will tell.

'CR' true there was a time recently where lack of crews was perhaps a slight issue but not anymore, few are moving on around my way these days.
And as for changing crews mid way thru a task? Well it does happen more than most would think due crew hrs exhausting. This is done where a med team is in situ (in hossy) for extended periods of time due patient complications so a fresh crew/plane can be dispatched if available.

I think that eventually we end up talking about the pros & cons of SE v Twin because of all it's differences (& that's fair enough too) but most seem to back up the safety of a SE plane in 'ideal' conditions when an engine fails. High alt, perhaps reasonable wx with a visual appr at the end of it (glide) & a well trained pilot, all good & well but we often see the holes in the swiss cheese scenario line up even with 4 engined planes & multi-crew in ideal conditions so pilot ability only helps an outcome, doesn't guarentee a thing.
The biggest issue I would have with a SE plane in IMC ops is the T/off & ldg phase/s. This is where when an engine does fail there would be little if any options to have as far as a survivable ldg is concerned. Our major cities (unlike where country strips may have an out with flat terrain) where these planes obviously fly into are all surrounded by built up areas. I've watched many a PC12 depart from our base (EN) & I shudder to think what the outcome would be if one failed at say 300 ft for Eg. whilst taking off into a 30 kts breeze meaning a turn-back leaves the A/C assuming it can make the airport anyway with a very high speed touchdown. You could even have a 'lightie' taking off right behind the PC12 for Eg. with a 'green' pilot, he/her faced with multiple R/T from the twr & stricken A/C as well as a PC12 in his/her face could make for very interesting crash comic reading down the track.
The other thing that gets me with all of this is why do we go retrieve an at times critical patient out from nowhere in the first place only to have a higher risk ( I said higher risk, that's my belief) of both killing them plus the crew with a SE A/C? I would have thought ( & that's we we have twins) that 'saving' someone ment to give them )patient) the BEST possible chance of obtaining a fav outcome, go figure?:bored:
But most sections of the RFDS use the PC12, to me that's fine, I don't fly for them..............phewwwwwwwwwwwww:)
Still I ain't bagging the PC12 for EG, never have as many have said great plane & probably is, but you guys know me they (SE planes ) have their place just not under my bum:}
Okay am sure most are tied of this, am happy to wind up, for now:E

Wally Mk2:ok:

Stationair8
 

Pretty short post there. No problem, if it was correct.

Are you suggesting that late starts, unavailability due 24 hrs off, etc. are not happening AT ALL? Have never happened AT ALL? Loss of coverage due ONE GUY going sick doesn't happen AT ALL, EVER? If their crew situation was as you have described, it wouldn't.

Your statement is not correct AT ALL, in fact (not opinion) as these things are, whilst not frequent, certainly not uncommon. Two years ago there were at least 8 B200 crew at Pearl's Darwin base. Now there are 5.

This is not a flame, but I feel I must respond to your post. Perhaps you could give some more detail, so I can understand why you would make such a statement?

To be specific, I am talking about Pearl - and I think most others here are too, though "NT Aeromed" (thread title) could be RFDS Central...

To run a true 24 hour aeromedical operation you need to have the pilots to do it, and includes allowing for proper staff numbers, coverage of sick leave, annual leave, training, extended tours of duty if Pearl operate under CAO48 concession, late night operations and the fact of when the airlines go into recruitment mode you will lose staff.

I heard that Pearl were short of drivers, because the training pilots were line flying with the new guys to get up the night experience requirements. Didn't Pearl have a couple guys leave during their endorsements?

CR

When NT Aeromed is mentioned there should be no doubt that it refers to the Pearl Aviation operation.

RFDS Central Section is not NT Aeromed.

Like Pearl they are contracted to NT Health

Might well be soon?

El cheapo aviation services?
 

Many of australia's outback aviation services are impoverished, and I fail to see how they can ever recover until our numerous governments start paying real costs for proper services.
We have "not for profit" often subsidised organisations iand/or organistaions that get donations from the public, issued with AOC's and tendering for government contracts in competition with companies that have to pay all the commercial costs without being able to get contributions from the public or subsidies. One not for profit organisation states that potential pilots have to organise a cash flow that is suficient to pay their wages and expenses.
Our government seems to be using this as a system of favouritism and a means to get cheap services. I think it is unfair and unscrupulous, and the result is that there is insufficient money paid for the government services. Some tenderers can get "top ups" from the public, or other government sources. Others cannot.
Aeromed services are affected. AOC's should not be issued to "not for profit" organisations. AOC's are for business purposes.
Until we sort that out we will always have impoverished
air services with lots of associated problems.

I am not saying any particular organisation is impoverished.

Ahhhh, the Pprune of 10+ years ago is back - useful threads, excelent banter.... :ok::ok:

Bushy is spot on again. Those organisations that hide behind either/and/or a spiritual cloak and not-for-profit business models do indeed make competition difficult for dedicated for profit companies. Look at Bushy's home town to see the difference in the market when one of those companies being referred to funnily enough somehow went broke after plans for market domination went a bit awry.....:D

It will be sad to see and I guess there will be many people with emotional ties to the companies involved but from what I read these days of the aeromed situation there in the Territory (effectively three providers if you count Barkly Aeromed) it is long overdue for rationalisation and intergration into one operation without the duplication of operational capabilities and management teams all pulling in their own directions.

From previous exposure to Government policy while I was involved in a Volunteer organisation the one thing that will end-up forcing the issue will of course be the various levels of Government. The reason is that Government Departments hate dealing with more than one entity and see duplication of offices, managers, aircraft etc etc as a waste of $$$$$ and believe me, they will get their way in the end.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

Too thrue there 'opsNormal' with yr post. I like the bit at the end though, you quote..........."The reason is that Government Departments hate dealing with more than one entity and see duplication of offices, managers, aircraft etc etc as a waste of $$$$$ and believe me, they will get their way in the end".
The above highlighted words discribe the Govt itself not just an aviation Co. The trouble is the Govt (any Govt) haven't got a clue when it comes to aviation related contracts, the 'Aman" Aviation debarcle was a perfect Eg. But yr right an overhaul of the top end aeromed requirements doess appear to be needed.
Useful threads & excellent banter hey? Lets hope it stays that way but I have my doubts




Wmk2

Guys, you hang on to those B200's for as long as you can, flying around at night in any commercial operation, particularly in the territory is an accident waiting to happen.
In my life time, a bit less than 20,000 hours I have experienced 2 catastrophic failures and 4 engine shutdowns, one of those catastrophic failures was at night as was 2 of the shutdowns, both oil pressure failures all of them turbine all but one in a PT6 deriviative free power turbine.

Needless to say had those been in a single engine aircraft, its very likely I wouldnt be here today.

I always looked at airmed as a great little retirement gig, however if it's to be in singles well "f**k that" you guys must be nuts.

'Xeptu' yr post makes you my bestest new friend:ok::E
20K hrs hey? Tell us more, I won't live long enough to get to those figures.
SE engines in anything other than VMC by day is crazy anyway but hey if not for those missguided guys/gals what would we have to talk about here? Govt policies on aviation?:yuk:
I'm not so sure the central section of the RFDS are breaking their necks to tie up a sole contract with the NT Govt anyway. Anyone know otherwise?


Wmk2

The way things are at Pearl at the moment, I would be standing by for a few PT-6 failures, too!

That statement is a criticism encompassing not just the age of the aircraft, but the performance of the engineering department (and you can include the Metros in that too). The engineers have been shat on by management, and are in general pretty pissed off I would say, and rightly so. They are working hard and do not get what they need from management to do a proper job. That's my observation, anyway.

As for NT Aeromed -

1) The NT Government either don't know what provision of the service at a good standard requires, or they know and are unwilling to fund it.
2) Pearl management are ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL as far as running the company, and it is affecting ALL operations, and the Govt's aeromed contract is affected as part of that.

CR.

You old dinosaurs are hilarious.

But that's ok.

You haven't got long to go, so we'll forgive you...

Bwahahahaha. :} now, where did I leave that popcorn. :E
Gorn Wally....... sic im. :E

.........relax 'wiz' these young whiper snippers self destruct in time anyway, us old buggers are like a splinter in ya finger, they pick at us trying to rid the pain but they know there's always another 'piece of wood' ready to be handled again:E

Wmk2:ok:

Please define

(sic)

You guys make me laugh.

Why do you think that number of posts on PPRune = experience in aviation?

I would have said that it's inversely proportional, myself...

Those of us who actually fly for a living, and have a life once they go home, have probably got more relevant stuff to say about life as a pilot than the sad gits who sleep with their Jepps every night....

When you can produce something other than "gut feeling" about the relative safety of PC12's compared to King Air's, let me know...

Bottom line is that I wouldn't try to claim I'm an expert about an aircraft I've never flown...
I've got 1500+ hours in PC12's... and 3000+ hours in piston twins.
I know what I feel more comfortable in

Wally, how many PC12 hours have you got?

0.00?

That's what I thought.

Have you noticed I've never made a comment about B200?
Cos I've never flown one, so I won't pretend I'm an expert.
Fantastic aircraft, no doubt.
But, you know what?
Bit of respect wouldn't go astray...

Good luck to you for not having to embrace new technology, but don't insult me and the rest of us because we are prepared to....

We're all on the same team!

Good man.

:ok:

heeehehehe. Heres that popcorn I was looking for. :E:}
I can't seem to find any reference to that statement being made anywhere.
I have to wonder why people make this claim. but if it makes you feel any better, I have many times my post count in hours flying in five countries, and I do have a life. I just find it entertaining here and would rather spend time here than watching television. I bet you have many more hours watching television than I have posts here. Each to his own though. :ok:
Cheerio old chap. :}