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