Really good forward planning by RFDS. :ok:

More and more grey nomads are being attracted to the beautiful W.A. Northwest. And local medical facilities are already under pressure from them. So really good medivac facilities into the future will certainly save lives. Money well spent.

That would not only be the most expensive option, but also the least effective.


The cheapest and most effective option would be to base them all at Jandakot, but given the runway lengths at Jandakot, it may have to be Perth.


Basing them all at Perth would be interesting, given how capacity constrained that aerodrome already is.


And to really minimise the costs, the pilot group would have to be separate from the PC12 group - with a different employment agreement.

Why would the runway lengths at Jandakot be a problem?

The stats for the PC-24 show a balanced field length of 820m at MTOW (which seems like part of the attraction for RFDS).

Jandakot shouldn't be an issue. Don't China Southern operate a Phenom 100 and C550 for jet transition training there?

Could be a few vacant PC12 slots for you to try out for, Wally. :ok:

Because of the 1.67 factor they will need to apply to the book landing distance figures.


What are they saying for the landing distance?


If you start with the greatest LDA at YPJT, which is 1,274 m for runway 06L, and work backwards through the 1.67 factor, you get a theoretical book figure of 762 metres.


So, to land legally at YPJT the book figure for the landing distance required will need to show 762 metres or less. That is getting a bit tight.

FGD135, I believe RFDS ops are AWK category?

The jet airliner I fly as an unfactored LDR of around 800m so I can't see the PC24 having an unfactored LDR near this. More likely it will be around 600m.

From the Pilatus website:

Landing distance over 50 ft obstacle 2,525 ft 770 m

Balanced field length (MTOW, ISA, sea level, dry paved runway) 2,690 ft 820 m

If they can make those figures it shouldn't be a problem!

super base at Broome is happening. Short jump to just about every where in the Kimberly's plus Broome hospital the preferred over Derby now, what ive been told wont be long before work starts on the base here. Why base them all down south were medical attention is a lot closer than up in that part of the world
Cheers

Im sure Wally wont mind paying his "Westops" dues for a couple of years flogging around in a PC-12, so he can finally get his hands on that nice new jet! :}

Base them up there to feed the new super hospital in Perth.

It's cheaper to run a fleet of aircraft than to try and build, and more difficult - staff, a new first-world facility in the northwest where the population is booming; grey nomads and youngsters alike.

At the moment, yes, but with the rule changes that are coming, I am informed that they will be operating per charter rules. Therefore, the 1.67 landing factor will apply.

Gidday Howard. That number is based on ISA temperature I would assume. For about 90% of the year, Jandakot would be above ISA. Significantly above for about 50% of the year, I would say.

Assuming the 1.67 factor, I would say there would be too many occasions when a landing at YPJT could not legally be made.

When you consider the staffing, facilities and housing requirements, that is a very, very expensive way to do things, compared with basing them at Perth.

And, there is almost no tangible benefit in doing so. With an evacuation to Perth from a community in the remote Kimberley, the time impact on the RFDS is less if the PC24 comes from Perth. This is because the first stage of the retrieval would have to be done by the PC12.

How does the 1.67 factor work and is that for charter?


If a Chieftain needed 700 metres on paper, does it need 1,200 metres on a charter to be legal?

Isnt it 1.67 for jets above 5,700 charter and 1.43 for turbo prop, not sure about PA31 C310 ect charter

To you caring guys there 'Wally' doesn't do SE anymore especially in Med Ops, too dangerous so like to do direct entry on to new shinny toy jet TY:-):E:ok:

Wm2

You're too soft Wally, :E

Correct ISA, but aerial work does not require factoring.

From CAO 20.7.1B

11.3 For subparagraph 4.1 (d) and paragraph 5.1, an aeroplane engaged in private, or aerial work, operations must be operated so that compliance with the landing requirements is demonstrated using data set out in:
(a) the flight manual; or
(b) the manufacturer’s data manual; or
(c) the approved foreign flight manual.
Note: The data contained in some manufacturers’ data manuals is unfactored and makes no allowance for degraded aircraft performance.

Source: casa.gov.au

Factoring or no factoring, if you knew the development plans for Jandakot airport you would know that runway length is not likely to be one of the long term problems - don't you think the RFDS would have thought about that also?! Remember this jet is still some years away...

I have been reliably informed that, following the forthcoming rule changes, the "airwork" category will no longer exist (or will not be available to aeromedical operators).


The aeromedical operators will then have to operate to charter standards, which require the 1.67 landing distance factor for aircraft above 5,700 kg MTOW.


If there are any plans to extend the runways, then they are keeping them secret. The website (www.jandakotairport.com.au) lists their current development plans, but these are limited to food distribution facilities.


If you know of other plans, please tell.