I am well aware of the upcoming rule changes. With a move to evidenced based safety, my take on it is that CASA will not make aeromedical operators change what they have been doing to good effect, provided a strong safety case can be made.

There is also a NPRM regarding aeromedical operations which does have some scope for exemptions/changes to the more stringent PART 119/135.

I don't envy the bloke who has to draw up the safety case.


We are talking about a single pilot operation, where the single pilot is a bleary-eyed 25 year old, flying his first jet, on a back-of-the-clock operation into a 1,100 metre gravel strip.


Can a safety case be made for dispensing with the 1.67 factor in these circumstances?

Wally:


Your comment:
Seems like the landscape has changed & fantastic the WA section are leading the way......dunno where the $$$ are coming from but hey as they say.................


I just had a quick read of the annual report for the RFDS for the financial year ending 30 June 2013, and I'll tell you where the $$$ are coming from - from the Australian taxpayer, mainly.


From the annual report for the entire RFDS:
Where our funding comes from - Australian Government, 25%; State & Territory Governments, 45%; Fundraising 17%; Other (eg private contracts) 13%.


The nett surplus was $1.6m, with cash (or cash equivalents) of $24.5m.


Receipts from the Commonwealth Government: $72m to 30 June 2013; and a further $69.7m to 30 June 2012.


And the majority of the work is inter-hospital transfers, or clinic runs. Medi-vacs come in third.


Yes, the RFDS do a sterling job on emergency medical evacuations, no question, but not sure why we need the latest shiniest jet to take a doctor and a couple of nurses to a remote location to check on ear infections, skin cancers, or scabies.

I think a quote like that goes to show the lack of knowledge on what goes on.

I very very highly doubt, RFDS will be using these jets for their Primary Health Care roles.

Yes the RFDS does do a lot of Primary Health Care (and it is going well beyond treating ear infections, skin cancers and scabies these days), which is a need that is great in remote area's. However, when there are aviation platforms that are becoming more readily available and more economical, for better aeromedical transfers/evacs, then why not get them?

The days of RFDS flying around in only King Air's and PC-12's are running out. Mainly because there are better ways to do the job which need to be accessed, otherwise they will find themselves lacking in the technology to provide their patients with the best health care available.

So the question that need's to be asked, is why SHOULDN'T the RFDS get jets?

morno

RFDS Westops contract the clinic work out to charter companies, so the PC24 wont be involved in anything like you describe above.

FGD135, with all due respect you have been pushing this misconception about inexperience since page one.

Firstly your average RFDS is pilot is not 25 years old, in fact the average would be more likely closer to double that and we come from a variety of backgrounds, including many with corporate jet time, regionals, RAAF and at least one ex 747 captain that I am aware of. The RFDS organisation (under it's many guises) is undergoing significant internal change Australia wide and will be ready to meet the many changes under the new CASR's.

I'm fairly sure as we move forward the RFDS will use less airports, however these airports will need to be better equipped and suitable for the aircraft types in operation at the time. If we are serious about providing the best medical service possible, jet aircraft are an inevitable evolution, particularly in WA where all of the 'critical first hour' (and then some) is taken up just getting to the scene.

I'm fairly sure RFDS (WA) will not undertake the process lightly and when the time comes to transition to jets there will be a significant experience in place to pass on their knowledge to those pilots who may fit your ideal of an RFDS pilot!

Cheers, HH :ok:

Not too secret really. Pretty easy to find with a Google search! :ok:

Jandakot Airport Master Plan 2014 includes construction of fourth runway and new aviation precinct | AviationWA

Morno:


I am not up with Healthspeak, so am not sure what you mean by Primary Health Care roles....can you elaborate?


I am not arguing with or questioning the use of PC24s, King Airs, or PC12s for medical evacuation - I agree with you that, absolutely, get the latest and best for such a vital role.


I am questioning the use of these aircraft for inter-hospital transfers, and for clinic runs. It is my understanding that not all inter-hospital transfers are for patients who are in a critical condition requiring specialist medical attention on the flight.


Towering Q:
RFDS Westops contract some of the clinic runs out to charter companies.


Going by the annual report ending 30 June 2013, the figures quoted are for block hours, both RFDS and charter. Central Ops have the highest rate of charter hours - 8.9% of the total of all block hours are done by charter companies, all out of Alice Springs. Western Ops have 4.8%, South East section is 4.5%, while Queensland brings up the rear with 2.5%.


Please note - I am assuming that all charter block hours used are for clinic runs / hospital transfers. I am assuming that the total block hours refers to the total hours flown by the RFDS aircraft in all roles. I am willing to be corrected if these assumptions are in error.

Inter-hospital transfers are not Charter.

Also, inter-hospital transfers can also include the transfer of time critical patients. They're not just the transfer of semi-healthy people.

Primary health care - same as the care you'd receive at a normal doctors clinic. However, the services of these are expanding. There's also Allied Health services (physio, mental health, etc.).

morno

'Hospital' is a broad term, but any hospital is only as good as the staff and services that it can provide. If you have a look at the WA health system you won't find much in the way of specialist care in the regional hospitals...

An 'inter-hospital transfer' of a cardiac patient from a hospital with no ability to deal with him/her appropriately can be just as important and urgent as a 'primary evacuation' of a cardiac patient on a station (for example).

I realise QLD and Central Section do things differently, but at Westops NONE of the PC12's do Clinic Flights.

I will caveat my answer by saying that my knowledge of RFDS charter is now 6 years old and things may well have changed since then. However, the charters done out of Alice Springs were clinic runs, that is, taking a doctor and nurse (usually) to a community to undertake clinics at that community.

I also used to do a monthly clinic run out of Tennant Creek to the Barkly cattle stations for the RFDS. I never heard of any patient transfer flights or evacuation flights associated with those charters. In fact, the aircraft that I flew was the only one equipped for such a flight as it was set up for patient transfers from the Tennant Creek hospital. I am not saying it wasn't done, just I never heard of any. The RFDS decided to use the Tennant Creek aircraft as they decided it was safer flying than the driving they had done previously.

I also did some charter flights out of Darwin. Different company and I am sure they weren't through RFDS but possibly for NT Health. Same thing though, a doctor going to a community to conduct a monthly clinic.

The clinic runs were charters, the patient transfers were airwork.

PLovett, are you sure that clinic runs were conducted by RFDS under their AOC as far as I am aware both WA RFDS and Central(NT/SA and WA) only have an aerial work AOC.
Last I heard clinic runs were considered by CASA to be charter not Aerial work. This is why RFDS in WA and NT contract the clinic runs out. If they are doing clinic runs in RFDS aircraft then they must have special exemption from CASA to allow these operations or they have upgraded to a Charter AOC. However a quick search on CASA AOC search shows both WA and Central still only hold a Aerial Work AOC.
Must be a simple explanation.

Mick, they were conducted under the charter company's AOC, not the RFDS. The RFDS would contract for the clinic run flight so as far as the company was concerned it was another charter. The RFDS set the minimum standards that the pilots had to meet and the company was subject to an RFDS audit prior to them agreeing to use the company.

The work I did for the RFDS was charter. However, the work I did on behalf of the Tennant Creek hospital was airwork on the company's AOC. The work I did out of Darwin was charter, again on the company's AOC. While I was in Tennant Creek I was occasionally tasked to do an evacuation which would otherwise have been done by the RFDS but for the fact they didn't have an aircraft available. However, this work was again through the Tennant Creek hospital and again was airwork under the company's AOC.

The whole issue of who is authorising the flight is perhaps a little clearer if you understand that all medical flights in the NT and possibly throughout Australia are at the request of the various State or Territory governments. The request goes through a government officer who authorises the contracted flight organisation to undertake the flight. In the south of the NT the flight organisation was the RFDS, in the north it was a division of Pearl Aviation (when I was there).

Apart from medical transfers and evacuations the RFDS runs an extensive medical service of clinics and GP practices. For example, the Tennant Creek GP is (or was then) an RFDS employee. It was established by the RFDS and staffed by them. It is primarily this service that the RFDS raises cash so heavily for. The aircraft side of it is a contract service paid for by the various governments.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

Haven't seen any bleary eyed 25 year olds in the RFDS. I've only met very highly experienced, very professional older pilots. The RFDS can still attract these individuals due to the excellent culture, great aeroplanes, the nature of their work and.most of all they still respect experience.

Central Ops has charter on its AOC, and only uses Specific approved aircraft (pax configured PC12s) on the charters.The airmed PC12s are operated in the air work category.

So does QLD. Clinics operated under charter catagory. Evacs and hospital transfers airwork. Charter is on AOC

outnabout

Unless things have radically changed in the past few years, there has been a centralisation of medical services statewide to Perth.

e.g. Any labour pre 36 weeks is flown to Perth. No, not critical in your words but the way the health department play the game. But whilst you're already going to Perth, why don't you take someone who's of less medical priority along as well? Be careful how you read statistics.

And you need an understanding of the way things work. Currently, if you have a pickup in the Kimberley to Perth (read above) and if you can't do a swap half way down with another crew, then that's a crew and aircraft overnight in Perth. Which leaves the Kimberly short staffed and an aircraft and crew on the ground for the next 12 hours. Then the Headland crew has to cover for there… and on it goes. Something with speed and range (i.e. the jet) will prevent this from happening.

PS. Take what some others have told you here as fact. They know. :8

Captain Nomad,

Thanks for that. You'd think that information would be prominent on the Jandakot airport website, not a website called "aviationwa". I did do a Google search but didn't see that.

I see from that "2014 Master Plan" that the main runways will indeed be extended - to 1,508 and 1,600 metres respectively. I suspect that will definitely make PC24 operations feasible all year round, and this is a good thing, given how choked Perth airport is.

Howard,

I have met several Western Ops pilots that would be aged in their mid-twenties. But that is really a moot point because:

1. The 1.67 factor will definitely apply;
2. The PC24 pilot group will be a different and separate group to the current PC12 group (because that is a cheaper way to do things).

I think you will find that it's not about providing the best possible service, but rather, the best service that can be achieved with their budget. This is an important qualification because it highlights the financial realities. People tend to forget the financial ball that is chained to the service's ankle!




outnabout,

That is were the operational funding has historically come from. For capital acquisition, such as the PC24 purchase, most or all of the money could come from the private sector. To fund this purchase, you can bet the RFDS will be going cap in hand to every corporation that does business in WA (especially the mining companies).

Completely agree. However, without the hard numbers in front of me, I think you'd find that operating the PC-24 vs a PC-12, isn't as significant an increase as you might expect. Pilatus always do their homework, and the cost per nm of the PC-24 is quite good for a jet.

morno