Sorry FGD, I didn't realise you were privy to all the flight planning timings... No doubt the flexibility of being able to go Kununurra - Darwin or Kununurra - Perth (non-stop) with an increased capacity of three stretchers is a 'miniscule' saving of time and resources also...

The East Coast equivalent of what you are arguing is that it would be best to have a jet based in Melbourne for medical emergencies taking place in Queensland...

There are times where having the medical crew onsite sooner rather than later is beneficial as others have already highlighted. If you saw the abilities of some of those places to actually perform the 'stabilisation' you are so confident happens so easily, with plenty of time to spare, it might change the perspective a little.

Even for serious cases ex-Broome I would rather have my family in a jet already heading south rather than waiting for the equivalent of a jet to be launched from Melbourne while I was waiting in Townsville for it to arrive...

The big picture is patient outcomes. The whole purpose of having an air ambulance is to cut down crucial transport time to specialist care. Surely an asset that offers the ability to reduce that time should be met with greater approval rather than maligned with the negativity pervading what could be a more positive thread.

Australia, home of the tall-poppy cutting master craftsmen...

The bottom line IMHO is that whether both both/all (considering a third is a strong possibility) jets are based at JT, or split between JT & BRM, patient transport/outcomes will be significantly enhanced either way. To me, having one based in BRM is a logical step for the reasons already spelt out by many so far.

Sorry FGD, while I understand what you're saying regarding the potential financial efficiencies of basing all jets in Perth, you do seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" about it & I'm not sure why. I know the WA Health Dep't want a stronger RFDS presence in the Kimberley & the planned crew/aircraft allocation should satisfy that requirement...

Just my 2 lire worth...

I actually before posting checked the rents in Broome and Port Headland - that was why I replyed 4 Houses in Port will get you 5 in Broome - I did not think but worked of fact!

Now do me just one favor list the perks with the costs ( I will allow your extra house numbers from your original - but do not believe them) to show the $500,000 extra you now claim.

My research would put it at around $100,000 pa over a 3 year budget average extra - give or take $50,000 - on Jandakot staff.

Is a simple request.

Still waiting to see your "redo" numbers (including all perks)

Justifications have been made - you refuse to accept them - even given cases that have happened.

You came up with $20K per pilot per year in perks. That is $100K per year for just the pilots. Now what about the nurses and doctors? The pilots would be the low men on the totem pole. The nurses and doctors would be on more.

The nurses would be on 1.2 - 1.5 times the pilot's salary, conditions and perks. Reasonable? For the doctors, it could easily be 2-3 times. Reasonable? I once heard that the remote RFDS doctors were on packages that were north of $300K pa, so I don't think unreasonable. Let's be generous and call it 1.5 times for this particular group of doctors and nurses, so that makes $150K pa for the nurse and doctor perks.

The annual rental for all the houses would be about $280K, so adding these three figures together (100K, 150K, 280K) gives us $530,000 for the year.

Hopelessly misrepresenting my position there, Captain Nomad. That kind of trip is, in fact, exactly where the jet comes into its own. That is where the jet is well and truly justified and greatly improves the service performed by the RFDS. But we are not talking about whether the jet is justified (I believe it is) - we are talking about the Broome basing.

How about you actually read what I have said? I have gone over it several times.

A few minutes sooner? The most distant hospital that the jet would be going from Broome would be Kununurra (400 NM). The jet would get there in 63 minutes, as compared to 99 minutes for the PC-12. For Halls Creek, the next most distant place the jet can go, the times are 52 and 78 minutes.

So, you base a $10 million dollar jet in Broome for those once-in-a-blue-moon occasions when you can save a few minutes getting doctors to Kununurra? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Actually, the big picture is patient outcomes for the available funding.

Perhaps those starry eyes would rather look the other way when waste and inefficiency come into view. Perhaps the beholder believes bureaucrats always know what they're doing and always make the right decisions - and that such decisions are always free of any politics. Perhaps asking questions is a little too much negativity.

Awww, come on Alice! You'll spoil a good yarn by introducing such stupidities as 'logic' & 'common-sense' and other such useless frivolities.

I've been reading this thread with some amusement since it opened and I been waiting for it to draw to its inevitable conclusion that goes something along the lines of :
- as the PC24 is only a 'bit' faster than the PC12, what's the point? I mean it's not as though the block speeds are a gazillion times lower, what's the point?

My response was going to be that, as speed and modernity of the aircraft don't (apparently) matter, the RFDS could go back to the venerable de Havilland DH-50A or such similar (just as soon as someone rustles up a good price - can't waste any money don't-cha-know?).

YSBK Boy,
Love it!!
Tootle pip!!

Would there be an argument for basing both in Broome as it seems most of the flights are taking people from the North to the south. ie urgencies flown from Broome to Perth and the flight returns with non urgent transfer patients to the north and is then ready for another pickup. Southern distances are shorter and maybe more suited to the south.

FDG I have actually asked you to list the "perks"! You failed!!

I stated that as per the RFDS EA that the pilots in Broome could get around $10,000 in a remote area allowance (because they live in a more expensive location than Perth).

I also said that they can get around $10,000 in a accommodation allowance (if they rent or own a home in Broome).

However if they use company housing they must pay 5% + 3% of total salary for rent and utilities, they will NOT get the accommodation allowance. So only $10K per pilot

My personal belief is that the pilots that live in Broome are expected to find their own accommodation.

Your doctors and nurses claims are laughable, mostly as one poster stated they just jump in any plane and do the job - don't need jet type rated doctors and nurses. But if the jet creates extra work then they might need more, but that destroys your argument completely.

Now your 5 extra pilots to fly a single crew aircraft - how many pilots are currently based in Broome? How Many will get type rated on the jet?

I would imagine the Senior Base Pilot would get a bit upset if he did not get an endorsement and very surprised if all Broome crew were not given ratings. So there may be no extra pilots or medical staff required for the jet basing in Broome even if this is an extra aircraft it would not require 5 extra pilots to crew it 24/7.

So again FDG I am interested to hear from you what "perks" you think the RFDS base pilots get or for that matter medical staff. The list of doctors in Perth north and south of $300K you would find interesting! $300K a year is not uncommon for many outside aviation.

Under the current use of the 800 jet, up to 20% flights would be worse off with both jets based in Broome.

Baron 55 is cheaper - basically the same plane!

Pffft.
You are comparing apples to oranges with your luxurious and expensive Baron 55.

As the PC12 is a single engine aircraft, a far more logical and economical alternative is the venerable Bonanza A36!

The V Tail allows the ambulance to get closer for loading of the 3 stretchers. A cargo pod could also be a cheap option for a 4th stretcher.

And a 5th and 6th stretcher ….one on each wing....or UNDER it...…Gotta get that darned 'lift' from somewhere.....

Mind the breeze dear....don't worry about your hair.....

Cheeerrrsss...

I hope FDG can pick jokes from real questions asked.

I'm sure they could Alice, but the issue is with the numbers of nurses and doctors. An extra aircraft at the base makes for extra shifts that have to be filled - assuming the RFDS want all the aircraft always capable of flying.

So, how to fill those extra shifts? Only two ways:

1. Extra manpower, or
2. Increased utilisation of existing manpower.

Option 2 is only feasible if there is considerable "fat" in the existing PC12 rosters. There may be some fat, but I very much doubt enough to completely fill all the extra shifts.

In my numbers, I have gone for 4-5 extra pilots, 2-3 extra nurses, and 1-2 extra doctors. I have assumed some fat in the existing nurse manpower levels. Without that fat, it would have to have been 4-5 extra nurses.

Are you planning to apply for the CEO role? I'm sure you'll teach them a thing or 2 in the interview process.

TQ,
Not really, max one body in a Baron, you could get a couple of stretchers on a DH 50.
As to this thread, is it all about a couple of pilots who want on the PC-24, but want to live (remain living) in Perth??
Tootle pip!!

Too right. He can write the next business case as well.

4-5 Extra pilots based in Broome for an extra aircraft? - forget medical staff, you fail to win the pilot/jet case yet.

So on your numbers if Broome has 2 x PC12 and 1 x PC24 in Broome then the RFDS need 12- 15 pilots based in Broome.

So we have at any one time 9 - 12 pilots sitting around doing nothing!

The reality is there may be 4 off duty pilots while 3 are flying - that's 7 pilots based in Broome in total.

There is no need to have a pilot based in Broome to cover a pilot on holiday or if a pilot get sick for a number of days - in this case a pilot from Perth is sent to cover for the short term absence. If it is for the case of planned leave then a training pilot can be sent to be well utilised while in Broome.

The roster is set so certain pilots (possible 1 or 2) are on say a 12 hour emergency on call and I see this can even be extended to 24 hrs - there is an extremely low chance of actually being called in but it can cover for occasions that are rare like 2 pilots calling in sick at the same time. The remaining 5 or 6 pilots cover days off and duty.

I doubt there is "fat" in the number of nurses, they work dam hard and certainly do not have HARD duty limits like pilots have enforced by CASA - a nurse can work much more than 2,000 hrs a year.

After all the patient impact discussion does anyone have the range with a sea level cabin and TAS?
Thanks

No but it would need to be compared to the PC12's same figures of sea level and TAS for the same job.

The reality of sea level flights from my time with the docs was rare - but it did happen a few times.

Wonder if it can do BME PER sea level cabin with 60 mins holding or a decent alternate that can support the patient?

On Jan 2017 a second PC12 was announced for Broome.

2016/2017 Review (so after June 2017) "With its 15-strong crew of doctors, nurses and pilots, and new state of-the-art patient treatment centre, the RFDS in Broome has delivered much needed capacity to respond to emergencies throughout the Kimberley and Pilbara."

This crew of 15 staff cover the operation of 2 aircraft and cover for staff days off and sickness reserves we can assume.

So if currently 2 pilots are on active duty and a 3rd is on standby in case one falls ill, with the addition of another aircraft would an extra standby pilot be required on this roster , or just an extra pilot on active duty?

All pilots in Broome are supplied with accommodation, subject to the conditions you outlined earlier.

The SBP is not type rated, and there are no plans to do so. The PC12 and PC24 pilots will be two distinct groups, both in Broome and Jandakot.

Maybe things have changed, but I wouldn't call it 'rare'. Any patient with bowel obstruction, open head wound, penetrating eye injuries, respiratory failure or pneumothorax, will require a sea-level cabin. Sometimes even a doctor with a head cold.

Do you know if they are houses puchased by RFDS or are they renting them?

2 distinct groups, well that is a surprise!

That is certainly an expensive option and one that can lead to friction in the ranks very easily.

Things would have changed as it was probably not discussed much back then - the fleet was 3 or 4 C441's and a Mojave with the bulk of fleet un-pressurised PA-31's. Most Jandakot based pilots were rated on all and flew all.

Cabin Sea Level at aircraft altitude 23,500 ft from https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-24 ( the ambulance doc.)
Someone should be able to tell range.

Back in your day, Bend alot, "getting an endorsement" wouldn't have been much more than flying a few circuits. "Getting an endorsement" in this aircraft is a much, much bigger exercise. The 2-3 week course in the USA is just a part of it. There is also the issue of pilot suitability. Most of the PC12 pilots would be too inexperienced for the jet, on their first turbine, and without an ATPL licence. It was always going to be a separate group of pilots for the jet, hence my estimate of 4-5 extra pilots for Broome.

An extra 4-5 nurses too? Quite possibly. It depends on how much "excess capacity" is in the current Broome nurse roster. I used the word "fat", the other day, but you took it the wrong way - so now the more politically correct terminology. With no excess capacity, then we must expect 4-5 more nurses. With some excess capacity, then maybe only 3-4 nurses.

Do you have usage information for the Hawker 800? I would like to take a look at it. Please PM to me or give me the links.

TQ, thanks again for the inside information. Would you know what minimum runway width CASA is going to require for this jet's operations? Also, are they going to insist on the 1.67 landing distance factor? Just trying to further my understanding of which strips it will be able to use. Thanks.

Cunderdin would be suitable about 60 miles from Perth, different weather.NameCUNDERDIN, Western AustraliaCountryAustraliaICAO CodeYCUNIATA CodeLocation31°37'20.0"S 117°13'0.0"E Elevation705 ftLongest Runway6040 ftMagnetic Variation-1°TypePublic/civilBeaconNoFuel typesJET 5Landing feeYesOxygenLow Pressure BottleRepairsMajor Engine

Oh out of the box are we!

I expect that the location of the build would put any training closer to the country of manufacture and not in the USA - but I could be wrong as I have been (and happy to admit it).

First turbine?
Did the RFDS get the piston version of the PC12?
Is a turbo prop not more complex to operate than a jet?

Yep, it was 800ish hours (from memory) and around 80% in the Pilbara/Kimberly area. No good giving you links you have guessed all so far, try research but do not believe all you read.

Range with sea level cabin
 

Thanks Harry. Hadn't found that page. Wonder if someone has the range and available payload. ??

I suggest you educate yourself a little. There is a big difference poling around at 18000' vs 45000'. Aerodynamics change, Depressurisation becomes a serious issue. Weather is different. Descent management and flight management are different.
The big step up for some will be doing recurrent check and training in a simulator. That may washout a few of the old guard if they haven't experienced it before.

In the end it shouldn't be that hard of a task the issue will be whether the RFDS are willing to spend the money on the training.

Every current pilot with RFDS WA Section was a PC12 pilot.

Last I checked the PC12 had a service ceiling of 30,000 ft, it is pressurised and if depressurised is still a serious issue.

I very much hope aerodynamics do not change at subsonic speeds!

Weather is different - yes wet season flying will help, but between 30,000 to 45,000 feet you will probably not worry as much about ice.

Yes decent and flight management will be different - I think one of the Qantas guys flys the A380 yet has trained guys on Pitts on his days off, then the difference between the 737's to the Max. It is a simple jet mate not the space shuttle.

Is/Will there be a simulator in Australia?

Yes the required "simulator training" grounded the "old guard" at Hardy's for some time a while ago.

So this is your opinion that you chose to post.

But then you comment a suggestion/opinion to the Mods - very interesting in then calling people "sky gods".

But I am an engineer so no sky god and will allow Mods to operate I.A.W the forum rules and policy of posts and threads (but that does seem to vary).