Golly gosh, and I thought all the little year 9 girls at my daughter's school were catty little bitches. I wouldn't hire one of you little girls.

A lot of these airlines actually train their pilots through from ab initio into the RHS at their expense rather than expecting to have already licensed and experienced pilots knocking on their doors with a fist full of $$$ to pay for their own endorsements.

Due to the nature of their operation, the RFDS can't have the sort of turnover that a charter operator in Darwin would expect. Single pilot, night IFR, high performance aircraft going into marginal strip strips during the wet season is best done by someone who's already done it a few hundred times and has "the knowledge" of his patch. A pilot who knows that if he crosses the reservoir and turns onto a heading of 210 then the airfield will be straight in front of him or that the bottom end of the runway is a bit soft when it rains. Things you only learn on the job, not from books.

Structure the pay and conditions so that competent and experienced pilots are attracted and retained. They need the grey haired 50 year olds with 10 000 hours in the log books who are going to stick around until retirement rather than the early 20s youngsters with 3000 hours and a current application in with several airlines. Unfortunately the youngsters without heavy commitments can afford to fly cheap whilst filling up the log book until they move on, the older pilots with mortgages, teenage children and an eye on the retirement fund can't.

Well we have at last established beyond doubt that the claim that the doctor and or nurse required substantial extra qualifications for the RFDS is absolute and total tosh. Further claims that the doctor's or nurses's role is far more complex than that of the pilot has also been refuted by several current and past RFDS crews. The author of this tosh is anything but grateful to have his falsehoods corrected and hence unlikely to learn from the experience but instead wishes physical harm to those who question his veracity. This has to put doubt on anything further uttered by this particular muppet.

Right...I've been doing this for decades, so I have some semblance of what goes on.....Number 1 the Docs are worth every bloody cent they get paid and more in my opinion....2 The Nurses are professionals that deserve to be paid well and 3..The Pilots are professionals that deserve substantionally more than they get, though it should not be based on what Dr's or Flight Nurses get, but on their own hard earned skills.
Hans

Sure, saw that, but as your little mate suggests that although the RFDS might be looking for those qualifications in some locations, they are just not getting them. I hope you looked at numerous other RFDS ads for nurses, for example one in Cairns where midwifery would be an advantage but not required.

So do you know why the RFDS would allow this to go on?
Could it be that CEO's don't need/want to be responsible for increased costs during their watch which may be reflected on their CV, the ticket to their next job.? I would hate to think it was arrived at from an EBA.

Thomas Cook have just gone under. Should be lots of spare pilots if RFDS that short of crews?

Centaurus, they might be experienced but I doubt many will have the experience that RFDS needs. Many of their pilots would not have flown a turboprop, let alone any significant single pilot remote area experience. Certainly no one from the MPL background will have the appropriate experience.

krismiler Very few UK airlines pay for ab initio to hero flight training. Not many airlines do it in Europe either. Most cadets are looking at a £100-150K price tag.

The RFDS are not short of crew, they are just short of the crew who will stay on a pittance. They are unwilling to do what any reasonable and sensible business would do and offer what it takes to attract and retain such essential specialist employees. They would rather bleat about an imaginary pilot shortage. Time to look at management I would think.
Ex airline pilots are not the answer, we know how that goes!

Precisely.

Yep! Not the best in Australia but still decent and they're treated fairly well as far as employers go plus having RFDS on your resume. They have a reasonably high retention rate as a result for their medical staff unlike a lot of private aeromedical services in Oceania. RFDS were pretty over staffed a few years back when careflight took the contracts in QLD and Darwin which should indicate the quality of careflight...

Nurses are RN and Midwife registered (4 years combined at uni), crit care cert (2 years working in ED/ICU plus 12 months study), remote area skilled (usually at least 2 years) and typically 5 years total at a start working ED or ICU.

Base nursing wage is around $118-120k a year. Typical comparative role in a hospital would be a Clinical Nurse Consultant which is around $90-100k a year.

But on top of that you get to travel and still reasonably be home on time (Unlike a lot of employers RDDS are fairly strict with them in the air), paid work to remote community events, very little management responsibility, flexible hours and leave and if you live close enough to the airport you can be on call at home in most areas. But more than anything in 99% of jobs you're working as 1 nurse as your medical/cabin/ground crew and yourself as the pilot and 1-2 patients. Responsibility is higher but so is autonomy.

Doctors depend on the region and role but are typically FRACGP (GPs), FACEM (ED doctors) or FANZCA (Anesthetics) in their emergency roles.
Doctors wages are highly variable so it's hard to estimate but more than enough to retain their doctors, in the $250,-350k mark for their GPs and $300-500k for their specialists and senior medical staff. The GPs that I know in central ops are typically FRACGP and Anesthetics or emergency and have worked in large ED or theaters before.

​​​​​​Glass door isn't a accurate representation. You'll have hard pressed to find a paramedic earning less than 90k straight out the door of their internship and​​​​ unlike pilots, aren't capped by casa at working overtime.
paramedics in the city are easily pushing 100k+, rural area and team leaders comfortably sit in the 150-180k mark.

Above coming from the perspective of a gov emplyoed Nurse/Paramedic who has friends working as doctors and nurses for them.

Do airline pilots make good RFDS pilots generally ? Are airline pilots disadvantaged at the interview stage ? How many airline pilots actually get a start with aeromedical operations ?

For this proposition then yes, they will need to pay jet airline pay. The RFDS is one of the few places where you can get refuge from baby sitting someone whilst getting a reliable income. Make it multi crew and you'll see even more people leave. It's the same crap then may as well try and go where the money is better.

Drongo Driver, the PC12 is weight limited at remote bases. Standard fuel load for some bases (1800lbs?) is way less than full tanks (2300lbs?). You could have onboard a pilot(essential!), flight nurse, doctor, up to two stretcher patients non stretcher patients, a police officer, or patient relative. So easily 6-7 persons. If you get retasked mid flight to a close destination you will be too heavy to land. Adding another pilot to the load doesn't really help in this regard.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

What's the problem? Every major airline in Australia takes cadets and its not everyones wish to fly with them. Remember, there is no pilot shortage in Australia. There is a shortage of experienced pilots willing to work for the money airlines (mainly regionals) are paying.

To be fair, the majority of GA in Australia is generally a pretty bad work environment to be in. Why endure 4,000 hours of it when someone can just babysit you in a multi crew environment? We can't all be born during a that period in time that makes us great pilots, so most of us younger drivers will always just be inept.

Krismiler, were you serious??
"The trade off for lower pay is a more relaxed working environment without having every aspect of your day micromanaged with SOPs, over regulation and endless simulator checks"

Do you really think they are not working to strict SOPs? Do you really think they are not doing 6 monthly sim sessions?? Quite offensive that you dumb it down. Professional aeromedical pilots operate to strong SOPs and are trained and tested to the same standard as the airlines...

And I'd like to know what constitutes a bush pilot now. These days the aircraft are fitted with advanced avionics and GPS guidance - not much different to airlines. The difference is dirt strips and less radar ATC guidance. Still lots of following the magenta line.

No offense meant but you would have to experience the airline environment to believe the endless regulation, micro management, daily blizzard of memos and instructions and sheer volume of all the books. Pedantic checking and training, every move being monitored and in many cases, a punitive culture. Back of the clock and timezone changes are no fun either.

I've done bush and aeromedical in past lives and quite frankly, would be quite happy to go back to it if I had a decent base, same pay as I'm on at the moment and staff travel benefits.

At last I have an ally. Its not about what Drs. Nurses, airline pilots etc earn but about a liveable and sustainable salary.
The idea that 2 crew would solve the problem is farcical, all that means is that 2 people are surviving below the poverty line

I think a point a lot of people forget is the list of things that can end a pilots career suddenly, medical issues mainly but other regulatory burdens as well. Other professions (Doctors, nurses etc) do not have the same 'sword of Damocles' hanging over them. This should be reflected in their renumeration.

I have no doubt throwing more money at RFDS pilots will help with retention but as I understand those that leave are often just looking for a better roster or natural career progression. Whilst the likes of Deja vu will try and convince you RFDS pilots are earning something akin to poverty line incomes, the reality is their incomes are generally well into a 6 figure amount, additionally there are also substantial tax benefits due to the charity status of RFDS.

In short RFDS pilots are considered to be in the top 10% of wage income earners in Australia. Whilst the likes of Barnaby Joyce may struggle on their 200k salaries most sensible people can sustain a good standard of living on a RFDS income.

As to the superlative skills of RFDS pilots, and yes they are pretty skilled pilots, some skilled pretty pilots too, but I doubt they can be called highly skilled bush pilots in the traditional sense, PNG pilots and similar are the true bush pilots and the accident rate reflects the difficulty of their work.

The challenging remote area flying disappeared along with NDB's, dead reckoning and piston engines, now its a world of FMS and glass cockpits and zero tolerance for risky scenarios. Airstrips are all surveyed, and generally of high standard for dirt strips, LSALT's are well promulgated and conservative and rigid SOP's rule the day/night. SPIFR in the likes of B200's and PC12's is not overly demanding compared to that of the piston engine era.

If management were to substantially increase pilot wages during the present relatively short lived high pilot demand times to retain pilots then they would wear this expense during the depressed times. Their trick is to see how long they can juggle with the present attrition rate until the cycle trends down, probably the easier tool to use is bolster the numbers the best they can, improve rosters and work/life balance and when things trend down tighten up the roster again. I don't suspect any of this is an easy process for management to deal with.

Neville, absolutely spot on.

Anybody who thinks that RFDS pilots are out there fighting thunderstorms with an ERC, an ADF and a whiz wheel really have the rose-tinted glasses on

Hence my question in post 107 - just what is a bush pilot now? Is remote area flying really remote area flying when a coupled up GPS takes you to within 3 meters of some Kimberley dirts strip.

If management were to substantially increase pilot wages during the present relatively short lived high pilot demand times to retain pilots then they would wear this expense during the depressed times. Their trick is to see how long they can juggle with the present attrition rate until the cycle trends down, probably the easier tool to use is bolster the numbers the best they can, improve rosters and work/life balance and when things trend down tighten up the roster again. I don't suspect any of this is an easy process for management to deal with.[/QUOTE]

I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying... which from my understanding is that if management give the pilots a pay rise now, at a time of high pilot demand then they would have to " wear this expense" in times of a pilot glut. Hmmm. how awful. Or to suggest that to improve rosters and work/life balance now to help retain crews but screw them back again when we have got plenty of applicants. How exploitive is that? Disgraceful!

The standard of living argument is absurd. Barnaby has 2 families and they are all big eaters. Too many variables to be able to generalise. We have been talking about having a rewarding career and a comfortable retirement not involving Centrelink.

Would it be possible that you have more than a passing interest in all this,? just saying