Bankstown Base - its all good
Don't hassle the provider, the issues rest with the customer.
And CHC is mostly providing pretty much what it said it would provide - the two main exceptions seeem to be a lack of a backup a/c, and some months delay in the introduction of the new a/c.
The next 12 months promises to be just as interesting as the first year!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folald a lesson in comparison
If you really want to compare apples with apples then have HIRT relocate to bankstown for a day, then locate their medical crew away from the aircraft and respond to the same call out. I bet there would be not a lot of difference, you probably still wouldn't see them at the scene though as you would have been called off and returning to log another exciting 0.2hrs. Just because you have FADEC doesn't mean you are the only operator who can get airborne in 2 mins, it's not a black art.
SLATS 11 you commented that the response time is rarely 15 mins, again I ask where is the proof. If it were as common as you say then surely some of the back seat crew with axes to grind would have leaked this in a more robust form by now.
Keep in mind that this contract encompasses more than just one base, I have heard from a reliable source (ASNSW side ) that the WOL crew recently responded to a winch primary and were airborne 5 mins from call with a hangered machine. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty expeditious to me.
As for delivery of aircarft and delays, I imagine it would be pretty hard for CHC to put new machines online when the client with all the egos involved has taken months to decide on what they want fitted in the back. I saw the first 139 flying in Aus Aviation in late Jan so it wasn't that the aircraft hadn't been delivered.
Turkeyslapper summed up the situation accurately as I understand it in his post. Good work Turkey, nice to have an unbiased post on this thread.
SLATS 11 you commented that the response time is rarely 15 mins, again I ask where is the proof. If it were as common as you say then surely some of the back seat crew with axes to grind would have leaked this in a more robust form by now.
Keep in mind that this contract encompasses more than just one base, I have heard from a reliable source (ASNSW side ) that the WOL crew recently responded to a winch primary and were airborne 5 mins from call with a hangered machine. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty expeditious to me.
As for delivery of aircarft and delays, I imagine it would be pretty hard for CHC to put new machines online when the client with all the egos involved has taken months to decide on what they want fitted in the back. I saw the first 139 flying in Aus Aviation in late Jan so it wasn't that the aircraft hadn't been delivered.
Turkeyslapper summed up the situation accurately as I understand it in his post. Good work Turkey, nice to have an unbiased post on this thread.
I venture in with trepidation wondering if it is at all possible to have a discussion around this topic given the emotive responses it seems to get. The last few posts have centred on a topic that concerns me - response times.
The Ambulance Helicopter response times ARE NOT in "competition" with HIRT, in fact I think any comparison demonstrates a misperception of the functions of each role.
I say this because a multi role helicopter is bound to complete many planning tasks AFTER activation that single specialised role (such as HIRT) is able to complete BEFORE activation. For example, HIRT knows the crew, equipment, weather, LSALT, airspace, notams, range, fuel load, patient type, patient injuries and thus medical equipment requirements, patient numbers, extraction method, access issues, location, all before activation. The multi role must plan all these same elements after activation.
The comment about HIRT trying to operate out of Bankstown exactly demonstrates the point - it cannot!
Until HIRT can respond anywhere in the State, at any hour, and do any response type (secondary, water, cliff, hoist, search, etc, etc) and in most weather types then comparisons of response times - even to the same job are not at all justified.
Continued pressure to make response times of the multi role helicopter less than or equal to a single role machine is only going to result in a reduction in flight safety, even if that is just through "perceived" pressure. The contract was written on 15 mins day, and 30 mins night for some VERY good reasons - and those times were used because CareFlight and LifeSaver had agreed over 30 years of experience that these were appropriate response times to ensure flight safety. Equally, CHC have enormous experience in multi role EMS responses and I am positive that they would defend the planning process requirements and times just as vigorously as CareFlight and LifeSaver did in the past.
There is a definable safety case in support of such times (and allowance in poor weather/unusual jobs for even longer) in multi role machines - especially when those times are then used as a "KPI" or a tool to criticise.
The advent of the Rapid Launch Trauma Co-ordinator (RLTC) is a great leap forward for the community - and something that HIRT can be proud of stimulating within the helicopter tasking system. It has dramatically reduced tasking decision times and enabled the community to access both physician level and SCAT Rescue level care much faster than was previously possible. The Ambulance Service should be congratulated for its inception and the time savings this has bought to the tasking system. Indeed the magnitude of those savings make the current quibbles over 5 or 10 minutes seem very misplaced.
We should all be happy for that community gain rather than trying to tarnish it with ignorance over the planning time lines incurred by multi role and single role helicopter responses.
PS: FADEC in the 109 does not equal faster starts.
The Ambulance Helicopter response times ARE NOT in "competition" with HIRT, in fact I think any comparison demonstrates a misperception of the functions of each role.
I say this because a multi role helicopter is bound to complete many planning tasks AFTER activation that single specialised role (such as HIRT) is able to complete BEFORE activation. For example, HIRT knows the crew, equipment, weather, LSALT, airspace, notams, range, fuel load, patient type, patient injuries and thus medical equipment requirements, patient numbers, extraction method, access issues, location, all before activation. The multi role must plan all these same elements after activation.
The comment about HIRT trying to operate out of Bankstown exactly demonstrates the point - it cannot!
Until HIRT can respond anywhere in the State, at any hour, and do any response type (secondary, water, cliff, hoist, search, etc, etc) and in most weather types then comparisons of response times - even to the same job are not at all justified.
Continued pressure to make response times of the multi role helicopter less than or equal to a single role machine is only going to result in a reduction in flight safety, even if that is just through "perceived" pressure. The contract was written on 15 mins day, and 30 mins night for some VERY good reasons - and those times were used because CareFlight and LifeSaver had agreed over 30 years of experience that these were appropriate response times to ensure flight safety. Equally, CHC have enormous experience in multi role EMS responses and I am positive that they would defend the planning process requirements and times just as vigorously as CareFlight and LifeSaver did in the past.
There is a definable safety case in support of such times (and allowance in poor weather/unusual jobs for even longer) in multi role machines - especially when those times are then used as a "KPI" or a tool to criticise.
The advent of the Rapid Launch Trauma Co-ordinator (RLTC) is a great leap forward for the community - and something that HIRT can be proud of stimulating within the helicopter tasking system. It has dramatically reduced tasking decision times and enabled the community to access both physician level and SCAT Rescue level care much faster than was previously possible. The Ambulance Service should be congratulated for its inception and the time savings this has bought to the tasking system. Indeed the magnitude of those savings make the current quibbles over 5 or 10 minutes seem very misplaced.
We should all be happy for that community gain rather than trying to tarnish it with ignorance over the planning time lines incurred by multi role and single role helicopter responses.
PS: FADEC in the 109 does not equal faster starts.
If you really want to compare apples with apples then have HIRT relocate to bankstown for a day, then locate their medical crew away from the aircraft and respond to the same call out.
There doesn't seem any point dragging everyone else down to the same abysmal level.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slats nicely avoided
Noticed we still haven't addressed the question of proof on response times. You wrote it after all. Maybe just stick to things you can back with fact rather than exaggerations.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Not where I'd like
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally!!
It's great to see this thread has finally attracted some level headed, professional, educated people. There are a few on here with their blinkers so tight they are all bumping into one another.
Helmetfire you are to be applauded
Helmetfire you are to be applauded
I think that everyone here would agree with HelmetFire - who has a history of not saying a lot, but making a lot of sense when he does venture an opinion.
I was never the one suggesting a head to head comparison. LLSRC suggested that - read back. I merely tried to point out (perhaps not very clearly) that:
i) it was obvious that ASNSW has engineered in many operational inefficiencies. These include (but are not limited to) the separation of crew and a/c, operating out of controlled airspace, and the lack of integration of front and rear seat crew. These are all above and beyond the long-accepted safety issues and the multi-role nature of CHC operations that were all clearly articulated by HelmetFire
ii) there is no point doing any comparison as suggested by LLSRC in order to to prove what has already been proved. HIRT can activate faster. If you subject it to the same operational limitations as faced by CHC, then it will no longer be faster.
If an operator can fill a need, then that is surely for the benefit of all. If that means Westpac do water rescue, great. If HIRT can do Sydney basin trauma, then great. If HIRT starts using NVG and this adds to overall system capability to do night primaries, ....... then great. There is more than enough work to go around.
Don't forget that 80-90% of the CHC work is interhospital transfers - probably increasingly over longer distances when the 139s are available. In this context, 10 or 15 or 20 minutes additional delay responding is not a major problem if this is what is required to ensure safety.
Lets move on.
I was never the one suggesting a head to head comparison. LLSRC suggested that - read back. I merely tried to point out (perhaps not very clearly) that:
i) it was obvious that ASNSW has engineered in many operational inefficiencies. These include (but are not limited to) the separation of crew and a/c, operating out of controlled airspace, and the lack of integration of front and rear seat crew. These are all above and beyond the long-accepted safety issues and the multi-role nature of CHC operations that were all clearly articulated by HelmetFire
ii) there is no point doing any comparison as suggested by LLSRC in order to to prove what has already been proved. HIRT can activate faster. If you subject it to the same operational limitations as faced by CHC, then it will no longer be faster.
If an operator can fill a need, then that is surely for the benefit of all. If that means Westpac do water rescue, great. If HIRT can do Sydney basin trauma, then great. If HIRT starts using NVG and this adds to overall system capability to do night primaries, ....... then great. There is more than enough work to go around.
Don't forget that 80-90% of the CHC work is interhospital transfers - probably increasingly over longer distances when the 139s are available. In this context, 10 or 15 or 20 minutes additional delay responding is not a major problem if this is what is required to ensure safety.
Lets move on.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slats11 Another inaccurate moronic post
I love the figures you so regularly throw around as fact. 80 -90% of missions are secondary hospital transfer. In your dreams maybe, Just because every primary is not reported in the media doesn't make them any less real. Not only are your figures way off mark but indicative of your lack of knowledge on the subject. Maybe just post on topics you know something about, that should mean the rest of us don't hear from you here again.
Maybe you should all get in a line and we'll see once and for all who can pee the highest up the wall.
This thread gets 1st prize in the "Least Likely To Contribute Anything Worthwhile To Aviation" category.
P1
This thread gets 1st prize in the "Least Likely To Contribute Anything Worthwhile To Aviation" category.
P1
Settle down LLSRC. These are the figures that I have been given. If you have other data, then lets see it.
While not trying to mislead, please remember that one of the purposes of this site is to act as a privileged forum where unconfirmed information can be shared and divergent views discussed. It is fortunately not a court of law.
Give it a rest. As I said, there is more than enough work to go round.
While not trying to mislead, please remember that one of the purposes of this site is to act as a privileged forum where unconfirmed information can be shared and divergent views discussed. It is fortunately not a court of law.
Give it a rest. As I said, there is more than enough work to go round.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slats11 vs helmetfire
A lot of what has been written in this thread has been, as suggested by pohm1, rubbish and unlike to contribute much overall to the broader community.
For off-shore types like myself who live in the Sydney area, I take a keen interest in the goings on in the Sydney EMS / Ambo scene. It is unfortunate then that some of the ramblings are so emotive, self interested and lacking in any real substance.
Some (not all) of you appear to have run with the Rumour angle at the complete expense of Professionalism and as such, threads dealing with these issues are amongst the worst on PPRuNe.
Then comes along helmetfire...
Mate, what on earth were you thinking? Injecting all that insight in an informative, factual way that all could understand? For a moment there, I thought this guy knew something! I learnt more about the issues surrounding the area after reading his post than I have in hours of reading most of the other rubbish bandied about.
slats11 clearly doesn't have a clue given this little offering:
In all my dealings with helmetfire, he's always had plenty to say but only some of it makes sense depending on how much red wine he's consumed.
P68
For off-shore types like myself who live in the Sydney area, I take a keen interest in the goings on in the Sydney EMS / Ambo scene. It is unfortunate then that some of the ramblings are so emotive, self interested and lacking in any real substance.
Some (not all) of you appear to have run with the Rumour angle at the complete expense of Professionalism and as such, threads dealing with these issues are amongst the worst on PPRuNe.
Then comes along helmetfire...
Mate, what on earth were you thinking? Injecting all that insight in an informative, factual way that all could understand? For a moment there, I thought this guy knew something! I learnt more about the issues surrounding the area after reading his post than I have in hours of reading most of the other rubbish bandied about.
slats11 clearly doesn't have a clue given this little offering:
I think that everyone here would agree with HelmetFire - who has a history of not saying a lot, but making a lot of sense when he does venture an opinion.
P68
139
Walking the dogs yesterday morning I saw a 139 approaching BK from the west. When I went down there at about 2pm however, it was nowhere to be seen. Has the first 139 been delivered to the BK base yet, or was it there for some other purpose? It appeared to be in CHC colors.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has been unusually quiet all things considered. 
Just wondering how the crews (both CHC and Ambo's) are finding the new toy? Is the 139 everything it was cracked up to be? 
Just wondering how the crews (both CHC and Ambo's) are finding the new toy? Is the 139 everything it was cracked up to be?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: sydney
Age: 38
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a life
backing CHC helicopters they are the best so they only take the best people and for you that get knocked back well sounds like your not as good as you keep telling everyone. the 139's are great and so are the new 412ep's. and even better they are getting the new EC145's which are bigger and better than the 117's. plus they are getting two more 332L's superpumas and another S-92 for offshore rolls. so before you keep putting **** on CHC you might be out of a job looking to them for work (AGAIN) and that will just make you look like a jackarse.
so in closing GET A LIFE and stop dreaming of what you can't get!!
so in closing GET A LIFE and stop dreaming of what you can't get!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: RWY 37
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newbe,
If you're ever out of a job in the seat mate, I reckon CHC PR will pick you up
I'm in EMS but don't work for CHC......clearly then I'm not one of the best! Damn it......I better stop reciting "i am the greatest" when I crank up the machine.
If I ever forget how good you are I'll just shoot you a PM for clarification if thats alright
GU
If you're ever out of a job in the seat mate, I reckon CHC PR will pick you up
I'm in EMS but don't work for CHC......clearly then I'm not one of the best! Damn it......I better stop reciting "i am the greatest" when I crank up the machine.
If I ever forget how good you are I'll just shoot you a PM for clarification if thats alright
GU
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else now
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Troll Alert!
One of the more blatant troll posts I’ve seen, chances are newbe2009 is not even with CHC? Is he an Aviator? Certainly not a professional and probably not a pilot
newbe has all the makings of a pilet he doesnt believe in punctuation or speling and just dribbles on i think hell be a reely good pilet in twenty years if he grows up
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read newbe's post and nearly wet myself laughing. If he can move his fingers as fast as I imagine him typing that tantrum post, he should be a concert class grand pianist, never mind a pilot.
Fantatstic young man, keep up the spelling and grammar lessons and then you can progress to some dead 'ard sums.
Troll, troll, troll.............with a few too many traces of puberty induced testosterone flowing around him.
Fantatstic young man, keep up the spelling and grammar lessons and then you can progress to some dead 'ard sums.
Troll, troll, troll.............with a few too many traces of puberty induced testosterone flowing around him.