One EMS operator in SYD
 

Remembering that this is a rumour network and not too many facts should distort our vision of an ideal aviation world, here goes.

Rumour has it that the Badman and the Clubbies are in discussions. The obvious topic of conversation would be the report recommendations to the NSW Ambulance service recently. One of the recommendations is NSW Ambulance deal with one operator instead of two. There has been some speculation that CHC will simply walk in and do the lot. Most think this is unlikely because of the short cuts in staffing and operations that CHC is now famous for. Others are looking Australian Helicopters way. But unfortunately they in their former life as Reef Helicopters have a similar reputation for taking short cuts.

NSW Ambulance is looking for an operator that can meet the industrial health and safety standards that would be expected from a government organization, at the subsidised cost of an NGO.

Ambulance and the state government are strapped for cash.

The helicopters are an effective way of efficiently making use of available ICU beds within the state. It is cheaper to operate helicopters to shuffle the critically ill around, than to have ICU beds empty in the wrong spot.

It make scents that one operator could do the job more efficiently than two. If this could be achieved while maintaining the supporter base of both NGOs, considerable savings could be made in the form of streamlined infrastructure. Cost savings in the form of improved infrastructure and a little extra from the state could see the Sydney basin graced with a modern fleet of helicopters like Melbourne has. AB139’s are a popular choice!

Some efficiency ideas. And this is where I would like the help of the aviation community. The ones I can think of are as follows.

One AOC instead of two.
One Chief Pilot instead of two.
One Maintenance Certificate of Approval instead of two.
One Chief Engineer instead of two.
One Pay Clark instead of two.
One Accountant instead of six.
One Board. All volunteer. Instead of the indulgence that exists now.
One operating base instead of two.
One phone system.
One Gym.
One training facilities.
One hack car.
One fixed wing IFR trainer.
One stock of spare parts.


Any ideas?

One Server with a bar on PPrune.

Please do not tell me logic is going to enter into a governmental decision? Not even in Oz are people that practical.

What of Bristow and their reputation for first line equipment and overstaffing?

Now be careful, we might upset helmet fire and the like. They have just finished justifying their existance to all the Illawarra proponents.

Give the poor little beggars a break!

Although "Flight Saver" does sounds pretty good!

As once so eloquently and famously put; please explain?

I think the short comings of CHC would be best discussed on its own thread. Are you going to start it? I am not!
Let us stick to rumours and speculation. Much more fun.

"shortcuts in staffing and operations that CHC is famous for"??

Who do you think provides the "improved infrastructure and ... modern helicopter fleet" enjoyed in Melbourne... and Adelaide... and Perth... and Canberra... and by RAAF etc etc?? I dont know of any staff or clients that feel as you do, so please, start a new thread if you must, but enlighten us with your knowledge of CHC's shortcuts.
Muppet? Fisherman?

Gimble Stop

You say that the Govt. is cash strapped but what the heck - "The AB139 should be a good replacement".

Hope you are not in charge of finances where you are old chap.

If they are short of a dollar then thay won't be going for the big stuff.

My prediction (knowing Governments) - nothing much will change. If one of the established operators are shown the door the public will not allow it.

Doesn't matter if there has been a review or not.

W_ocker
Do you want times and dates?
Your confidents shows me that you really do not have a clue about your operation.
Would you like to talk about Flight and Duty time?
Engineering Licence coverage?
Un-recorded defects?
Reg 214 training?
CAR 30 issues?
I am not saying that your operation is dangerous. And I am not saying that you are any worse than most GA operators.
What I will say is that you could do better. You are in a dominant position in the market place. When you cut corners, others think that they must do the same to remain competitive.
This is not what this string is about. Let us move on.

wow, these Aussie EMS threads attract the heat dont they?

I think gimble stop has hit the nail on the head: the Ambulance Review stuff is merely a recommendation at this stage, and suggests a "preferred" position to have the Sydney Basin (Lifesaver and CareFlight Sydney operations) under one umbrella to include Wollongong, Orange and a spare aircraft as a maintenance floater/trainer.

Getting rid of the two charity based organisations will be a tough challenge, and failed last time. The good side of it will be to introduce the possibility to keep Careflight and Lifesaver lean and to keep them stiving for world's best practice, which is after all what the donors to these charities deserve.

Maybe after the 18 or so years of splitsville, Lifesaver and CareFlight may re-wed?
Would that be good, or bad?
you get all the savings that gimblestop mentioned, but are the organisations much better today because they percieved competition from the other? Would we even have two such capable bases to play with now if there was no split?

Will one organisatoin attract as much funding as two seperate ones? Or will Health put their money where their mouth is and fund the shortfall for the conveniance of one entity?

Oogle
Who said anything about showing one of the operators the door?
As a member of the public and a supporter of one of these NGOs, I would not give a toss if they put their resources together to provide an even better service. Why would I or anyone.
I do however feel for the staffs that are facing some turmoil in the next five months.

Gimble Stop

2 operators minus one operator = One operator.

I would like to see whose CEO manages, whose Chief Pilot runs it.

As I said before, nothing will change and rightly so.

Governments are gutless!

Oogle
Of course there will have to be some consolidation of staff.
But that is unlikely to cause the political back lash you have predicted.

Who do you think provides the "improved infrastructure and ... modern helicopter fleet" enjoyed .....blah blah blah..... by RAAF etc etc??


Modern, you mean those 76a's that came from Jordan!

Sure you can tart then up with glass and modular engines, but its still an old tart in a new frock!

Auto hover..... if it works.
Winching at night over water in a 76:yuk:
Single door, alright if you have to hoist a knucklehead who has already had the nylon let down, how 'bout a floating stretcher:uhoh:

Combat SAR..... for get it:ouch:

If the RAAF were deadly serious it would be HH-60, ESS, IFR with probe for chasing a C130, TFR, Dual hoist, Big door etc etc etc.

I know your all gonna say when was the last time there was a serious knuck rescue, all i can think of is the K1W1 off Pearce.

But hey the guys in the thights wont even fire it up if there is no SAR available:oh:
We live in hope:E just remember your SAR service is provided by the lowest bidder:ok:

As for One operator in Sydney, I'm all for it, several BK's for Primary's, Peddy flight and NETS when you feel the need for speed:cool:

Come on, Hoggy, it's still a quantum leap over a 30-year-old B model Iroquois with a single ADF and no other aids! But they certainly could do better.

While we are conglomerating the providers, I just had a brilliant idea for the Chief Pilot: Use the one who comes complete with his father-in-law, the CEO! Buy one, get one free! And the subsequent mass resignations by pilots and crew abandoning that accursed ship would save the Gummint from having to eliminate one operator.

Yeah yeah, better than the B models you used to fly;) even better than the single squirrel :ugh: that they even lent me have a go of:E …. But still.:{

Your platform is provided by the lowest bidder…. :ok:


p.s. AC did ya get my email?

Hog, being the lowest bidder is not the cheapest bidder!

I'm sure CHC who had 4 Auto-Hover acft that met tender specs are going to submit a lower (not cheaper) bid than other operators who have to purchase same.

For the record, and I am sorry to get off the topic, I do not or have not been employed by CHC in any capacity.

Quickdraw.

Aaah forget it.
Lets just bag the **** out of CHC instead.
Nothing is going to change in NSW EMS anyway!

International Hog Driver,
just a few points about your 2nd last post. Yes the RAAF SAR 76's are old machines that have been tarted up, but the tarting up was done very, very well and fully supervised and approved by sikorsky and CASA. In fact it is the only time such mods have been done outside the sikorsky factory.

Autohover - the autohover on these aircraft rarely if ever fails. Possibly you are thinking of the QES 412's that had all sorts of problems or the old LN450 system that was fitted to the 212's that the 76's replaced.

Winching over water at night from the 76 is a pleasure (as much as night over water winching can be anyway). The autohover is very, very stable and the system by where the Aircrewman can manoeuvre the aircraft with a 'witches hat' on the winch pendant is excellent.

The wet stretcher sysem also works very well and has been refined over the last 16 or 17 years into an excellent system. The single dorr (while not ideal) does not present a problem to wet stretcher winching.

The contract was never for combat SAR that's for the boys in green to do.

When first introduced the RAAF SAR 76's were one of the most sophisticated civil aircraft in the world. I agree that they are getting on but they are still a very capable aircraft. Should they be replaced by a newer and/or larger aircraft, yes I believe so, but unfortunatly it's not up to me it's up to the customer and by all accounts the customer is happy with the service they provide.

Oh and just for my two cents worth I think that all the EMS operators in NSW should be replaced by one operator. And before the blades come out I don't think this should only be CHC (although I don't think that would be all bad). It just make more sence (and cents) to have one operator with a standard helo, standard proceedures, etc, rather than the 5 or 6 systems that are operation in the state at the moment.

Trimpot,

Comments taken onboard, however i think the 5 or 6 systems you refer to are compounded around the sydney basin.

I dont know the ins and outs of ems but have a few associates in the ems system in the hunter and north and i beleive the hunter westpac rescue has an excellent reputation, after all it is the richest EMS operator in the country, that shows you the support and commitment they have up here.

for the record im not in EMS just putting my 2 bob in. i guess time will tell, as it always does!