News

General discussion from the very important bit between the carpark and the flight line.
User avatar
Master Cylinder
200th Member!
200th Member!
Posts: 406
Joined: Aug 2006

News

Postby Master Cylinder » Wed Aug 9 2017, 06:45

To fly is human, to hover...divine!
The Ozzie Boy
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: News

Postby The Ozzie Boy » Wed Aug 9 2017, 07:21

would not worry a Blackhawk could go up there now they have a JV with a Turkish company .

Work in the cyclone area .?
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Thu Aug 10 2017, 08:18

I don't think any hospital pad in Australia could take a black hawk, way too heavy!
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: News

Postby hand in pants » Fri Aug 11 2017, 03:02

You might find that who ever builds hospitals, especially in the last 10 years, may wel have thought ahead and made the pad capable of taking well in excess of the 7 or 8 ton 139. And that would let the UH60 in even at 11 tons.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
Twin Head
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 102
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: News

Postby Twin Head » Fri Aug 11 2017, 03:23

Very true hips 8)
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Fri Aug 11 2017, 09:51

An 8t 139! :shock:
User avatar
Cleared Hot
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 34
Joined: Jan 2017

Re: News

Postby Cleared Hot » Fri Aug 11 2017, 10:11

Don't need to land the BH, just fast rope the patient out the door.
Assume the Position
kandm
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby kandm » Sat Aug 12 2017, 02:03

As a taxpayer, you would hope there would be some sort of transparent review/ inquiry into these sorts of decisions; however, there is little hope for transparency and logic from a state government that donates over $300 million to a 'charity' organisation to secure a few ill-equipped 139s and a simulator covered in cobwebs. Especially when you look at who the board members used to be.

Isn't there a government rescue service in Queensland? If only the public could demonstrate a little less ignorance and look beyond the sales pitch that these 'charity' organisations shove down your throat to believe that they are the only ones who can do what they do, demonstrated recently by the public outcry when it looked like poor little Westpac ($4Bn profit < 6 months 2017. Sorry, naming rights only - we're not paying for it all!) was going to be removed from Northern NSW. Or the vitriolic public slandering of the 'Canadian company' after taking over from Careflight in NSW in 2007.

Emergency Health is no place for tin-rattlers and flying billboards without accountability; this should have been sold off years ago to a professional organisation after a rigorous and competitive tender process.
The Ozzie Boy
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: News

Postby The Ozzie Boy » Sun Aug 13 2017, 06:59

I was just listening to Robbie McEwen ,Tour de France winner a few times talking about the Tour de Rescue that he is riding in and promoting on 4bc.com.au a Qld Brisbane bases talk back radio station and he stated that LifeFlight is self funded and needs help raising money .
Totally misleading information , 4BC will not fix there mistake about having a contract .#FAKENEWS and should be investigated by the CCC. This is not the first time 4BC has failed to correct this issue either.
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Mon Aug 14 2017, 06:25

kandm wrote:As a taxpayer, you would hope there would be some sort of transparent review/ inquiry into these sorts of decisions; however, there is little hope for transparency and logic from a state government that donates over $300 million to a 'charity' organisation to secure a few ill-equipped 139s and a simulator covered in cobwebs. Especially when you look at who the board members used to be.

Isn't there a government rescue service in Queensland? If only the public could demonstrate a little less ignorance and look beyond the sales pitch that these 'charity' organisations shove down your throat to believe that they are the only ones who can do what they do, demonstrated recently by the public outcry when it looked like poor little Westpac ($4Bn profit < 6 months 2017. Sorry, naming rights only - we're not paying for it all!) was going to be removed from Northern NSW. Or the vitriolic public slandering of the 'Canadian company' after taking over from Careflight in NSW in 2007.

Emergency Health is no place for tin-rattlers and flying billboards without accountability; this should have been sold off years ago to a professional organisation after a rigorous and competitive tender process.

This post is devoid of fact. It's actually pretty clueless in all aspects. I've worked for all the EMS providers over the last 6 or so years and the best maintained and equipped machines have been Lifeflights, puts the Pro's to shame!
kandm
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby kandm » Mon Aug 14 2017, 08:46

Firehawk, to work for all the EMS operators in a period of 6 years is not something to be proud of.

You have made it very clear that you have a close association with the organisation, and by stating that my comments are devoid of fact is your means of protecting your feelings, for this I apologise.

My comment is by no means aimed at the operators and the professionals of the coal face; my comment is aimed at the enormous amount of money 'gifted' to an organisation by the government in return for what? Initially, three non-winch equipped, dual pilot aircraft and a CAT D simulator?
Oogle
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 55
Joined: Jan 2008

Re: News

Postby Oogle » Mon Aug 14 2017, 10:40

Kandm - post number 3 and you come out boxing.

How I'll informed you are. NSW Health pays for LEVEL D (not Cat D) simulators. QLD does not.

Have a look at the aircraft you speak of. Two of them (AW139) have winches, one does not as all it does is non winch tasks. All are certified single pilot with one base flown two pilot. Not to mention the 5 winch equipped single pilot IFR Bell 412's.

You are an angry little man who knows no facts.
Thomas208
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 11
Joined: Aug 2017

Re: News

Postby Thomas208 » Mon Aug 14 2017, 11:07

Kandm is certainly on the right track!

This mob is a commercial business not a charity as they promote themselves to be to the public! and a terrible one at that.
They won a 300mil contract that didn't even go to tender! they don't have a winch on one of their 139's because some goose flicked the squib and blew it off on the Coast, but don't worry they don't need to be compliant to any contract when you write them yourself.

They are being exposed more and more as the weeks go by.

Firehawk you didn't happen to work for the Hunter helicopter rescue did you?
Last edited by Thomas208 on Mon Aug 14 2017, 19:59, edited 1 time in total.
kandm
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby kandm » Mon Aug 14 2017, 12:31

Oogle, wow.

It's obvious the intent of my initial post is all but lost due to the defensive nature of the employees who feel it is a personal attack.

Thank you for the fleet status enlightenment. The colloquial use of my limited short hand facts are prime for deconstruction. You can do it with anything. You are viewing through subjective eyes; this is something that requires an objective point of view. Doing so would threaten your very lively hood. It is easier to point out what is not correct, and then spit your dummy, than to admit 'yes, maybe things are being done better elsewhere?'

It is tiring going back and forth, the simple facts can be found with a Google search, even on your website. A lot of money was donated to a single organisation, uncontested, in return for a service. This could have been an opportunity for a review of emergency helicopter network in Queensland. Instead we continue to have a fragmentary mix of aircraft and crews, each with a separate rule book and a different advertisement on the side.

It is not wrong to want competitive process to ensure best value and service when dealing with big money. Things can and should be done a lot better.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1025
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: News

Postby havick » Mon Aug 14 2017, 13:40

hand in pants wrote:You might find that who ever builds hospitals, especially in the last 10 years, may wel have thought ahead and made the pad capable of taking well in excess of the 7 or 8 ton 139. And that would let the UH60 in even at 11 tons.


I think it was the new children's hospital in Melbourne that built the pad 1m too short for Cat A ops, and the B412EP was being operated on the contract at the time.

Go figure no one bothered to even check with the HEMS operator to see what the lad size requirements could be. On the other hand you could argue that someone in VIC government knew this already, and it forced the hand of going down the 139 route as a replacement but personally I don't think they're that smart.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
User avatar
Yankee
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 281
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: News

Postby Yankee » Mon Aug 14 2017, 17:11

What Havick eludes to is correct.

When building new hospitals design and construction of helipads is generally an afterthought and from personal experience in the US they almost never build to rexperience because they get around it by saying "we don't have to build it to regulation because it's being operated as a private helipads".

I pointed out IN a development and construction meeting that if the helipad is not built in compliance with existing regulations then the hospital will be liable should/when an incident ever happens. When the hospital saw the cost of compliance and design through an organization that specialists in helipad construction they decided to go with a local builder.

When they were finished with the pad, fully one 1/4 of it was so steep that it exceeded the slope landing limits of a bell 407.

Hospital management are generally exceptionally incompetent.

I can name 5 helipads without thinking too hard where given even average wind conditions an approach to a landing would be enough to cause seat damage by a puckered ring piece.

St Louis helipad at Barnes hospital several years ago.

At least that's my experience here in the US.
Don't think of yourself as and ugly person. Think of yourself as a beautiful monkey.
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Mon Aug 14 2017, 23:48

kandm wrote:Oogle, wow.

It's obvious the intent of my initial post is all but lost due to the defensive nature of the employees who feel it is a personal attack.

Thank you for the fleet status enlightenment. The colloquial use of my limited short hand facts are prime for deconstruction. You can do it with anything. You are viewing through subjective eyes; this is something that requires an objective point of view. Doing so would threaten your very lively hood. It is easier to point out what is not correct, and then spit your dummy, than to admit 'yes, maybe things are being done better elsewhere?'

It is tiring going back and forth, the simple facts can be found with a Google search, even on your website. A lot of money was donated to a single organisation, uncontested, in return for a service. This could have been an opportunity for a review of emergency helicopter network in Queensland. Instead we continue to have a fragmentary mix of aircraft and crews, each with a separate rule book and a different advertisement on the side.

It is not wrong to want competitive process to ensure best value and service when dealing with big money. Things can and should be done a lot better.


For 300 million the service is first class, No other company could do it for that.

Fragmentary? Don't you mean fragmented mix?
3 helicopter types us hardly fragmented. Different adevertisement? They are all RACQ colours!!
Another ordinary post, they are all singing from the same song sheet in regards to SOP's. They are subject to CASA and QLD health audits. They are not an entity unto themselves, far from it. You can download their annual report, I'm sure if you can google 300 million you can google that?

No other operator in QLD could provide this level of support with this amount of funding.
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Mon Aug 14 2017, 23:50

Thomas208 wrote:Kandm is certainly on the right track!

This mob is a commercial business not a charity as they promote themselves to be to the public! and a terrible one at that.
They won a 300mil contract that didn't even go to tender! they don't have a winch on one of their 139's because some goose flicked the squib and blew it off on the Coast, but don't worry they don't need to be compliant to any contract when you write them yourself.

They are being exposed more and more as the weeks go by.

Firehawk you didn't happen to work for the Hunter helicopter rescue did you?


More hyperbole? They remove a hoist now because a squib was released?
Who could do it better in QLD for that amount of money, QGAir can't.
Thomas208
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 11
Joined: Aug 2017

Re: News

Postby Thomas208 » Tue Aug 15 2017, 00:36

The contract wasn't won ! It didn't go tender

They get paid for a service nothing is free, and then plea for funding because of their ineffecancy.

So fire hawk what happened to the Sunshine Coast winch ? Can you confirm the line was buttoned off.?

Like I said time is catching these guys the media has already cottoned on to the lies.
kandm
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: News

Postby kandm » Tue Aug 15 2017, 01:35

Firehawk, as an ambassador, you certainly paint a professional picture.

It would be near impossible attempting to look at your position from a critical point of view, and he is who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I have read the annual reviews; I don't pretend to know the 'grey' financial workings that occur in the background, however, you can quickly see the charity side of things is a relatively small contributor to your bottom line.

Reading the glitter words of the original News article is annoying. But hey, that is just News in general. What other option do you have though? Admit that it was a poor decision to place the aircraft in location because of the restrictions that come with the lease arrangement? Do penalties now apply? Is it now going somewhere warmer/drier? Imagine if Toll turned around tomorrow, pulled a 139 from the Gong' and replaced it with a second hand 412, citing this would be more suitable for the operating environment (perhaps a little cheaper, too). No. The NSW Government would probably make their money back with the penalties that would accompany that sort of decision.

As you've said, I'm sure you're doing a great job with the money that was on the table, could it have been done better? Maybe. It's these sort of decisions without proper, holistic oversight and accountability that continue to breed mediocrity.

Return to “From the Hangar Floor”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest