CCP Posted September 14 Report Share Posted September 14 https://www.facebook.com/100063619988264/posts/pfbid02i9EFdtNkPf6vA5oN1ZqnVXH6mq1GSML2mBmYwSzgrrHuPb2TA9Ftr4tJVNvV9LZnl/?app=fbl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiWi Posted September 15 Report Share Posted September 15 The helicopters look nice too 😁 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayHorizons Posted September 15 Report Share Posted September 15 refresh my memory on the choice of the 169. I'm sure its going to be a capable aircraft just like all the competitions offerings. What set it apart? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killjoy Posted September 15 Report Share Posted September 15 Politics and circle-jerking with Babcock. Prepare for the influx of European Pilots. And you guys thought the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans were a problem with the whole TFW thing. 169's are used extensively in UK and Europe for HEMS. Add to the EASA type training and experience those guys have , they will be bringing in a skill set way above way above Transport Canada meager skill level requirements. Probably all ex-military to boot as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCP Posted September 16 Author Report Share Posted September 16 Power, endurance, size, the ability to install the full Stryker Powerload Stretcher System, the ability to accommodate the existing BCEHS Infant Transport Incubator equipment, 360 degree patient access, true multi-mission capability (long and short interfacility transport as well as an incredible variety of scene response locations, geography, and environmental conditions), mutil-mission capability without having to return to base in between calls, safety, a single Provincial platform to reduce human factor errors and allow for improved CRM by having standardized equipment, configuration, mutlu-crew/multi-base interoperability, and operational SOP's, overall purchase costs vs operating expenses, and a myriad of other factors I am not privy too. No aircraft was going to be perfect. But I think the AW169 provided the best balance of all these competing interests faced in finding the best aircraft available at the time. As always, compromises were impossible to avoid, but this was where BCEHS ended up at the end of the day. No perfect platform existed for what is I think an incredibly diverse multi-mission role that would be hard to find anywhere else in the world. There are few, if any other services that provide the complexity and variety of botj fixed and rotary wing interfacility and scene response air ambulance services worldwide. This is my personal opinion only of course. It can in no way be considered an official (or even unofficial, informal, or factual statement on behalf of BCEHS or any of the various involved parties. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY. NO STATEMENT OF FACT IS INTENDED NOR SHOULD THESE STATEMENTS BE CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING MORE THAN BASELESS CONJECTURE ON MY PART. 😋 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killjoy Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 @CCP - No doubt, it probably is the best machine. Ascent and Babcock know what they are doing. The 169 big sister (139) is only good for transfers and a whore for costs. It would be totally unsuitable for those benchmarked activities for the role. ****, STARS abandoned the 139's so quickly because of their un-suitability. Those machines are just people carriers. It's a shame you feel you have to highlight that this is your opinion in fear of comeback for stating a fact. Heres a fact - TC is a retarded organisation. If the same thought process and methodology was implemented for other Canadian operations, I dunno, let's say firefighting, the entry of Blackhawks into the canadian industry wouldn't be scrutinized so much and given the loopholes to jump thru that TC sets in place, and get to putting out those fires safer and more efficiently. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tDawe Posted September 17 Report Share Posted September 17 Was a Powerloading Stryker stretcher a requirement of the contract? Not trying to be snarky, honestly curious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCP Posted September 17 Author Report Share Posted September 17 1 hour ago, tDawe said: Was a Powerloading Stryker stretcher a requirement of the contract? Not trying to be snarky, honestly curious. You would have to review the original RFP to be 100% certain but, yes, it was a requirement. Both for the fixed and rotary wing contracts. All BCEHS ambulances have had them for a number of years while the entire air ambulance fleet has used auxillary stretchers and ergonomically disastrous physical lifts by Paramedics for decades. I believe the only exception to that has been in a contracted bariatric transfer plane (Beech 1900) operated by Carson Air that has a custom built ramp and winch system. As a massive Provincial Ambulance system that requires complete multimodal interoperability, having a single stretcher system that requires no physical lifting by the Paramedics was key. The Stryker Powerload Stretchers can be used on all transport vehicles, including the air ambulance fleet. There were few appropriate aircraft available (for both the rotary and fixed wing roles) that were able to accommodate the full Powerload system while still allowing 360 degree access to the patient plus adequately accommodating existing BCEHS equipment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsertCoffee Posted September 17 Report Share Posted September 17 On 9/15/2024 at 6:06 PM, CCP said: Power, endurance, size, the ability to install the full Stryker Powerload Stretcher System, the ability to accommodate the existing BCEHS Infant Transport Incubator equipment, 360 degree patient access, true multi-mission capability (long and short interfacility transport as well as an incredible variety of scene response locations, geography, and environmental conditions), mutil-mission capability without having to return to base in between calls, safety, a single Provincial platform to reduce human factor errors and allow for improved CRM by having standardized equipment, configuration, mutlu-crew/multi-base interoperability, and operational SOP's, overall purchase costs vs operating expenses, and a myriad of other factors I am not privy too. No aircraft was going to be perfect. But I think the AW169 provided the best balance of all these competing interests faced in finding the best aircraft available at the time. As always, compromises were impossible to avoid, but this was where BCEHS ended up at the end of the day. No perfect platform existed for what is I think an incredibly diverse multi-mission role that would be hard to find anywhere else in the world. There are few, if any other services that provide the complexity and variety of botj fixed and rotary wing interfacility and scene response air ambulance services worldwide. This is my personal opinion only of course. It can in no way be considered an official (or even unofficial, informal, or factual statement on behalf of BCEHS or any of the various involved parties. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY. NO STATEMENT OF FACT IS INTENDED NOR SHOULD THESE STATEMENTS BE CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING MORE THAN BASELESS CONJECTURE ON MY PART. 😋 Endurance? I'm curious what that'll end up being, especially when you consider the rumours that BCEHS is trying to lighten their equipment load to extend the range. Does the winning bidder have SOP's yet? Either way, I'm glad I'm far far far away from this contract. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCP Posted September 17 Author Report Share Posted September 17 3 hours ago, InsertCoffee said: Endurance? I'm curious what that'll end up being, especially when you consider the rumours that BCEHS is trying to lighten their equipment load to extend the range. Does the winning bidder have SOP's yet? Either way, I'm glad I'm far far far away from this contract. When I mentioned endurance, understand that I was saying that in a relative observation when being compares to alternative options. Clearly there are other products that offer greater endurance if you are only comparing them with that being the only metric being assessed. Choosing the appropriate platform is one of assessing many different competing interests. If BCEHS and other operators could use one single performance attribute of an aircraft to make their decision, life would be easy. Clearly that is not the case and when i mentioned endurance, it is only a relatively measure when assessed in addition to all of the various aircraft attributes to best meet the mission profile. Apologies if it sounded like I was saying that the AW169 has the best endurance (or any of the other factors that I mentioned) when comparing it to the short list of other competing platforms. This is my personal opinion only of course. It can in no way be considered an official (or even unofficial, informal, or educated) factual statement on behalf of BCEHS or any of the various involved parties. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY. NO STATEMENT OF FACT IS INTENDED NOR SHOULD THESE STATEMENTS BE CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING MORE THAN BASELESS CONJECTURE ON MY PART. 😋 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.