Lesson to be Learned BE20 Hanger Damage

[Captain X]

Just a reminder to everyone out there, make sure the hanger door is fully open.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... 10713.html

[throttlejockey]

Expensive year for SK taxpayers at the hand of Air Ambulance, Maple Creek in January and now this? When does STARS start operating there? Perhaps they can expand into fixed wing as well.

[sean.j]

stars moved out of fixed wing, and their not going back.

[iflyforpie]

I had a similar (but much less expensive) whoopsie this year because our hangar door was not fully open.

Either closed, partially open so you can see that you obviously see the aircraft wouldn't fit, or fully open. Depth perception doesn't mean squat.

[ArcticKat]

Expensive year for SK taxpayers at the hand of Air Ambulance, Maple Creek in January and now this? When does STARS start operating there? Perhaps they can expand into fixed wing as well.

Not too expensive...I think it's a $1,000 deductible.

Yeah, like the flying blood clot is the epitome of air ambulance service.

Maybe if they had 2 pilots on board the plane they would have avoided the incident altogether.

[Northern Flyer]

$1000 deductible, not likely.... $10,000 is more likely, but the chances of going through insurance for a repair like that one are slim. The increase to premiums would out weigh the repair costs.

[The Old Fogducker]

As Dash Ate is fond of saying ... "That'll buff right out."

[Dash-Ate]

As Dash Ate is fond of saying ... "That'll buff right out."

[sean.j]

I wish I was as perfect as everybody on here.

you gotta remember these are government employees, expect less not more from these people.

[throttlejockey]

If there were 2 pilots involved, they would have hit the tail AND a wingtip . $1000 deductible for a $5M aircraft? Unlikely, but lets not forget the sharp increase to insurance premiums after this years 2 incidents that the taxpayers are footing the bill for while also paying for any aircraft chartered to meet demand during repair while paying crews that don't have a full fleet to work with, all paid by the public. It is wasteful, government should not compete with private industry and at the risk of being burned at the stake, no WAY is the government operation cheaper than the private sector. The private sector provides options, government can name thier own unrealistic price without competition, and force thier customers (taxpayers) to pay the price in thier self created monopoly. Though a solution may be at hand, rumour is the same guy trashed both airplanes, he should be promoted to a higher paying desk job to prevent future incidents .

[Big Pistons Forever]

I had a similar (but much less expensive) whoopsie this year because our hangar door was not fully open.

Either closed, partially open so you can see that you obviously see the aircraft wouldn't fit, or fully open. Depth perception doesn't mean squat.

I almost did the same thing, but fortunately was saved by a person walking by who saw the impending crunch just in time to save my ass.

To all you "know it alls" out there; you will of course never do anything stupid so you can stop reading now.......to the rest of us mere mortals I strongly recommend heeding IFP's very wise advice.

[ArcticKat]

It is wasteful, government should not compete with private industry and at the risk of being burned at the stake, no WAY is the government operation cheaper than the private sector. The private sector provides options, government can name thier own unrealistic price without competition, and force thier customers (taxpayers) to pay the price in thier self created monopoly. Though a solution may be at hand, rumour is the same guy trashed both airplanes, he should be promoted to a higher paying desk job to prevent future incidents .

You seem to know quite a bit about SAA, odd though that you would make such an incorrect comment. SAA is the world's first non-military air ambulance. This means that the privates are competing with SAA, not the other way around. The govt. contracts several private operators to conduct air ambulance operations up north, so I'm not too sure what you mean here. Ambulance service in the province is tightly regulated, this includes air ambulance. I'd much rather put the lives of me and my family into their hands than I would for some cowboy fly by night operation that's trying to make a buck by cutting corners in health care.

Oh, and it's spelled "Their"

[turbo-prop]

Throttlejockey your an idiot!!! And yes government can run it cheaper their not trying to make a profit on it like a private operator would.

[throttlejockey]

The govt. contracts several private operators to conduct air ambulance operations up north, so I'm not too sure what you mean here.

Well, the other operators are contracted through SAA, and I would assume flying a Navajo or KA100 is cheaper than the SAA fleet, but the cost to the taxpayer is the same. You are unable to fulfill the requirement in the north, so you contract it. But you bill the taxpayer the per flight or per mile rate of your own aircraft. A Navajo at a KA200 rate, what a good deal . If they are billing a different rate and the Navajo or 100 costs less, people would choose that option and SAA would disappear. If I am in Sask and I need to be medivaced, who gets the call? And when the call is made, can I request quotes on the different aircraft being utilized in the province? Give me a break...

Throttlejockey your an idiot!!! And yes government can run it cheaper their not trying to make a profit on it like a private operator would.

So, a 20 year old aircraft operated by a company that has never had an accident is more money than an outfit with new machines that get wrecked and have substantially higher insurance rates? Let's even go out on a limb and assume the same type is flown by both operators and the crews are paid the same. Please elaborate, I am dieing to know how this all works. And if you think government is not for profit you need a lesson in creative accounting. Just because it isn't called "profit" on a spreadsheet or financial report doesn't change what it is.

And please, don't even mention the benefit of newer aircraft. I would rather fly on a 20 year old properly maintained accident-free aircraft than a 5 year old one that was heavily damaged and rebuilt.

[throttlejockey]

Sure got quiet in here. So I guess everyone agrees it is an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers, time to talk to my MP I guess. Even the government employees can't justify thier position. Like sooo many crown corporations, it is a huge ripoff to the taxpayer fleeced by the media and public ignorance. I remember when Air ambulace bought a new ambulance KA200 and "retired" one of the "old" machines to exec air to fly politicians, and it was justified as repositioning and old aircraft. Little did the general population know it was one of the newest King Airs in Canada, and worth nore than most. Complete, wasteful BS. The media spun that one like a true pro.

[ArcticKat]

No, it's just not a topic I know enough about to debate intelligently and care less about than to waste my time researching evidence. But one thing I do know is that your MP has nothing to do with your Air Ambulance service. You might want to consider your MLA instead.

You win, go celebrate.

Oh, and it's spelled "Dying"


I am curious though....legitimately, what is your opinion of Non-Profits like STARS and ORNGE?

[2namelt]

Well, the other operators are contracted through SAA, and I would assume flying a Navajo or KA100 is cheaper than the SAA fleet, but the cost to the taxpayer is the same. You are unable to fulfill the requirement in the north, so you contract it. But you bill the taxpayer the per flight or per mile rate of your own aircraft. A Navajo at a KA200 rate, what a good deal

This is not true; SAA bills their contracted medivacs at a different rate depending on the type of aircraft being used.

If they are billing a different rate and the Navajo or 100 costs less, people would choose that option and SAA would disappear.

Also not true; All medivacs in Saskatchewan go through SAA and so people do not get a choice. If works out to be cheaper to contract the medivac out, (up north) then SAA will usually choose the cheaper option. However, this is not always possible depending on the severity of the medivac as SAA's aircraft and crew are much better equipped to deal with more serious medical situations.

If I am in Sask and I need to be medivaced, who gets the call? And when the call is made, can I request quotes on the different aircraft being utilized in the province? Give me a break...

The cost to the patient is $350 per flight, regardless of which aircraft/company is used. Do you think think this even comes close to covering the cost of a flight in any of the mentioned aircraft?

[Airtids]

I have three things to say (it started as one, but I'm poretty long-winded )

I'm with ifly and BPF on this one (for the record, a Conquest will NOT fit through the same opening as a C182 ). Hangar doors FULLY open, summer or winter. The lost heat from the hangar is nothing compared to even a small ding on a million-plus aircraft. And use a wing-walker whenever possible.

Nobody is perfect, accidents can happen to anyone (20 plus years without putting a scratch on a machine mean very little in a moment of inattention). Gov't employees or otherwise.

Avoid insurance claims at all cost.

Tids

[North Shore]

WRT 'privatize it all':

if I'm injured in La Loche, and need a medevac, I know who's getting the call if it were up to me..... and it's not ABC Air with their clapped-out Navajo, and a 22 year old pilot at his first multi gig going into 14.5 hours due to 'unforeseen' because the company needs to make money

One wonders why the ambulance, fire and police aren't privatized - aren't they government employees too?