Blackhawks for Australia

What have you heard?
User avatar
Gas Strut
New Member
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Gas Strut » Thu Aug 3 2017, 23:49

Hmmm... Looks like someone has worked it out... **^**
User avatar
Hugh Bosh
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 112
Joined: Dec 2009

This is why we can't have nice things

Postby Hugh Bosh » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:10

I've been watching this thread with increasing resignation about the inability of people to have a sensible and reasonable online debate. I thought it was just our industry but it's probably wider than that. No wonder society is in such a mess when the tone of social media is so vitriolic. I'd like to think that as an industry, we can do better.

Firefish wrote:But hey, nothing wrong with a bit of banter to liven up the place.


banter:
ˈbantə, noun,
the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.
"there was much good-natured banter"

I think part of the trouble is that some people confuse banter with provocation (some recent 'slapper FNG's that includes you), dogmatism, conceited assertiveness, or plain old impoliteness. It's easy to convey the wrong tone or message if you're not careful. :cool_slp:

Now, back on topic.

It would be easy to underestimate the importance of Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky being on board with this. There are many para-military roles in Australia that the Black Hawk would slide into nicely. ADF SAR is an obvious one. And let's not forget about the increasing focus on security operations by the federal government.
Last edited by Hugh Bosh on Fri Aug 4 2017, 01:14, edited 4 times in total.
Firefish
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 130
Joined: Dec 2012

Re: This is why we can't have nice things

Postby Firefish » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:27

Hugh Bosh wrote:I've been watching this thread with increasing resignation about the inability of people to have a sensible and reasonable online debate. I thought it was just our industry but it's probably wider than that. No wonder society is in such a mess when the tone of social media is so vitriolic. I'd like to think that as an industry, we can do better.

Firefish wrote:But hey, nothing wrong with a bit of banter to liven up the place.


banter:
ˈbantə, noun,
the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.
"there was much good-natured banter"

Don't confuse banter with provocation (recent 'slapper FNG's that includes you), dogmatism, conceited assertiveness, or plain old impoliteness. It's easy to convey the wrong tone only if you're not careful. :cool_slp:

Now, back on topic.

It would be easy to underestimate the importance of Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky being on board with this. There are many para-military roles in Australia that the Black Hawk would slide into nicely. ADF SAR is an obvious one. And let's not forget about the increasing focus on security operations by the federal government.



You forgot the Lol!!! And taking the moral high ground while having a crack yourself??? Classic. Oc:=
User avatar
Hugh Bosh
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 112
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: This is why we can't have nice things

Postby Hugh Bosh » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:31

Firefish wrote: And taking the moral high ground while having a crack yourself??? Classic. Oc:=


My apologies if you thought my post was just directed at you. Guess I wasn't careful enough in conveying my message :lol: Now edited.
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:48

I just report the Trumours.

I don't need to engage in the trolling bulls#*t that is going on.

Typical of pilots though, full of their own self importance. Fly 1 hr talk s#!t for the next 8!!
User avatar
Hello Pilots
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 505
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Hello Pilots » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:49

pop;
Attachments
sjw-sensitive-pussification-social-justice-warrior-memes-offended-36.jpg
The Ozzie Boy
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 50
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby The Ozzie Boy » Fri Aug 4 2017, 01:07

Firehawkforeffect wrote:I just report the Trumours.

I don't need to engage in the trolling bulls#*t that is going on.

Typical of pilots though, full of their own self importance. Fly 1 hr talk s#!t for the next 8!!



Firehawkforeffect Not a very professional way to talk about people when you have aligned yourself with a group or company and want others to respect and look up to you .

If people have valid question than they should see answers.
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Fri Aug 4 2017, 01:14

The Ozzie Boy wrote:
Firehawkforeffect wrote:I just report the Trumours.

I don't need to engage in the trolling bulls#*t that is going on.

Typical of pilots though, full of their own self importance. Fly 1 hr talk s#!t for the next 8!!



Firehawkforeffect Not a very professional way to talk about people when you have aligned yourself with a group or company and want others to respect and look up to you .



If people have valid question than they should see answers.

Fair enough, I'm in no way aligned with the project,
I just report what I hear.
As for valid questions, there has been none.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1300
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby havick » Fri Aug 4 2017, 02:18

asking whether they had an AOC in place is not considered a valid question?
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
User avatar
Hugh Bosh
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 112
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Hugh Bosh » Fri Aug 4 2017, 02:30

havick wrote:asking whether they had an AOC in place is not considered a valid question?


I reckon it is but Firehawkforeffect is claiming no formal association so possibly not in the know.

I searched on the CASA website and couldn't find anything. You'd reckon that they'd be all over the process with CASA though given who's involved.
Firefish
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 130
Joined: Dec 2012

Re: This is why we can't have nice things

Postby Firefish » Fri Aug 4 2017, 06:07

Hugh Bosh wrote:
Firefish wrote: And taking the moral high ground while having a crack yourself??? Classic. Oc:=


My apologies if you thought my post was just directed at you. Guess I wasn't careful enough in conveying my message :lol: Now edited.



Apology gratefully accepted. A few more posts and I'll have my gold wings too. Then I'll have finally made it in this game. :D
db1
New Member
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: May 2010

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby db1 » Fri Aug 4 2017, 10:25

Could they be working towards APEC in PNG next year?
robaussie99
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 138
Joined: Oct 2010

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby robaussie99 » Fri Aug 4 2017, 14:34

Seems like someone else that has zero experience in fire operations has decided the Blackhawks would be just as terrible for them as well..... pop;

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/cal-fire-chooses-black-hawks-helicopter-fleet-replacement/
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1300
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby havick » Fri Aug 4 2017, 15:15

robaussie99 wrote:Seems like someone else that has zero experience in fire operations has decided the Blackhawks would be just as terrible for them as well..... pop;

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/cal-fire-chooses-black-hawks-helicopter-fleet-replacement/


Do you know the difference between part135/133 ops and public use ops in the US?
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
robaussie99
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 138
Joined: Oct 2010

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby robaussie99 » Fri Aug 4 2017, 17:11

havick wrote:
robaussie99 wrote:Seems like someone else that has zero experience in fire operations has decided the Blackhawks would be just as terrible for them as well..... pop;

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/cal-fire-chooses-black-hawks-helicopter-fleet-replacement/


Do you know the difference between part135/133 ops and public use ops in the US?
havick wrote:
robaussie99 wrote:Seems like someone else that has zero experience in fire operations has decided the Blackhawks would be just as terrible for them as well..... pop;

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/cal-fire-chooses-black-hawks-helicopter-fleet-replacement/


Do you know the difference between part135/133 ops and public use ops in the US?


The regulatory differences weren't my point, or focus. I'm simply saying they looked for the best aircraft for them, and chose the Blackhawk. End of story.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1300
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby havick » Fri Aug 4 2017, 21:53

no one on here has doubted the capabilities of the Blackhawk in the role.

Calfire going down the Blackhawk role is a no brainer given that they will be Public Use aircraft.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
Duckisback
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 14
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Duckisback » Sat Aug 5 2017, 00:05

Meet the people involved and get it straight from them. Break right :cool_dc:

https://www.facebook.com/StarFlightAust ... =2&theater
Twin Head
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Twin Head » Sat Aug 5 2017, 05:26

Very interesting
If successful this might become the start of the demise of the civil operators AUS wide. Oc:=
Direct entry from Military, no training required, no 457 visas needed, this could get ugly
Firehawkforeffect
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Firehawkforeffect » Sat Aug 5 2017, 09:07

Twin Head wrote:Very interesting
If successful this might become the start of the demise of the civil operators AUS wide. Oc:=
Direct entry from Military, no training required, no 457 visas needed, this could get ugly


That makes no sense at all.
Duckisback
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 14
Joined: Jul 2017

Re: Blackhawks for Australia

Postby Duckisback » Sat Aug 5 2017, 09:28

Twin Head wrote:Very interesting
If successful this might become the start of the demise of the civil operators AUS wide. Oc:=
Direct entry from Military, no training required, no 457 visas needed, this could get ugly


Why would you think that mate? Is all the AUS industry good for is wait for a firefighting gig? If so, bad business model.

The big work for twin engine helicopters in AUS is EMS and off shore. That’s where the money is. This Black Hawk gig will be operating under the restricted category so dropping water on fires when they get the work, and then perhaps a bit of disaster relief when it happens. So the type of work traditionally the ADF comes in for. Food drops etc. No people carrying, no EMS, no offshore work.

And as for overseas 457 visa. Why? This country has been operating Black Hawk and Seahawks for years. StarFlight will not have to look overseas for pilots or engineers. There will be plenty of ex ADF types around and even those currently in the ADF that might be interested.

But that a side, it wouldn’t just be those trained on Black Hawk that will want to be involved. I am sure any component B412, AW139, S76, S92, pilot would be more than capable of operating a Black Hawk. Most probably these guys were in thier past life :too_cool:

And as for experience dropping water. An ex Navy Seahawk pilot use to flying on NVG, in a hostile area, dropping an external load on a small ship in high sea state, could learn how to place water on a stationary red glow that has a smoke marker. 8) I know those in the industry have seen ADF Seahawk and Black Hawk crews assisting with firefight effort in this country. I have and thank you gents for joining in. It won’t be new work these guys.

Time for another beer I think :)
Last edited by Duckisback on Sat Aug 5 2017, 10:06, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “I heard...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests