IRCG SAR contract signed

Klunk001

Taken from Dept of transport web page.

“These Helicopters will improve the capacity, range, speed and capability of Ireland’s search and rescue service,” states Dempsey.

New type Sikorsky S92A Helicopter on display at ceremony.

The Minister for Transport Mr Noel Dempsey, T. D. today signed the contract awarding the provision of Helicopter SAR services to CHC Ireland. Transition to the modern helicopters will start in July 2012, and will run for ten years; with an option to extend for a further three years on a year by year basis. It represents a marked improvement in the capacity, range, speed and capability of Ireland’s search and rescue service.

The contract represents a continuation of the existing level of service with the principal change being the replacement of the Sikorsky S61N aircraft, with the ‘new generation’ Sikorsky S92A aircraft. These aircraft will operate out of Waterford, Shannon, Sligo and Dublin.

Minister Dempsey said: “I am delighted to sign this contract which will provide for the delivery of a top-class SAR service operating out of Bases in Waterford, Shannon, Sligo and Dublin up to 2022. There are over 130 jobs in this service and we anticipate that over 20 new posts will be created. CHC Ireland has an excellent record in delivering SAR services to our Coast Guard. The contract provides for helicopters that will fly to the scene of the mission faster. They find the vessels or persons in the water more efficiently using better search, surveillance and tracking tools. This will provide better medical facilities onboard and return people in danger to safety in the shortest possible time.”

Minister Dempsey added: “I am also aware of the other supports that these helicopters can provide to the emergency services. These include Medevac for our Island and remote communities, mountain rescue, and emergency aeromedical transfer in support of the HSE. Last winter’s flooding response provided a practical example of the value and diversity of our SAR Helicopter service.”

The main role of the IRCG helicopters is to provide Ireland with 24/7/365 days a year maritime and coastal SAR rescue service. The helicopters will locate persons in distress or imminent risk, providing immediate medical treatment where required, and evacuating them to an appropriate place of safety. The helicopters are available to assist the other three blue light services (Garda, Ambulance Service and Fire Services) during major national emergency situations on land. They are also used to investigate possible marine pollution, support communities on the islands off Ireland and assist in evacuating the seriously ill or injured.

punchdrunk

got a good luck at it today,awesome machine
can't wait until we get some in our own scheme!


and to think this is what the aircorps could have had :rolleyes:

Klunk001

LORNA SIGGINS
MINISTER FOR Transport Noel Dempsey has signed a €500 million contract to lease a “new generation” of Sikorsky S 92 helicopters for the Irish Coast Guard.
The contract with CHC Helicopter for the four Irish Coast Guard bases at Shannon, Sligo, Dublin and Waterford will run from July 2012 to 2022, with an option to extend to 2025 on a year by year basis.
However, a former Air Corps officer has said the State could have saved substantially if the Air Corps had been asked to tender for at least part of the contract.
Mr Dempsey predicted yesterday that more than 20 new posts would be created at the Irish Coast Guard bases, run by CHC in Dublin, Shannon, Sligo and Waterford, under the new contract terms.
He said that the company had “an excellent record in delivering search and rescue (SAR) services to our Coast Guard” and last winter’s flooding provided a “practical example of the value and diversity of our search and rescue helicopter service”.
“The contract provides for helicopters that will fly to the scene of the mission faster,” he said. The aircraft also have better search, surveillance, tracking and better medical facilities. Medical evacuations for island and remote communities, mountain rescue, and emergency aeromedical transfer in support of the Health Service Executive will also be provided by the new aircraft, he said.
Mr Dempsey said the Department of Defence had been consulted in the three-year lead-up to signing the new contract, but the Air Corps was “not in a position to deliver a contract by 2012”.
Involving the Air Corps at this stage would also involve purchasing aircraft at an estimated cost of €350 million, Mr Dempsey said. He said that when the Air Corps was involved in SAR, it had a “33 per cent reliability rate, compared to 97 per cent for CHC”.
The Air Corps was withdrawn from search and rescue by former defence minister Michael Smith in 2004 after 40 years of service.
Comdt Seamus McCormack, who retired from the Air Corps several weeks ago, said the defence wing had never been asked to submit costings for a joint service.
“The Air Corps has six new AW139 helicopters which would have been ideal for this work with only minor modification,” Mr McCormack said, speaking in a personal capacity.
“Even if the Government decided that it wanted to buy Sikorsky S-92 for all bases, at least the Air Corps and the State, would have owned them – under this arrangement, the State will own nothing.”
He pointed out that the new British government was currently reviewing a proposed £7 billion (€8.27 million) contract which was to have been awarded to CHC and its Soteria consortium partners for search and rescue.
Under the lease agreement signed yesterday by Mr Dempsey, four new S 92 A helicopters will be located at each of the four bases, with a fifth as back-up at Shannon.
The S 92A has a range of 270 nautical miles which can be extended to over 300 nautical miles if required, allowing for 30 minutes on scene. It can lift more than 20 survivors at maximum range. Its all-weather capabilities allows flight in icing conditions of up to 10,000 feet.
Irish Coast Guard director Chris Reynolds said it was “essential” that the State organisation had the “right stepped increase in capabilities” over the next decade.

With that type of serviceability rate maybe its just as well they didn't.:D

punchdrunk

the fact that we have six military AW139's that are apparently "looking for work" says a lot more about the air corps than it does the coast Guard!

the expression "jack of all trades,master of none" springs to mind...

donkey balls

afaik when the aer corp stopped doing SAR missions the contract was giving to Bond helicopters then CHC,with alot of the former aer corp guys going to work for them.

Alot of people over the years have said that the puchase of the AW139 was more for ministerial work than actual defence/Sar work.
how many SAR helis have you seen that are AW139 ? most sar acft are black hawks/ S92 not AW139.

as for the state buying the acft out right how many airlines buy acft outright very few do, as alot of them lease acft&crew known as ACMI(aircraft/crew/maintenance/insurance).
and as was pointed out by matt cooper on the last word they seem to be used alot by ministers,what would hapen if there on a jolly and a call comes in to the coast gaurd?

999/112

Got this off a press release.

EchoIndia

Some photos from the signing day:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=MOYVALLEY&w=24101413%40N03

999/112

EchoIndia, thank's for the photo's. I have pasted your link over in the emergency services forum, hope you don't mind.

This S92 is what I had tried in my previous post... hope it works now!

xflyer

“The Air Corps has six new AW139 helicopters which would have been ideal for this work with only minor modification,”

My italics, that coming from a recently retired Commandant speaks volumes as to why the Air Corps will never get SAR back. The man hasn't a clue. 'Minor modifications?' What a joke. Once you add on the cost of recruiting and training aircrew. It get's very expensive. Air Corps personnel have always demonstrated a reluctance to be deployed away from Baldonnel in the past. I don't think that's changed.

The difference between CHC and the Air Corps is that CHC can recruit from anywhere based on experience and skills. The Air Corps must go through the whole cadetship rigmarole. Spend two years training pilots to fly a turboprop trainer before converting them to helicopters and you still have an inexperienced low time pilot. Unless the Air Corps recruited ex British forces helicopter pilots and aircrew, (Imagine the furore?). They couldn't deliver. Then there's the question of aircrew and 24/7 maintenance. It's non runner.

punchdrunk

xflyer wrote: »

My italics, that coming from a recently retired Commandant speaks volumes as to why the Air Corps will never get SAR back. The man hasn't a clue. 'Minor modifications?' What a joke. Once you add on the cost of recruiting and training aircrew. It get's very expensive. Air Corps personnel have always demonstrated a reluctance to be deployed away from Baldonnel in the past. I don't think that's changed.

The difference between CHC and the Air Corps is that CHC can recruit from anywhere based on experience and skills. The Air Corps must go through the whole cadetship rigmarole. Spend two years training pilots to fly a turboprop trainer before converting them to helicopters and you still have an inexperienced low time pilot. Unless the Air Corps recruited ex British forces helicopter pilots and aircrew, (Imagine the furore?). They couldn't deliver. Then there's the question of aircrew and 24/7 maintenance. It's non runner.

that's the nail on the head right there!

punchdrunk

here's my Dad's post on the issue that I've copied from the IMO site

"I served 33 years on Search and Rescue in this country, and I'm sick of hearing compromises being proposed again and again!!!
We started out with the Alouette III,a brilliant aircraft for its time but eventually, a compromise! trying to cover the entire country and a significant area of sea with a single engined aircraft that wasn’t supposed to go out of sight of land! Reassuring when you're 20 miles offshore!
By the early 80s we were promised Pumas or equivalent! we got a "lend" of one for about 18 months, it did fantastic work while we had it and then it couldn’t be returned quick enough because it might cost more money!!!
By 1986, we wound up with the Dauphin,...a sports car...when we needed a truck! Beautiful to look at, beautiful to fly, but try working on a casualty in the back! Not even enough headroom to do CPR! Again, a compromise!!! an aircraft to do SAR (limited),troop carrying,underslung load carrying,shipbourne operations and of course VIP Flights!! (The Ministers loved it for that!!!).... and anything else that could be dreamed up when required!
Our comrades paid the price for that and more!
The best step forward in SAR in this country was the introduction of the S61 Operated by Irish Helicopters for the then Dept of The Marine! Sure, the Company operating them over the years changed with the contracts, but the personnel involved stayed largely the same through the years!
In the S61 we had an aircraft that had the range, the capacity and durability to allow us to finally cover our area of responsibility and give us a decent platform to winch from!
But the best feature of the service provided to the people of this country was the fact that it was dedicated to one task and funded to do it properly! Finally Search and Rescue was the priority!!! no more seeing your SAR aircraft disappearing over the airfield boundary with a Minister on board!!! No more cancelled SAR training because all aircraft were required for security or border operations!
To me, the greatest advancement was going to work and knowing I had an aircraft ready and equipped for SAR, ready to allow us to undertake the continuous training necessary for the job! And if the aircraft was unservicable,it was the company's responsibility to have a replacement in place without prejudice to the service or cost to the Government.
The Sikorsky S61 was so designated because it entered service in 1961,meaning it was designed in the 1950s.The design has served faithfully for a long time and brought us home from incidents that might otherwise have had fatal consequences!
It is time for a step forward, by providing the men and women who risk their lives with a modern, capable platform to do a very dangerous job.
For Gods sake, for once, let this country be proactive in covering our National and International responsibilities by giving the service the equipment and the dedicated autonomy it needs to do the job!
Stop Bickering and Penny-pinching over peoples lives...and I'm not just talking about those lives in need of rescue....I'm talking about the priceless lives of those who provide the service
I'm proud to say I did work for CHC,and Bond Helicopters before them and Irish Helicopters from the start of the SAR contract in 1991!! But no matter who wrote our paycheck, we always considered ourselves part of the Coast Guard, and an integral part of the Emergency Services of our country!
Before that, I rose through the ranks in the Air Corps, from 2* Airman to Flight Sergeant, learning my trade from the best and passing that knowledge on to following generations of SAR and GP aircrew. I still consider,and am proud to call, the Air Corps my Alma Mater.
With great affection for both organizations, my opinion is only ever biased towards what gives the people doing the job the best chance to do it safely and effectively and get home to their families at the end of the shift!"

says it all really

Klunk001

Punchdrunk,

Your Dad has written an excellent piece there my friend, hats off to him.

Kk 001.

Cessna_Pilot

I heard a rumour yesterday from a collegue that apparantly the IAC did in fact make an offer to the Government to take the SAR contract in the months before this announcment. Undercutting the private operators by substantial millions but it was rejected for whatever reasons.

Does anyone have any info on this "rumour" ?

xflyer

If that was true, then thank goodness it was rejected. It would take years for the Air Corps to get up to speed for all the reasons I mentioned in my original post on the matter. One of the main advantages of the CHC contract is that they can source experienced military and civilian air crews. The Air Corps must train their own. Same with maintenance apprenticeships. They simply do not have the personnel to do the job. Plus CHC has ongoing experience, the Air Corps does not thanks to their gross mishandling of crewing of the S61. That situation in itself would be in the government's mind when it comes to any allocation of contracts.

The Air Corps won't get SAR back ever.

Klunk001

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

I heard a rumour yesterday from a collegue that apparantly the IAC did in fact make an offer to the Government to take the SAR contract in the months before this announcment. Undercutting the private operators by substantial millions but it was rejected for whatever reasons.

Does anyone have any info on this "rumour" ?

Rumour is all it is. The IAC had heli SAR and lost heli SAR, 33% availability of a SAR asset. Yes asset, beacuse one heli is what was provided by the IAC,it is good enough reason I would think for their offer to be rejected, if it were the case, thats compared to 97% by CHC/IRCG, its a no brainer.

To put it simply, to hand any of it back to the IAC in its current form would be a giant leap backwards in my opinion and a reduction of the current service provided on behalf of the state and further. Nobody in their right mind is going to sign off on that.

The impression rightly or wrongly at the moment is, the IAC can't get it together to provide top cover with one aircraft, it been mentioned here with links to another web site. So lets not mention the new heli's that were bought with SAR not in mind.

Klunk001

IRCG heli carried out a organ transportation flight (air ambulance) to the UK this morning. IAC asset not available, same old , same old.:(

Gripen

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Firishaircorps%2F5260942567%2F&h=f3463

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177095338984764&set=a.154082837952681.30515.148942718466693

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Firishaircorps%2F5245288624%2F&h=f3463


Personnel in the AC I'm sure would love to even part contribute to SAR, unfortunately it's a lot sexier for the likes of a failed politician to sign €500 million contracts and have two state agencies provide aviation assets for a small country. Like the voting machine debacle throw money at it even if there is a better way.

xflyer

So what point are you making Gripen? All I see is excellent training for aircrew for their future career in CHC! The Air Corps had their chance and blew it. They have fundamentally unsuitable helicopters for the SAR role or frankly anything other than the VIP role.

The Air Corps are perfectly capable of providing a decent SAR service. But not the Air Corps we have right now. In the past their record has demonstrated that they are unwilling or incapable of providing the SAR service we need. That's why the government, even our fundamentally incapable government, realised that the needed to privatise the SAR role.

The AW139 is a nice executive helicopter.

donkey balls

xflyer wrote: »

So what point are you making Gripen? All I see is excellent training for aircrew for their future career in CHC! The Air Corps had their chance and blew it. They have fundamentally unsuitable helicopters for the SAR role or frankly anything other than the VIP role.

The Air Corps are perfectly capable of providing a decent SAR service. But not the Air Corps we have right now. In the past their record has demonstrated that they are unwilling or incapable of providing the SAR service we need. That's why the government, even our fundamentally incapable government, realised that the needed to privatise the SAR role.

The AW139 is a nice executive helicopter.

I wonder what the chances are that the govt interfered with the process of buying those choppers:rolleyes:After all the galway tent brigade had there AW and other makes.
Maybe bertie and friends didnt want to rock up in a black hawk(used by many nations)or any other proven mill chopper.;)

xflyer

I don't know if their was direct interference but of course part of the justification for the helicopter was VIP work. Remember too that a properly militarised helicopter would be more expensive and they would get fewer. Remember too that even if they had Blackhawks they would never be deployed. It always seemed to me that the Air Corps buy aircraft to suit their pilots rather than the roles they supposedly need them for. Look at the PC9s.

The AW139s are a token effort. The best they could get for the money. The Air Corps is actually too small and underfinanced. It has always been that way. It was always a token effort.

Klunk001

Gripen wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Firishaircorps%2F5260942567%2F&h=f3463

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177095338984764&set=a.154082837952681.30515.148942718466693

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Firishaircorps%2F5245288624%2F&h=f3463


Personnel in the AC I'm sure would love to even part contribute to SAR, unfortunately it's a lot sexier for the likes of a failed politician to sign €500 million contracts and have two state agencies provide aviation assets for a small country. Like the voting machine debacle throw money at it even if there is a better way.

Ouch Gripen, just as well the said politican has a thick skin. We all know there is no love lost between him and the IAC. Intersting you didn't start a new thread for this. Anyway, it's good to see the IAC getting the practice. A little bit of a swing on the winch for such a short amount out and good references too, just as well there wasn't a stretcher attached, two units back would have done the trick . In my opinion it might also be a good idea to have your winchman on board before you start to transition forward. Practice makes perfect.:D

Gripen

Klunk001, I'm simply posting the link I only have an interest in the topic, you imply you have some knowledge on what I should look like.

Flyer1, you're right, the AC does seem underfinaced which is exactly why making two separate agencies to supply air support to the state is ridiculous. There is already infrastructure and knowledge albeit small in the AC so why leave it small and start again?

Klunk001

Relax Gripen, I'm been pedantic. It all looks very impressive indeed.;)

OS119

Gripen wrote: »

...There is already infrastructure and knowledge albeit small in the AC so why leave it small and start again?...

actually you could argue that the AC doesn't have knowledge in how to run a SAR service - it has knowledge in how to fcuk one up and kill its own people while doing it. that, i'd suggest, is not the basis for running a life or death service like SAR.

the IAC doesn't have the infrastructure to run SAR either - the infrastructure of SAR is experienced aircrew (no), suitable helicopters (no), and a maintainence structure that is used to providing high availability rates on a 24/7 basis (no).

the IAC has proven that it has no more place in providing SAR than the KGB has in running Barnardo's.

fii

Hi guys,

Some background to this story for anyone who is interested.

http://www.flyinginireland.com/news/minister-dempsey-and-chc-ireland-sign-sar-helicopter-contract-september-2010.html

http://www.flyinginireland.com/news/coastguard-chief-rubbishes-contract-claims-september-2010.html

Both articles were written by Jim Lee from FlyingInIreland Magazine.

Manic Moran

donkey balls wrote: »

Alot of people over the years have said that the puchase of the AW139 was more for ministerial work than actual defence/Sar work.
how many SAR helis have you seen that are AW139 ? most sar acft are black hawks/ S92 not AW139.

In fairness...



There seem to be a number of SAR users of the AW139 platform. However, they are dedicated SAR birds, equipped for the job, not multi-role things which are flying rescues over sea one day, and training battlefield tasks on land the next.

NTM

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

There seem to be a number of SAR users of the AW139 platform. However, they are dedicated SAR birds, equipped for the job, not multi-role things which are flying rescues over sea one day, and training battlefield tasks on land the next.

NTM

OTOH, the current UK CG SAR contract has an AW139/S-92 mix with the AW139's based on the south coast - and they 'aint popular, and the new SARH contract is S-92 only because of percieved deficiancies with the SAR capability of the 139.

given how skint the MoD/DoTransport/HM Coast Guard are, i doubt they'd be going for a more expensive S-92 only contract if the problems with the AW139 were trivial.

Holybejaysus

Manic Moran wrote: »

There seem to be a number of SAR users of the AW139 platform. However, they are dedicated SAR birds, equipped for the job, not multi-role things which are flying rescues over sea one day, and training battlefield tasks on land the next.

NTM

AFAIK, the 139 is not designed for sustained hovering-I have heard reports of some of the airframe melting due to the downwash from the engine exhausts in extended hovers. I also understand it is quite nose high in a hover, which can be a problem for the pilot a times.

Also, the Air Corps bought the 139's in the civilian configuration and then converted them to military (paint job, installed a winch etc). Hardly a sensible choice, considering that they would have known what their mission role was.

Gripen

xflyer wrote: »

My italics, that coming from a recently retired Commandant speaks volumes as to why the Air Corps will never get SAR back. The man hasn't a clue. 'Minor modifications?' What a joke. Once you add on the cost of recruiting and training aircrew. It get's very expensive. Air Corps personnel have always demonstrated a reluctance to be deployed away from Baldonnel in the past. I don't think that's changed.

The difference between CHC and the Air Corps is that CHC can recruit from anywhere based on experience and skills. The Air Corps must go through the whole cadetship rigmarole. Spend two years training pilots to fly a turboprop trainer before converting them to helicopters and you still have an inexperienced low time pilot. Unless the Air Corps recruited ex British forces helicopter pilots and aircrew, (Imagine the furore?). They couldn't deliver. Then there's the question of aircrew and 24/7 maintenance. It's non runner.

what's your background that makes you more of an authority on the details of carrying out a SAR service than a commandant that served in the organisation that started SAR in Ireland?!

Your argurment contradicts itself, the aircorps has pilots aircrew and technicians, ground infrastructure, and all the other support elements that may be taken for granted but are there anyway available 24/7 if required. Personnel will be trained anyway in some role so it should at least be in one that is providing real value to the state.
It makes no sense at all that such a resource as above is not used and a second air service is setup instead, that's just bad management.
The aircorps is going to be there anyway it should be given the resources it needs to carry out these tasks, such a disgrace that an effective mutiny by certain people dictated a strategic decision like that.

Klunk001

Funny Grip. All the ex Donner pilots who went on the public airways and papers with the line you are following all came from the fix wing end of things, as I understand it none of them did helo SAR, but I will stand corrected on that. Not one ex No 3 helo pilot gave their opinion or was aked, wonder why.

The end of your last paragraph says it all really, not exactly sitting on the fence, are you now. You have ignored all that has been written here on this thread including two very good articles form flying in Ireland kindly put on here by fii, posted your links and you expect things to change. It is great to see the IAC can make two helo's available to film a winching exercise for face book. Talk the talk, walk the walk comes to mind.

Do you mind if I ask you what your experience is. You mention the IAC knowledge is small. I take it you mean where SAR is concerned. well, a little knowledge can be dangerous in this big bad world. Please give me your ideal solutions for helo SAR in Ireland , looking forward to hearing them. Maybe your just trying to wind people up.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

Your argurment contradicts itself, the aircorps has pilots aircrew and technicians, ground infrastructure, and all the other support elements that may be taken for granted but are there anyway available 24/7 if required. Personnel will be trained anyway in some role so it should at least be in one that is providing real value to the state.
It makes no sense at all that such a resource as above is not used and a second air service is setup instead, that's just bad management.
The aircorps is going to be there anyway it should be given the resources it needs to carry out these tasks, such a disgrace that an effective mutiny by certain people dictated a strategic decision like that.

the bit I've bolded shows you just don't know what your talking about,sorry!

go back and read post 11 again,granted he's my father but that's irrelevant

a former flight sergeant of number 3 support wing (so somebody who actually flew SAR,not some old fouga Jockey) & retired chief crewman for CHC says the aircorp are incapable of doing the job
i.e somebody with firsthand experience of working for both organisations

I'll take his word over any retired commandant

Gripen

Klunk001 wrote: »

Funny Grip. All the ex Donner pilots who went on the public airways and papers with the line you are following all came from the fix wing end of things, as I understand it none of them did helo SAR, but I will stand corrected on that. Not one ex No 3 helo pilot gave their opinion or was aked, wonder why.

The end of your last paragraph says it all really, I see what side of the fence you are on now. You have ignored all that has been written here on this thread including two very good articles form flying in Ireland kindly put on here by fii, posted your links and you expect things to change. It is great to see the IAC can make two helo's available to film a winching exercise for face book. Talk the talk, walk the walk comes to mind.

Do you mind if I ask you what your experience is. You mention the IAC knowledge is small. I take it you mean where SAR is concerned. well, a lit
tle knowledge can be dangerous in this big bad world. Please give me your ideal
solutions for helo SAR in Ireland , looking forward to hearing them.

I believe I asked you the same thing, still waiting! I'm just a curious observer I've no knowledge besides what I see in media etc but I'm just approaching
this one from a common sense point of view and the value for money we
aren't getting from the political decisions made in the last 10 years, there's
plenty besides this one but that's for another forum.

There's no point getting stuck into a tit for tat arguement but as you are a pro
privatised advocate I'd be interested to hear what you think happened with the
sick leave industrial action that the flying in Ireland article refers to. Surely
there is no place in the military for that type of carry on and the AC was
better off without them?

As for the fixed wing AC advocates surely it's a small
organisation, how many pilots have they on the books there? Wouldn't there
be a lot of crossover with a high probability that they flew helicopters too?

flying in Ireland is an excellent publication but I wouldn't take any source of info as gospel I like to weigh up all sources.

I'm certainly not ignoring what's been posted here but a lot of it is just they
lost their chance they can't do it etc without being specific as to why, if it's a
mil org then if the decision comes that it is to happen then it happens no?

My solution would be a mix of providers, it would be good to keep those skills in our df and not be relying entirely on others. Be that just having AC people crewing and maintaing alongside CG people or using AC bought SAR machines, after all 4 of 5 were bought for UK originally.

Klunk001

Grip, If you read some of the aviation threads I've posted here you might get an idea what my background is. I mentioned swing on the hoist and transitioning forward in a previous thread, I didn't spot that by being a lay person.;)

The value for money bit has been covered here with figures been mentioned and 100,000,000 euro been the difference in savings. Look at the serviceability stats for both services, it's a no brainer.

I have no opinion one way or another in relation to sick leave in the military. But, I would suggest you read the results of a court action brought by some of the people you mention and the word mutiny, according to it there were flight safety issues, and this is after the Tramore accident.

This board has covered various IAC issues, top cover included, the threads really are very informative and the contributers have written some very good stuff. In fact, I get the hint from some of the threads that some people probably know a lot more than they are letting on and have to be carefull what they write on a public forum. I would suggest that you do a search and take some time to read them, it might give you a better picture of what it actually going on.

The "others" you mention by the way are members of your IRCG that go out in all kinds of weather to help people in distress on behalf of this state, and live in local communities on this little island of ours.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

I believe I asked you the same thing, still waiting! I'm just a curious observer I've no knowledge besides what I see in media etc but I'm just approaching
this one from a common sense point of view and the value for money we
aren't getting from the political decisions made in the last 10 years, there's
plenty besides this one but that's for another forum.

There's no point getting stuck into a tit for tat arguement but as you are a pro
privatised advocate I'd be interested to hear what you think happened with the
sick leave industrial action that the flying in Ireland article refers to. Surely
there is no place in the military for that type of carry on and the AC was
better off without them?

As for the fixed wing AC advocates surely it's a small
organisation, how many pilots have they on the books there? Wouldn't there
be a lot of crossover with a high probability that they flew helicopters too?

flying in Ireland is an excellent publication but I wouldn't take any source of info as gospel I like to weigh up all sources.

I'm certainly not ignoring what's been posted here but a lot of it is just they
lost their chance they can't do it etc without being specific as to why, if it's a
mil org then if the decision comes that it is to happen then it happens no?

My solution would be a mix of providers, it would be good to keep those skills in our df and not be relying entirely on others. Be that just having AC people crewing and maintaing alongside CG people or using AC bought SAR machines, after all 4 of 5 were bought for UK originally.

a decade ago,maybe this would have been possible,but those skills are gone
either retired,gone to CHC,now crewing ambulances for the HSE,

but very few remain in the Don,and of those that do how many were qualified instructors capable of teaching a new generation?

currently each base flies two training missions a day,everyday including weekends
how could the current air corps possibly match that?

Gripen

punchdrunk wrote: »

a decade ago,maybe this would have been possible,but those skills are gone
either retired,gone to CHC,now crewing ambulances for the HSE,

but very few remain in the Don,and of those that do how many were qualified instructors capable of teaching a new generation?

currently each base flies two training missions a day,everyday including weekends
how could the current air corps possibly match that?

4 bases = 4 aircraft = 2 crews a day per machine= 4 pilots/4 crewmen per machine = 16 of each discipline a day? That's not a lot to be fair, in practice it's higher to allow for leave I'd imagine but 25 each would be enough?
Klunk can you enlighten us on how many personnel per machine it's normally done on?

xflyer

You make it sound so easy Gripen, but you actually outlined the problem in a nutshell. Four bases, all those personnel to be deployed away from Baldonnel. Part of the original problem that lost SAR for the Air Corps was reluctance to be deployed out of Dublin. Some of the Dauphins were configured for shipboard ops. That was not popular with aircrew either.

There's the issue of training. If someone leaves CHC, they hire another experienced pilot, ditto for aircrew. Same for ground staff. If one helicopter goes tech. They bring in one from the UK or vice versa. Try that in the Air Corps? Pilots only come through cadetships and it takes years. Techies go through an apprenticeship which is also a source for aircrew. The only solution would be direct entry for pilots and aircrew. Quite a lot of CHC's staff are ex British forces. Imagine trying to convince them to join the Irish military. Imagine trying to get any experienced person to join the military. It simply isn't realistic.

As for the industrial relations issue that caused the government to pull the plug finally. I recall several, don't shoot me if I get it wrong. Ex Donners will know more. First off the pilots, the officers got extra money for having to deploy away from base or as retention bonuses, not sure which. Not so the aircrew. That was a bone of contention.

Also there were several issues of equipment safety brought up by NCO aircrew but they were ignored. The result was the famous 'mutiny' or excessive sickness. Eventually all the NCO aircrew involved were taken off SAR work and redeployed, peeling spuds no doubt.

I believe also that the Air Corps S61 based in Sligo was only day VFR, and it was taking an excessive amount of time to ready it for 24/7.

I stand to be corrected on all of the above by the way. Memory is not a reliable source.

What it all came down was the Air Corps demonstrated themselves incapable of providing the service. Meanwhile the RAF and RN were doing their job for them and people were still dying because of the lack of a 24/7 service. I always thought one of the most embarrassing things was the day an RAF helicopter had to be called to rescue someone from a boat stuck in the surf just off Howth. That's right, in sight of the shore a few miles from Baldonnel.

No it's over for the Air Corps in terms of SAR. Just get used to it.

Gripen

xflyer wrote: »

You make it sound so easy Gripen, but you actually outlined the problem in a nutshell. Four bases, all those personnel to be deployed away from Baldonnel. Part of the original problem that lost SAR for the Air Corps was reluctance to be deployed out of Dublin. Some of the Dauphins were configured for shipboard ops. That was not popular with aircrew either.

There's the issue of training. If someone leaves CHC, they hire another experienced pilot, ditto for aircrew. Same for ground staff. If one helicopter goes tech. They bring in one from the UK or vice versa. Try that in the Air Corps? Pilots only come through cadetships and it takes years. Techies go through an apprenticeship which is also a source for aircrew. The only solution would be direct entry for pilots and aircrew. Quite a lot of CHC's staff are ex British forces. Imagine trying to convince them to join the Irish military. Imagine trying to get any experienced person to join the military. It simply
isn't realistic.

As for the industrial relations issue that caused the government to pull the plug finally. I recall several, don't shoot me if I get it wrong. Ex Donners will know more. First off the pilots, the officers got extra money for having to deploy away from base or as retention bonuses, not sure which. Not so the
aircrew. That was a bone of contention

Also there were several issues of equipment safety brought up by NCO aircrew but they were ignored. The result was the famous 'mutiny' or excessive
sickness. Eventually all the NCO aircrew involved were taken off SAR work and
redeployed, peeling spuds no doubt.

thanks for the input, if that's as accurate as you remember then that's criminal. If you are told to deploy in the military then you should deploy! That's the price for being lucky enough to be there.
No extra monies should be paid for around the state. Any rank. Safety is fair enough but was that being used as another way of protesting?

It sounds like the military authorities didn't deal strongly enough with dissenters of any rank and thegovernment rather than put the foot down just cut it instead.

Personnel shouldn't be a problem to get part coverage of SAR isn't there a lot of pilots per aircraft there now and more aircraft due to be sold?

OS119

interestingly, the Secretary of State for Transport has announced a pause/cancellation of the upcoming SAR-H contract with Soteria.

details of why are somewhat thin on the ground, and its not clear whether its a dealbreaker or just an issue that needs re-visiting.

there appear to be 3 schools of thought as to what the problem is;

option 1 is that Soteria made its bid based on knowing the UK government were going to be operating x number of coastguard stations, y number of Nimrod MPA's, and z number of Military helicopters that could, in extremis, be used to support the 'standard' UK SAR-H fleet. after the 2010 SDSR all this has changed, and Soteria no longer feel thay can operate the SAR-H contract as it stands in the post 2010 operating environment.

opttion 2 is that allegedly there is some commercial naughtyness in Soteria's cupboard which is about to come out, and that Soteria are jumping before they get pushed. allegedly.

option 3 is that the current government, never fans of the SAR-H contract, went to Soteria, asked them to reduce the price/re-negociate the contract, Soteria said no and the governmnt did what it want to do all along and binned the contract.

details to follow. hopefully....

Klunk001

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/air-corps-not-equipped-to-provide-rescue-services-2480909.html

OS119

Klunk001 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/air-corps-not-equipped-to-provide-rescue-services-2480909.html

and in other news, rain makes shit wet.

Steyr

Klunk001 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/air-corps-not-equipped-to-provide-rescue-services-2480909.html

Once a year every year something like this pops up in the Papers, be sure to see one with "Ireland has no fighters" and that all Paper favourite "Govt Jet flew xxxxxmiles last week alone" :pac:

pclancy

OS119 wrote: »

and in other news, rain makes shit wet.

:rolleyes:

Sharing articles related to a threads subject matter shoulnt need sarcastic comments...

Gripen

More propaganda to justify this expensive contract. He mentions extra "admin" as a point of arguement. A bit ironic as the whole duplication of similar structures to the AC with the establishment of a four base IRCG kind of blows that one out of the water compared to a AC SAR detachment.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

More propaganda to justify this expensive contract. He mentions extra "admin" as a point of arguement. A bit ironic as the whole duplication of similar structures to the AC with the establishment of a four base IRCG kind of blows that one out of the water compared to a AC SAR detachment.

you could count CHC Ireland's admin staff on two hands,most of it is done in Aberdeen or Norway

how many hundred members or the Air corps are non flying servicemen?

Gripen

punchdrunk wrote: »

you could count CHC Ireland's admin staff on two hands,most of it is done in Aberdeen or Norway

how many hundred members or the Air corps are non flying servicemen?

How many more roles aircraft and functions are carried out by the aircorps than IRCG such as atc, crs, armed security, comms, photography, catering etc. All things that have to be contracted out or paid for by anyone else but that are happening everyday in the AC.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

How many more roles aircraft and functions are carried out by the aircorps than IRCG such as atc, crs, armed security, comms, photography, catering etc. All things that have to be contracted out or paid for by anyone else but that are happening everyday in the AC.

and how many of those extra roles would distract men and resources away from the job of SAR if it was still within the aircorps?
how many could be subcontracted out cheaper? the Gardai helicopters are maintained by a civil outfit even though the aircraft are based at a military airport,ever wondered why??

the UK did military SAR right by using dedicated squadrons,you never seen the yellow seakings of 22 or 202 squadron being pulled away to do troop transport or ministerial transport and for all the sterling work they've done
the UK is dumping it's dedicated military SAR operations


look I'm not trying to belittle the work the AC do,some elements are fantastic,and I don't think anyone would argue that fact
but there's no doubt as an organization there's alot of fat when you compare it to the return we get
we've tried the jack of all trades approach but it simply doesn't work

Gripen

punchdrunk wrote: »

and how many of those extra roles would distract men and resources away from the job of SAR if it was still within the aircorps?
how many could be subcontracted out cheaper? the Gardai helicopters are maintained by a civil outfit even though the aircraft are based at a military airport,ever wondered why??

the UK did military SAR right by using dedicated squadrons,you never seen the yellow seakings of 22 or 202 squadron being pulled away to do troop transport or ministerial transport and for all the sterling work they've done
the UK is dumping it's dedicated military SAR operations

but there's no doubt as an organization there's alot of fat when you compare it to the return we get
we've tried the jack of all trades approach but it simply doesn't work

I agree with you a dedicated unit of s92 in the AC would be ideal maybe with a pool of crew between both org operating them to leave the army have the use of the existing helicopters. There's waste on both sides I'm sure particularly 500m for this new contract that allegedly is 140m more than before, plus whoever negotiated it is now attempting to do the jack of all trades by adding pollution surveys and firefighting team transport as well as SAR, so you could argue this could be a problem in the future. It almost sounds like empire
building!

punchdrunk

the lads already did pollution surveys and firefighting transport on an ad hoc basis anyway,it's just being formalised into their role

500m is a drop in the ocean,I mean we payed 40m per km of luas extension
makes the new contract sound like a bargain to me,especially when were are getting some of the most advanced choppers in the world,flown and crewed by some of the most experienced people in the world (and thanks for those skilled people is in no small part to the training of the air corps!)

Klunk001

Gripen wrote: »

More propaganda to justify this expensive contract. He mentions extra "admin" as a point of arguement. A bit ironic as the whole duplication of similar structures to the AC with the establishment of a four base IRCG kind of blows that one out of the water compared to a AC SAR detachment.

Sorry Gripen, propaganda on who's behalf ? this is an interenal memo sought under the FOI act by a fine geal TD who asked questions on behalf of ex IAC personel.
It's all there in black and white, warts and all. Have you bothered to read the article in question or any of the previous threads? With all due respect you just don't seem to get it, or maybe you are better qualified than the rest of us, after all what would an assistant secertary (Chris Reynolds) to the minister know.

By the way the info in relation to converting IAC helo's and pricing, that would have been supplied to him by the IAC I would think.

What would you suggest in relation to getting fire fighting teams to a vessel on fire at sea?

Gripen

My god does it really have to be brought down to this level of explanation, you've missed it completely, forget fergus o'dowd, forget foI, mr director could smell trouble coming so got in there first with a memo of propaganda straight to the minister to nip any threats to his baby in the bud so to speak!

As for your other point well basically anyone can do that job if you pay 500million to buy them new helicopters that can carry the gear and pers and fund their training recruitment etc. Sure as we're already doubling up on state air assets let's triple up and establish an Irish air marine firefighting service, yeah let's ignore what resources we already have that we can expand on let's blow another 500m the country doesn't have and then let's have the minister that signs off on that take a big fat whopping pension with him as he gives the proverbial two fingers to joe public when he sees that his re-election ain't going to happen!

Gripen

Oh and by the way I did read the article.