IRCG SAR contract signed

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.

Klunk001

This is getting better with each post you make. I don't know what is annoying you most, the minister, his pension, the coast guard director, the coast guard ? This is bigger than your cosy tinted idea of the IAC providing the state with SAR.

It's not about propaganda or empire building, it's about providing this state should the contract go ahead with a world leading SAR helo service, something you obviously don't want happening.

Your throw away comment that any one can do it if you throw enough money at it is an insult to the IRCG helo crews. You must be an expert then. Yes, it's a doubling up of assets, not dedicated SAR assets.

Please tell me what resources we have already, I assume your talking about IAC assets. By the sounds of it you seem to be quite happy to go back to helo's with small capacity, short range, and day light hour ops. That's suppose to be moving forward.

The maritine fire fighting service that you allude to has been set up for many years provided by Dublin fire brigade and NI fire and rescue service, no doubling of services there.

Gripen

The fact is that we could spend less than 500m and own the heli's for the state instead of buying them for chc and having nothing to show for it in ten years time.
Hats off to the crews they do a fantastic job. It's the arrogance of the minister for not even considering the above option is the problem. It seems from the article that he got his info from the coastguard memo rather than the aircorps directly, that's a flawed approach. The AC trains its own crews every year and could train even more, have them on a contract for years which commits them so they can't go anywhere til they've earned their keep, also military pilots earn less than civil pilots so another cost saving. It's far better value for money to spend the money that way and getting the same results for better return than contracting out.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

The fact is that we could spend less than 500m and own the heli's for the state instead of buying them for chc and having nothing to show for it in ten years time.
Hats off to the crews they do a fantastic job. It's the arrogance of the minister for not even considering the above option is the problem. It seems from the article that he got his info from the coastguard memo rather than the aircorps directly, that's a flawed approach. The AC trains its own crews every year and could train even more, have them on a contract for years which commits them so they can't go anywhere til they've earned their keep, also military pilots earn less than civil pilots so another cost saving. It's far better value for money to spend the money that way and getting the same results for better return than contracting out.

I'd say there will be close enough to a thousand people who will owe them their lives,that would disagree strongly that there was "nothing to show for it"

Gripen

punchdrunk wrote: »

I'd say there will be close enough to a thousand people who will owe them their lives,that would disagree strongly that there was "nothing to show for it"

You know what I mean. Thats no argument. Saving lives goes without saying, doesn't matter under what organisation.

punchdrunk

Gripen wrote: »

You know what I mean. Thats no argument. Saving lives goes without saying, doesn't matter under what organisation.

my argument is that it's 100% worth the price

Klunk001

Gripen wrote: »

The fact is that we could spend less than 500m and own the heli's for the state instead of buying them for chc and having nothing to show for it in ten years time.
Hats off to the crews they do a fantastic job. It's the arrogance of the minister for not even considering the above option is the problem. It seems from the article that he got his info from the coastguard memo rather than the aircorps directly, that's a flawed approach. The AC trains its own crews every year and could train even more, have them on a contract for years which commits them so they can't go anywhere til they've earned their keep, also military pilots earn less than civil pilots so another cost saving. It's far better value for money to spend the money that way and getting the same results for better return than contracting out.

Grip, we can go back and forward all day with this, maybe the minister did get a memo from the DOD, why not put in a request under the FOI act to see if there is one and put it up on this thread. Can you please do some research and come back with figures to back up your arguments. You mention pilot salaries, have you taken into account IAC pilot pensions that are recieved when they complete military service. Some of the pensions are eye watering, thats for another day.

The facts are that IAC detachments don't seem to work, whether they were on a naval vessel or other airports. The IAC have had all of their helo assets replaced in recent years with brand new helo's all to a military spec in a far as they can be, which is great, but SAR more importantily all weather SAR was not included in that spec.

The IRCG/IMES who's responsibility it is, have been providing a dedicated, yes, dedicated AWSAR service since approx 1992 to the state and have gone from one to four bases. If the next contract goes ahead it will include one new airframe and four second hand helos. At that stage some of the S-61's which have given sterling service to this country will be approaching 50 years old and will have amassed up on 40,000 flight hours.

Do you think it is right that IRCG helo crew continue to fly these helo's indefinitely? Punchdrunk has hit the nail on the head really, it's important that the bigger picture isn't lost here. It's all about saving lives and making sure that the crews that go out to do this job have the best possible equipment.

Holybejaysus

I see the IRCG have attained paramedic status, and 14 months ahead of schedule if you don't mind. Well done to all concerned.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2011/02/irish-coast-guard-attain-paramedic-status/?cat=7

Klunk001

All base average for IRCG helo availability last year 99%...well done.

Minister Carey paid tribute to the service provided by the staff at the Coast Guard bases. “The Coast Guard requires all four Bases to maintain an airworthy search and rescue helicopter at all times throughout the year. Last year the level of availability was 99% which is a testament to the management, crews and maintenance personnel of the helicopter fleet.”