Aer Corps and Naval Service Heli ops

Hooch

Thought ye might be interested in this video

Steyr

Seen it on their Official FB Page, thanks for sharing.

View Profile

Nice. Didnt know the Air Corps trained for winching operations on to ships anymore.

Steyr

View Profile wrote: »

Nice. Didnt know the Air Corps trained for winching operations on to ships anymore.

They have to be at certain standard ie for CASEVAC/SAR. On WAP it is said that winchmen ( I assume IAC ) who perform on behalf of the IRCG must be at least to PHECC ( Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council ) paramedic standard.

punchdrunk

strange that there's no static line

goldie fish

punchdrunk wrote: »

strange that there's no static line

The winchman has good boots...

savagecabbages

cool video:D

I was just inquiring about naval helicopter ops in another thread!
The AW139 seems to have a very peculiar hover stance, very nose-high! Guess thats where the centre of gravity is etc...

hairy sailor

View Profile wrote: »

Nice. Didnt know the Air Corps trained for winching operations on to ships anymore.

I used to work on the ferries out of dublin a few year's ago & every now & then on the crossing they'd lower the winchman on deck he'd unhook himself & we'd give him a bottle of whisky & away he'd go a happy man

BEASTERLY

This video shows the skill involved in keeping the 139 lined up with the ship:

Keep up the good work lads.

goldie fish

Great to see the Air Corps are maintaining a skill that was their bread and butter when the A3 and Dauphins were in service. Hopefully in years to come they'll have a helicopter capable of doing Long range SAR too.

xflyer

goldie fish wrote: »

Great to see the Air Corps are maintaining a skill that was their bread and butter when the A3 and Dauphins were in service. Hopefully in years to come they'll have a helicopter capable of doing Long range SAR too.

That won't be happening anytime soon. It will stay civilianised. The Air Corps wouldn't be resourced enough to gear up for long range 24 hour cover. I also notice somewhere that CHC might be taking on more air ambulance roles in the future. Currently that's an Air Corps job.

Good training though, more useful for their future careers in CHC after they leave the Air Corps. But also useful should there ever be a disaster of some sort where all helicopters were needed.

tippilot

The nose up attitude in the hover is very visible in the second video. Supposedly that has been found problematic with the Coastguard SAR machines in the UK.

BEASTERLY

goldie fish wrote: »

Great to see the Air Corps are maintaining a skill that was their bread and butter when the A3 and Dauphins were in service. Hopefully in years to come they'll have a helicopter capable of doing Long range SAR too.

IMO it would be good to see the IAC 139s replace s61's in Dublin and waterford where long range capability is not needed. Maybe west coast should be left to chc as the air corps do not have long rang choppers.

I think the extra speed and NVGs of the 139 would greatly improve the service where long range capability is not needed. Thats presuming they have the funds to do it,

Klunk001

BEASTERLY wrote: »

IMO it would be good to see the IAC 139s replace s61's in Dublin and waterford where long range capability is not needed. Maybe west coast should be left to chc as the air corps do not have long rang choppers.

I think the extra speed and NVGs of the 139 would greatly improve the service where long range capability is not needed. Thats presuming they have the funds to do it,

Why, Maritine SAR is the responsability of the IRCG not IAC. If you think NVG's and extra speed with no auto hover capability are good enough reason to get rid of two bases, aircraft with auto hover and personnel, well I give up. Capacity comes to mind as well as long range capability, Dublin has Irelands busiest airport and sea port with something like 20,000,000 people crossing the Irish sea annually. Grant it the 139's are faster in still wind conditions but that is lost with 15 min readiness day/ 45 min readiness night at IRCG bases.

There is a thread about the pros and cons of IAC, IRCG SAR on the aviation thread. I suggest you read it as it's very worth while.

Klunk001

punchdrunk wrote: »

strange that there's no static line

Well spotted, lucky he was feet first.

BEASTERLY

Klunk001 wrote: »

If you think NVG's and extra speed with no auto hover capability are good enough reason to get rid of two bases, aircraft and personnel, well I give up. Capacity comes to mind as well as long range capability, Dublin has Irelands busiest airport and sea port with something like 20,000,000 people crossing the Irish sea annually.

There is a thread about the pros and cons of IAC, IRCG SAR on the aviation thread. I suggest you read it as it's very worth while.

The bases would not be gotten rid of, just have different helos and crews.

tippilot

BEASTERLY wrote: »

The bases would not be gotten rid of, just have different helos and crews.

The AW139 is not up to the job to put it simply.

Dublin and Waterford are precisely the two bases that require an aircraft of the size of the S-61/92, given the ferry traffic from Dublin and Rosslare.

If you look at the West coast bases, they may not require the capacity of the S-61 but they certainly require it's range.

Klunk001

BEASTERLY wrote: »

The bases would not be gotten rid of, just have different helos and crews.

You mean get rid of IRCG assets and crew, reduce capability... with IAC assets and crew. As Simple as that,eh.

BEASTERLY

Here , have a look at this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/helicoptermaker-disputes-coast-guard-claim-2516795.html

Klunk001

Interesting article. The issue of lift capacity for the east coast, Dublin and Rosslare would still have to be addressed.

OS119

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Here , have a look at this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/helicoptermaker-disputes-coast-guard-claim-2516795.html

i'm genuinely shocked: helicopter manufacturer PR man says 'our helicopters are not hugely overpriced rubbish - even if one of our first customers has just thrown them in the bin and gone for a completly different type from a different manufacturer...'

couple of problems with the article/PR spin from AW: you couldn't get 10 SAR survivors in an AW139 unless you liquidised them first and gave them to the crew in a jar, no manufacturer/training provider has ever told the truth about the cost of an upgrade - ever - and yes, its true that the initial difficulties the UKCG experienced with the AW139 have been ironed out. what he didn't mention was that the UKCG 'ironed out' these difficulties by replacing the AW139 with a Sikorsky S-92.

using AW139's to deal with a major maritime accident - the loss of a large ferry or aircraft at sea - is akin to a mouse trying to rape an elephant. it can't reach what matters, and even if it could it hasn't got the size required to do the job - and no set of NVG's is going to cure either of those problems.

punchdrunk

OS119 wrote: »

i'm genuinely shocked: helicopter manufacturer PR man says 'our helicopters are not hugely overpriced rubbish - even if one of our first customers has just thrown them in the bin and gone for a completly different type from a different manufacturer...'

couple of problems with the article/PR spin from AW: you couldn't get 10 SAR survivors in an AW139 unless you liquidised them first and gave them to the crew in a jar, no manufacturer/training provider has ever told the truth about the cost of an upgrade - ever - and yes, its true that the initial difficulties the UKCG experienced with the AW139 have been ironed out. what he didn't mention was that the UKCG 'ironed out' these difficulties by replacing the AW139 with a Sikorsky S-92.

using AW139's to deal with a major maritime accident - the loss of a large ferry or aircraft at sea - is akin to a mouse trying to rape an elephant. it can't reach what matters, and even if it could it hasn't got the size required to do the job - and no set of NVG's is going to cure either of those problems.

yeah I think you've just about summed it up right there
honestly if the people who ultimately use the equipment say it's crap,then in my view it is crap

why turn to the politicians/officers/manufacturers/spin Doctors/arm chair generals???
if the person who's ultimately risking his life using the damn thing has no confidence in it abilities then it's not fit for purpose

go to Pprune and just search for the threads on the 139! then come back to me and tell me it's "trouble free" with a straight face,all new types have initial teething problems but this heap has been in service long enough that they should be ironed out by now
it's a tarted up corporate chopper end of.

punchdrunk

also Beasterly nice edit there

me personally I'm not a CHC employee,just somebody who doesn't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows

Steyr

Out of Interest what could the Dauphin carry, IIRC it was 8 Troops?

punchdrunk

Steyr wrote: »

Out of Interest what could the Dauphin carry, IIRC it was 8 Troops?

that'd be pushing it six fully armed troops and two crew with all the kit on board would be jammers

BEASTERLY

punchdrunk wrote: »

also Beasterly nice edit there

me personally I'm not a CHC employee,just somebody who doesn't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows

Yep, realised that might have started an argument, dont want a ban. Best to keep things to the equipment.

xflyer

That article was a farce. This issue was discussed here before. The Air Corps is not in a postion to take on 24 hour SAR anytime soon. The AW139s are not suitable as has been proved. Plus the Air Corps is not resourced to take on the service. It would have to expand in terms of manpower. Supplying sufficent crews alone would stretch the them to the limit. Deploying people and equipment to other bases would be very expensive and as we found out when it was tried the last time, very contentious.

There is the simple issue of pilot experience, most CHC pilots are highly experienced before they even get into the job. Most Air Corps pilots come through the cadet system. So new pilots will be by definition be inexperienced recent graduates who converted to helicopters from PC9s. The Air Corps would have to hire experienced pilots to fill the gaps. Exactly how could you convince veteran pilots to join the military?

No it's a non runner. There is no harm in the Air Corps training for a day time role in SAR. In fact it's a good thing. Should there ever be a disaster or other major incident. They can be used if the Coastguard is busy elsewhere.

Steyr

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


Air Corps 'not equipped' to provide rescue services
Sunday Independent
By JOHN DRENNAN and DON LAVERY
Sunday January 02 2011

A national search-and-rescue helicopter service could not be carried out by the Irish Air Corps because it would cost tens of millions of euro for new aircraft, training and bases, a memo to Government has revealed.

There would be no cost savings if the service was carried out by the Air Corps, the memo released under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act said, pointing out that the Department of Defence withdrew from providing a limited service in 2003.

Last year, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey signed a controversial 10-year, €500m contract with a civilian operator to provide the service, more then twice the cost of the existing civilianised service.

According to Fine Gael's Fergus O'Dowd, who obtained the information under FoI, the new service will cost €150m more than the old contract over the 10 years.

There was some criticism as to why the Air Corps had not been asked to provide the service, or why its aircrew and aircraft was not used as part of search-and-rescue operations.

But a memo to Mr Dempsey, written by Chris Reynolds, director of the Irish Coast Guard, pointed out:

The Air Corps did not have aircraft able to reach out into the Atlantic from Coast Guard bases in Sligo and Limerick.

For the Air Corps to service the two bases, three to four new medium-load helicopters would be needed, costing up to €60m.

If existing Air Corps AW 139 helicopters were used at the two other bases in Dublin and Waterford, they would need two per base.

At €3,000 per flying hour, the four aircraft would need to be converted for their new role at a total cost of €8m, with six months' downtime for each aircraft.

Basing helicopters at Waterford would cost €500,000 a year.

Converting pilots and crew for maritime search and rescue would cost up to €380,000 per pilot for converting to aircraft type and role, and €56,000 for a crewman.

The memo also warned that crews that were trained could be lost to industry, with all the training and experience costs having been borne by the State.

It said that pilots and air crew in the military change roles and aircraft types many times in a career, needing a greater level of manpower and refresher training.

Civilian crews had one role with no changes. The net effect was that the Air Corps cost for additional crew, additional headquarters administration costs, allowances and other current cost increases would not result in savings.

The memo also pointed out that the new AW 139 helicopters used by the Air Corps were also being used by the UK coast guard for search-and-rescue work off the south coast of Britain and had "not earned a good reputation".

"They can only rescue a very small number of people and are poorly adapted for the work.

"The UK has decided [that it] will remove the AW 139s from its fleet in the next contract and go for a full-sized helicopter fleet, all of the same make.

"A point on the small size of the AW 139 is that it will be a very poor rescue craft in a mass-rescue situation off Dublin, Cork or Rosslare," the memo read.

It also said that the State would have to hold the risk of an accident or total write-off of a helicopter and would have to replace it rapidly to ensure continuity.

The memo pointed out that maritime search and rescue was dangerous work -- with the Air Corps suffering a tragic loss of a helicopter and crew in Waterford, the US coast guard suffered a similar loss in 2009, and the Irish Coast Guard had on occasion suffered serious damage to its machines.

The memo conceded that it was difficult to assess what the cost of the new contract would be, but that it was likely to be 40 per cent greater then current expenditure.

- JOHN DRENNAN and DON LAVERY

Sunday Independent

bettydear

Klunk001 wrote: »

Well spotted, lucky he was feet first.

there is a static line, but its not always used.http://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/icons/icon6.gif

bettydear

tippilot wrote: »

The AW139 is not up to the job to put it simply.

Dublin and Waterford are precisely the two bases that require an aircraft of the size of the S-61/92, given the ferry traffic from Dublin and Rosslare.

If you look at the West coast bases, they may not require the capacity of the S-61 but they certainly require it's range.

well thats where your wrong, there is lots of helicopter station over the east coast of ireland. between ireland and the uk, you could have four or five helicopters to deal with a major emergency of the irish coast. (in quick time)

so a smaller aircraft would be suited for the east coast, other then s92.

so educate yourself?

bettydear

Steyr wrote: »

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


Air Corps 'not equipped' to provide rescue services
Sunday Independent
By JOHN DRENNAN and DON LAVERY
Sunday January 02 2011

A national search-and-rescue helicopter service could not be carried out by the Irish Air Corps because it would cost tens of millions of euro for new aircraft, training and bases, a memo to Government has revealed.

There would be no cost savings if the service was carried out by the Air Corps, the memo released under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act said, pointing out that the Department of Defence withdrew from providing a limited service in 2003.

Last year, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey signed a controversial 10-year, €500m contract with a civilian operator to provide the service, more then twice the cost of the existing civilianised service.

According to Fine Gael's Fergus O'Dowd, who obtained the information under FoI, the new service will cost €150m more than the old contract over the 10 years.

There was some criticism as to why the Air Corps had not been asked to provide the service, or why its aircrew and aircraft was not used as part of search-and-rescue operations.

But a memo to Mr Dempsey, written by Chris Reynolds, director of the Irish Coast Guard, pointed out:

The Air Corps did not have aircraft able to reach out into the Atlantic from Coast Guard bases in Sligo and Limerick.

For the Air Corps to service the two bases, three to four new medium-load helicopters would be needed, costing up to €60m.

If existing Air Corps AW 139 helicopters were used at the two other bases in Dublin and Waterford, they would need two per base.

At €3,000 per flying hour, the four aircraft would need to be converted for their new role at a total cost of €8m, with six months' downtime for each aircraft.

Basing helicopters at Waterford would cost €500,000 a year.

Converting pilots and crew for maritime search and rescue would cost up to €380,000 per pilot for converting to aircraft type and role, and €56,000 for a crewman.

The memo also warned that crews that were trained could be lost to industry, with all the training and experience costs having been borne by the State.

It said that pilots and air crew in the military change roles and aircraft types many times in a career, needing a greater level of manpower and refresher training.

Civilian crews had one role with no changes. The net effect was that the Air Corps cost for additional crew, additional headquarters administration costs, allowances and other current cost increases would not result in savings.

The memo also pointed out that the new AW 139 helicopters used by the Air Corps were also being used by the UK coast guard for search-and-rescue work off the south coast of Britain and had "not earned a good reputation".

"They can only rescue a very small number of people and are poorly adapted for the work.

"The UK has decided [that it] will remove the AW 139s from its fleet in the next contract and go for a full-sized helicopter fleet, all of the same make.

"A point on the small size of the AW 139 is that it will be a very poor rescue craft in a mass-rescue situation off Dublin, Cork or Rosslare," the memo read.

It also said that the State would have to hold the risk of an accident or total write-off of a helicopter and would have to replace it rapidly to ensure continuity.

The memo pointed out that maritime search and rescue was dangerous work -- with the Air Corps suffering a tragic loss of a helicopter and crew in Waterford, the US coast guard suffered a similar loss in 2009, and the Irish Coast Guard had on occasion suffered serious damage to its machines.

The memo conceded that it was difficult to assess what the cost of the new contract would be, but that it was likely to be 40 per cent greater then current expenditure.

- JOHN DRENNAN and DON LAVERY

Sunday Independent

you have it all wrong, your information is so sad. you need to go off and get the proper stats???????????????????????????????????????????????????

goldie fish

bettydear wrote: »

you have it all wrong, your information is so sad. you need to go off and get the proper stats???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Maybe you should tell us?

Steyr

bettydear wrote: »

you have it all wrong, your information is so sad. you need to go off and get the proper stats???????????????????????????????????????????????????

:pac: Post of the day.

First off, Attack the post, not the Poster, and secondly as you can plainly and so obviously see I posted a News Article, so no I do not have it all wrong, I suggest if you feel so strongly and you know much much more you should try where the Article came from.

Steyr

bettydear wrote: »

well thats where your wrong, there is lots of helicopter station over the east coast of ireland. between ireland and the uk, you could have four or five helicopters to deal with a major emergency of the irish coast. (in quick time)

so a smaller aircraft would be suited for the east coast, other then s92.

so educate yourself?

What Aircraft do you recommend while factoring in that small helicopters have small cabin space/fuel et al.

How many Aircraft Stations are all over the East Coast bar the obvious one of Dublin.

You are correct that you would have 4+ helicopters if a Major disaster took place in the Irish Sea but they would come out of RAF Valley in the Form of Seakings and an S61N out of Dublin and possibly UK CG S61N* S92 which would have a longer loiter and ability to lift survivors than an AW139.

*Have the S61N's of the UK CG been retired?

punchdrunk

Steyr wrote: »

*Have the S61N's of the UK CG been retired?

yeah they're all up in Aberdeen,5 or 6 of them awaiting their faith!

bettydear

View Profile wrote: »

Nice. Didnt know the Air Corps trained for winching operations on to ships anymore.

as far as i know they never really stopped,,think they have a number of crews now. good to see?

Steyr

bettydear wrote: »

as far as i know they never really stopped,,think they have a number of crews now. good to see?

They have to maintain a certain standard of winching capability.