<article> Minister to study case for Air Corps's return to search-and-rescue activity

Tabnabs

MINISTER FOR the Marine Simon Coveney said there may be a case for the Air Corps to resume its search-and-rescue role on a long-term basis.

However, Mr Coveney said he did not think it would be possible on legal grounds to revisit the controversial €500 million contract signed with CHC Helicopters for new search-and-rescue aircraft.

Mr Coveney told The Irish Times that CHC Helicopters had been doing a “really good job” for the Irish Coast Guard, and he praised the work of rescue crews in last week’s search for the two Skerries fishermen who lost their lives.

However, he said he had raised concerns when in opposition over the decision to exclude the Air Corps from bidding when the new helicopter contract came up.

He believed there was a case for the Air Corps to resume this role, possibly on a shared basis, in the long term, subject to the agreement of Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter. “The first consideration is quality of service, which we have been getting, and secondly value for money,” Mr Coveney emphasised.

He assumed responsibility for search and rescue late last month as part of his attempt to rebuild a new department responsible for marine policy, as well as food and agriculture.

In 2004, the Air Corps was pulled out of search and rescue by the then defence minister Michael Smith, after 40 years.

In a related development, the RNLI says its latest all-weather class of lifeboat will be called the Shannon . It is the first time the name of an Irish river has been used to classify its lifeboats. Previous lifeboat classes have been named after rivers in England, Scotland and Wales. The Shannon class will have a top speed of 25 knots. Arklow lifeboat operations manager and RNLI honorary life governor Jimmy Tyrell said he was “thrilled with the news” as he has campaigned for many years for an RNLI lifeboat class to be named after an Irish river.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0412/1224294482289.html

dodgydes

Anyone know what capabilities the new choppers have with regard to air/sea rescue?

The Dauphin and Alloutte were the workhorses when the Air Corps were doing it.

Donny5

dodgydes wrote: »

Anyone know what capabilities the new choppers have with regard to air/sea rescue?

The Dauphin and Alloutte were the workhorses when the Air Corps were doing it.

No doubt Steyr will know more, but CHC use AW139s for some of their Canadian SAR contracts, so they must be at least serviceable in the role.

goldie fish

Donny5 wrote: »

No doubt Steyr will know more, but CHC use AW139s for some of their Canadian SAR contracts, so they must be at least serviceable in the role.

The AW139 is being withdrawn from SAR by HM Coastguard as the hover is very nose up. Makes life very difficult for the pilot, and the winch operator..not to mention the casualty.

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

No doubt Steyr will know more, but CHC use AW139s for some of their Canadian SAR contracts, so they must be at least serviceable in the role.

not really - the AW139's are serving with the current UKCG SAR force, but the UKCG is so unhappy with their performance that it wrote them out of the ill-fated SAR-H contract that just got binned due to 'irregularities'.

if you think about how much an S-92 only force, rather than an S-92/AW-139force, would cost, you begin to get an understanding of quite how much the UKCG don't like it.

looks like politicing to me - no one who has spent more than 30 mins looking into this believes that either the AW-139, nor the AC, has any part to play in SAR-H provision. the macheiavellian angle might suggest that the minister gets political points from re-opening the debate, 'discovers' its a non-starter, and then blames the AC for being a screw-up, allowing the DOD to privatise the Fisheries Protection, MATS and Air Ambulance roles, and return battlefield support/mobility to the Army proper.

political points and € - a match made in heaven for any politician...

goldie fish

OS119 wrote: »

not really - the AW139's are serving with the current UKCG SAR force, but the UKCG is so unhappy with their performance that it wrote them out of the ill-fated SAR-H contract that just got binned due to 'irregularities'.

if you think about how much an S-92 only force, rather than an S-92/AW-139force, would cost, you begin to get an understanding of quite how much the UKCG don't like it.

looks like politicing to me - no one who has spent more than 30 mins looking into this believes that either the AW-139, nor the AC, has any part to play in SAR-H provision. the macheiavellian angle might suggest that the minister gets political points from re-opening the debate, 'discovers' its a non-starter, and then blames the AC for being a screw-up, allowing the DOD to privatise the Fisheries Protection, MATS and Air Ambulance roles, and return battlefield support/mobility to the Army proper.

political points and € - a match made in heaven for any politician...

The minister is a yachtie, he is playing to the crowd.
Would be more in his line to encourage his yachting brethern to obey rules for prevention of collision at sea(steam does not give way to sail when steam is a 100000 t supertanker and sail is a 16 foot yacht...) and carry enough fuel to get home and not be calling out the fantastic RNLI when they run out of fuel...

Klunk001

By the looks of the IT article FG are telling us publicly the next SAR contract is to go ahead, after been reviewed (as Mr O Dowd was requesting) I take it. That the IAC might get another crack at it subject to meeting certain requirements and they have ten years to get themselves in order. It's over to the IAC now.

Steyr

dodgydes wrote: »

Anyone know what capabilities the new choppers have with regard to air/sea rescue?

The Dauphin and Alloutte were the workhorses when the Air Corps were doing it.

The Alouette 3's were an iconic Aircraft and the Dauphins were actually bought to replace them but they soldiered on.

The alouettes conducted SAR overland and along Ireland's Coast line, they only had basic nav equipment and a single engine and as a result were limited to daylight SAR and could really never go more than a few miles out to sea ( but they did go way farther ), although their bravery shows that they conducted night missions only if deemed extremely necessary to save lives which they did.


Apart from SAR they also conducted ATCP Army/Garda Co-Op's (Control/Command/RECCE/Border Op's/Pilot Conversion/ARW Fast Roping etc the list goes on).

The Irish Dauphins were a VERY SPECIAL breed of Dauphin, they were equipped for SAR with advanced computerised navigation/autopilot/transit to autohover and 2 were equipped ( Navalised ) for ship Operations.

The Irish Dauphins were the first in the world to have 5 screen EFIS ( Better known today as a glass cockpit ) which also meant they were day/night capable and flew over my house many a night coming in from SAR off the west coast, I got to see these many a time while on the pad at UCHG and talk to the crews especially at The Salthill Airshow and see them conducting HIFR ( Helicopter In Flight Refuelling ) off LE Eithne in Galway Bay, I remember their paint job which was creamy/white/grey used to go slightly greenish due to wear and tare.

They were great servants to the Country and the IAC.

The AW139 on the other hand is really only capable of overland SAR, they are very advanced and have a ton of speed compared to the Dauphin or Alouette 3, but they wont ever be a true SAR bird as Goldie Fish has said and can be viewed in videos she is very nose up which is difficult for SAR Op's, it is mostly used for Army transport/Patient Transport, they can and do conduct fast roping as do the EC135 Fleet.

Steyr

Klunk001 wrote: »

By the looks of the IT article FG are telling us publicly the next SAR contract is to go ahead, after been reviewed (as Mr O Dowd was requesting) I take it. That the IAC might get another crack at it subject to meeting certain requirements and they have ten years to get themselves in order. It's over to the IAC now.

They do maintain an SAR Capability but it is limited at best.

Klunk001

dodgydes wrote: »

Anyone know what capabilities the new choppers have with regard to air/sea rescue?

The Dauphin and Alloutte were the workhorses when the Air Corps were doing it.

Very limited at the moment. As stated in previous threads upgrades would be needed. Do a search on the aviation forum, it has been well covered there.

Klunk001

Donny5 wrote: »

No doubt Steyr will know more, but CHC use AW139s for some of their Canadian SAR contracts, so they must be at least serviceable in the role.

I don''t believe CHC do SAR in Canada. The canadian air force look after that using 101's.

You will find a list here http://www.chcsar.com/ where CHC provide SAR.

xflyer

It will be reviewed and found not to be practical currently not least because of the current state of the country's finances. The amount of money needed to be spent could not be justified given that we already have a 24/7 SAR service. Why duplicate it?

No, as OS119 pointed out it's politics. The review will justify the SAR contract, quite rightly in my opinion and finally put to bed the fantasy that the Air Corps are capable of any practical SAR with it's current organisation.

I've said it before the Air Corps could do SAR, if it was completely re-organised in terms of it's recruitment and training, expanded and proper SAR equipment bought. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Morpheus

what capability would the 500m pencilled in for the CHC SAR contract over 10 years, buy the AC that WOULD allow them to retake the role from CHC?

Tabnabs

goldie fish wrote: »

The minister is a yachtie, he is playing to the crowd.
Would be more in his line to encourage his yachting brethern to obey rules for prevention of collision at sea(steam does not give way to sail when steam is a 100000 t supertanker and sail is a 16 foot yacht...) and carry enough fuel to get home and not be calling out the fantastic RNLI when they run out of fuel...

Way off topic and a post playing to the crowd if ever I saw one. You know little of the colregs and would be wise not to throw out comments that make this painfully clear. Goggling rules for prevention of collision at sea and having an intricate knowledge and backed up by experience on all types and sizes of vessels are two very different things.

goldie fish

Tabnabs wrote: »

Way off topic and a post playing to the crowd if ever I saw one. You know little of the colregs and would be wise not to throw out comments that make this painfully clear. Goggling rules for prevention of collision at sea and having an intricate knowledge and backed up by experience on all types and sizes of vessels are two very different things.

You don't know me as well as you think you do.
Which experience do you think would me most valuable?
Small motor craft? Yes
Large Bulk Cargo vessel? Yes
Medium sized passenger ferry? Yes.
Mirror/Optimist/windsurfer? Yes.
Granted I never worked on Tankers, car carriers or Boxboats, but Navigating a cargo vessel through the Traffic Seperation scheme in either the Irish Sea or the Dover Straits I thought would have been enough to justify my opinion, but maybe you know me better?

The FACT, in MY EXPERIENCE is most yacht owners know nothing of colregs, apart from hearing in the yacht club once that steam gives way to sail, and thats all they need to know.
Keeping a good lookout is not necessary if you are a WAFI.
No matter how incompetent you are in your sailing toy, the RNLI will always be there to bail you out...
:mad:

goldie fish

In any event, Simon's contribution is pointless, as the contract is still the responsibility of the Dept of Transport.

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

what capability would the 500m pencilled in for the CHC SAR contract over 10 years, buy the AC that WOULD allow them to retake the role from CHC?

the flippant answer? lots very tasty helicopters that wouldn't leave the ground after 3pm.

the not so flippant answer? lots of very tasty helicopters that wouldn't leave the ground after 3pm.

you can buy an S-92 with SAR fit for $35million or so, but you'll need 10-12 of them to keep 5 or 6 available with fully trained crews, you'll need four operating bases with enough (expensively) trained groundcrew to keep them servicable, and you'll need an astonshing number of the winged master race to have 5 aircraft with fully trained crews available on a 24/7 basis. you'll have to train them - how many IAC air crew are SAR qualified, and then qualified to instruct others? and then you'll have to recruit the additional people and pay them - and their retention bonuses - and then pay their pensions.


leave it to CHC, they're better at it, and they're cheaper.

Tabnabs

goldie fish wrote: »

You don't know me as well as you think you do.
Which experience do you think would me most valuable?
Small motor craft? Yes
Large Bulk Cargo vessel? Yes
Medium sized passenger ferry? Yes.
Mirror/Optimist/windsurfer? Yes.
Granted I never worked on Tankers, car carriers or Boxboats, but Navigating a cargo vessel through the Traffic Seperation scheme in either the Irish Sea or the Dover Straits I thought would have been enough to justify my opinion, but maybe you know me better?

The FACT, in MY EXPERIENCE is most yacht owners know nothing of colregs, apart from hearing in the yacht club once that steam gives way to sail, and thats all they need to know.
Keeping a good lookout is not necessary if you are a WAFI.
No matter how incompetent you are in your sailing toy, the RNLI will always be there to bail you out...
:mad:

Your post really proves my point, if you have a sound and working knowledge of the Colregs backed with genuine experience wouldn't make such foolish statements. I see you've never sailed on a yacht, much less undertaken passages at sea. But you know all about how these boats operate and the mentality of their skippers. I would suggest your experience isn't very extensive.

Yacht under sail, 3 points to starboard, steady bearing, what do you do?

that kind of questioning ring any bells?

Morpheus

the flippant answer?
sound the general alert
go to battle stations
man the forward batteries
give the order,
<<HARD TO STARBOARD, RAMMING SPEED!>>


wait for the aircorps to wake up a couple of officers and hope that one of the AW139s can reach you in time as the RNLI are apparently out of fuel...

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

I've said it before the Air Corps could do SAR, if it was completely re-organised in terms of it's recruitment and training, expanded and proper SAR equipment bought. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

I agree with you that they could..but I also think it should be left to CHC who are doing a brilliant job and to let the IAC concentrate more on Army Co-op with the 139/135 Fleet.

punchdrunk

people are talking about 500 million as if CHC are flying pallets of gold bars back to Canada like they've just pulled off some kind of heist
this isn't "the Canadian job" some will have you believe

500 million over 10 years
50 million per year
4 bases
that's 12.5 million per year per Base

if anyone can show the IAC doing the job to the same level of service,for the same price I'll eat my shoes

goldie fish

Tabnabs wrote: »

Your post really proves my point, if you have a sound and working knowledge of the Colregs backed with genuine experience wouldn't make such foolish statements. I see you've never sailed on a yacht, much less undertaken passages at sea. But you know all about how these boats operate and the mentality of their skippers. I would suggest your experience isn't very extensive.

Yacht under sail, 3 points to starboard, steady bearing, what do you do?

that kind of questioning ring any bells?

Nothing, considering I'm sitting in my house.
Does Asgard II count as a yacht?

Tell me what I'm in and I'll give you a proper answer.
Your suggestion would be incorrect.

goldie fish

Tabnabs wrote: »

Yacht under sail, 3 points to starboard, steady bearing, what do you do?

that kind of questioning ring any bells?

I'll Play ball here so, for s&g.

Steady bearing would indicate that we are on a "colission course". So I will visibly alter my course to starboard. He should do likewise.
Rule 14.

I won't be ringing any bells though. You didn't tell me how big my vessel is.. I'll toot the horn once though.

However, because I have 2 balls hanging vertically with a diamond in between, I'm gonna be ploughing into the wafi. Cos Steam does not always give way to sail.

savagecabbages

well I know more about sailing than both of ye so there!!
anyhew...

how big is the chc fleet? is it pooled with the uk fleet or a fully seperate irish operation?

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

...how big is the chc fleet? is it pooled with the uk fleet or a fully seperate irish operation?

i think that theoretically its a seperate operation, but under the UK SAR-H contract that just got binned for corperate naughtieness, and the incoming Irish SAR contract, CHC would have 30-odd S-92A's in the UK and 5 in Ireland.

i cannot possibly imagine that there won't be airframes swaps when the normal attrition starts to kick in - if an 'Irish' S-92 is having its gearbox replaced, and another swallows an Albatross, i imagine the immediate reinforcements will come from the 'UK' fleet, (and vice versa) with CHC then digging into its bag of spare helicopters to make up the shortfall.

personally, i've never understood why the UK and Ireland didn't opt for a joint contract - one contract would doubtless have been cheaper than two, it would have cemented the SAR/CG ties between the two (infact you could be looking at a joint coastguard - we already share the RNLI and Trinity House, our MRT's interoperate and our SAR regions are contiguous) it would also probably lead to a joint - and cheaper - fisheries protection contract.

madness.

Steyr

savagecabbages wrote: »

how big is the chc fleet? is it pooled with the uk fleet or a fully seperate irish operation?

CHC Ireland.

Solely Ireland Fleet. They are rotated from base to base but normally they stay put.

Rescue115 is normally S61N "EI-GCE"-Shannon.

Rescue116 is normally S61N "EI-MES"-Dublin.

Rescue117 is normally S61N "EI-SAR"-Waterford.

Rescue118 is normally S61N "EI-RCG"-Sligo.

There are also 2 spare Sikorsky S61N's.

One is kept at Shannon with Rescue115 and one is kept at Waterford with Rescue117.

The 2 back up S61N's are EI-CZN and EI-CXS, EI-CXS was formerly "257" of The Irish Air Corps and used to be based at Sligo.

There was another one also "EI-CNL" but she was cancelled from the Irish register and sent to the UK as of 05/05/2009.

savagecabbages

So thats 6 to provide 4 operational.
Why are people suggesting the AC would need 10-12 to fulfill the role?

Just looking at the chc website, they only have 4 bases in the uk, and are saying they have:
4x S-92
3x AW139
where did that figure of 30 come from?
what other players are involved int the uk operation?
i see the raf have 6 bases, and are still using the venerable sea kings...

Whats plan b for the uk setup, after sar-h has been scrapped?

punchdrunk

That figure of 30 was because CHC were supposed to take over all uk sar
So 22 and 202 squadron RAF (the yellow sea kings) plus all the RN SAR squadrons

Realistically with SAR-H dead in the water all they can do is give CHC an extension for a couple of years to maintain the status quo
Whilst they figure out what to do,either re-tender the contract
or re-equip the Sea King squadrons with new machines as there getting a bit
Long in the tooth

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

So thats 6 to provide 4 operational.
Why are people suggesting the AC would need 10-12 to fulfill the role?...

two reasons - i know of no helicopter operation in the world, ever, that has managed to keep 4 aircraft available 24/7 for 10 years with only 6 airframes. ever. the simple version is that there will always be one aircraft having something fixed as part of pre-planned maintainance, leaving only one spare aircraft to keep the other 4 flying operationally - no bird strikes, no screw ups, no nothing. how likely do you think that is given the number of call outs, and the conditions in which many of of those call-outs take place?

secondly, unlike CHC, the IAC will need to train complete novices to become air and groundcrew. that requires airframes that aren't 400 miles out into the north eastern Atlantic in a hurricane in March at 3am over a boat thats sinking and on fire. CHC has the advantage of recruiting its people already trained in SAR ops, they will, by and large, only require 'stick time' to stay current. any crew that do need to 'dry' training, rather than on-the-job training, will be trained 'offshore' and outside of the Irish SAR contract by CHC themselves.

theres an add-on: no CHC operated helicopter will ever be tasked to take a minister to the opening of an off-licence. does anyone here believe the same of an IAC operated fleet?

Klunk001

savagecabbages wrote: »

So thats 6 to provide 4 operational.
Why are people suggesting the AC would need 10-12 to fulfill the role?

There are penalties for a reduction in service. Six helo's to keep four online works well at the moment for the IRCG.

The military in general have no such penaties to pay for lack of service.
You will find internationally that military helo ops require two to three airframes to keep one flying, that is their way of doing things.

The IAC have six 139's at the mo, similar to the IRCG fleet numbers,are four of them available at any one time??

savagecabbages

Thats fair enough more of less answers some of my queries.

So are chc Ireland managing to keep 4 operational with 6 airframes?

Like the rest of us on here, I dont think the IAC can provide a good value service without major changes from the top-down... In fairness the RAF need their search and rescue squadrons, whose primary role is military search and rescue, with the civil role taking secondary precedence.

How do other countries with similar sized militaries manage sar roles?
Also i think if the aircraft were painted red and white with 'search and rescue' written across the side that would be enough to deter any minister from using it! Imagine the papers the next day...
Same argument for having the 139's painted in a camo scheme.

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

...Also i think if the aircraft were painted red and white with 'search and rescue' written across the side that would be enough to deter any minister from using it! Imagine the papers the next day...

oh, there'd be a fudge - if the IAC had, say, 12 S-92 airframes to keep 6 operational in the SAR role, you'd find that 2 or 3 would be be, quite reasonably, held in a central training and conversion unit - they may not need all the most expensive SAR kit (even in the most expensively trained air arms, the last elements of 'polishing' are done in operational units rather than conversion units or training schools) and they might well not have a SAR paint job - and it is these aircraft that would be vunerable to becoming 'state assets', rather than a purely SAR, and only SAR tool.


as to how CHC keep four aircraft operational and available 24/7 with 6 airframes? i have no idea - witchcraft perhaps...

savagecabbages

Yes i suppose trying to 'keep' the assets for use only on search and rescue duties is easier said than done in a country with so few machines to go around...

I suppose the only real alternative to chc is to allow the Coast guard to actually run the operation themselves purchasing aircraft and contract crews themselves...

maybe i'm going into the land of what if here...
Perhaps there is merit re-structuring the coast guard and naval service into one entity where they could provide their own maritime patrol aircraft (and top cover!), leaving the air corps to concentrate on what they claim is their primary role anyway, that of army support. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the US coast guard model...
It could make for more effective use of resources across the board.

Its just a thought, so feel free to point out the flaws of this idea which I haven't put a whole pile of thought into...

Klunk001

OS119 wrote: »

as to how CHC keep four aircraft operational and available 24/7 with 6 airframes? i have no idea - witchcraft perhaps...

Perhaps:D 99% availability at all bases last year. Figures supplied by IRCG and published on a facebook page earlier this year.

By the way, a good start for the IAC getting back into SAR would be to provide top cover on a 24/7 basis, (or when required) see how that goes and take it from there.

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

...Its just a thought, so feel free to point out the flaws of this idea which I haven't put a whole pile of thought into...

its an excellent idea, put all the 'constabulary' and civil maritime tasks in one pot, and keep the military bits seperate.

theres a huge number of maritime tasks in UK and Irish waters that would be best off put in one pot and managed by one central agency - if you think about all the seperate fisheries protection, anti-pollution, SAR Top Cover, patient transport, and drugs interdiction flights that both the UK and Ireland do seperately, and most by individual agencies, the cost savings of having one joint maritime agency with either its own assets, or with one contract with someone like CHC providing all the air assets would be astonishing.

there's no real barrier to such an agency covering both juristictions - both countries operate 'dual-key' chains of command with their militaries while overseas, and both have experience of members of other countries law enforcement agencies acting officially within their juristictions.

the shinners might hit the roof, but thats hardly an indication of any ideas worth...

Steyr

Klunk001 wrote: »

By the way, a good start for the IAC getting back into SAR would be to provide top cover on a 24/7 basis, (or when required) see how that goes and take it from there.

1 Casa to Shannon and 1 to Cork.

Donny5

Klunk001 wrote: »

Perhaps:D 99% availability at all bases last year. Figures supplied by IRCG and published on a facebook page earlier this year.

By the way, a good start for the IAC getting back into SAR would be to provide top cover on a 24/7 basis, (or when required) see how that goes and take it from there.

Those statistics indicate extremely poor availability. 98.61% average for all bases means each base had an average of 4 days 20 hours downtime last year.

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

Those statistics indicate extremely poor availability. 98.61% average for all bases means each base had an average of 4 days 20 hours downtime last year.

it depends what the requirement for availability was - if it was 'have all four bases able to launch a fully servicable aircraft at 30mins notice 24/7' then its fcuking astounding, the RAF couldn't get their aircraft into the sky at that rate without the use of a nuclear weapon.

its vitally important to understand that helicopters require a very strict maintainence schedule that follows every flying hour - if you send an aircraft out into the north atlantic for 6hrs and rant the fcuk out of it its going to need a good bit of down time before its available to fly again.

you could, in a dire emergency, use that aircraft without doing all the 'after x number of flying hours, replace/check y componant' maintainence, but if you were lucky you'd start getting mission critical equipment going U/S in flight, and if you were unlucky you'd see a $35 million helicopter and its crew hit the water at 100knts.

Klunk001

Donny5 wrote: »

Those statistics indicate extremely poor availability. 98.61% average for all bases means each base had an average of 4 days 20 hours downtime last year.

.

Are you for real :eek:. Helicopters that are on average over fourty years old, one been the oldest 61 still flying (48 years of age) with well over 30,000 hours not available for 5 days out of 365. If thats poor availability well you are going to be well disappointed when you see stats for IAC helo availability. The last figures I saw for them that were made public by the previous minister for transport was 33% availability, do the figures on that.:D

punchdrunk

Donny5 wrote: »

Those statistics indicate extremely poor availability. 98.61% average for all bases means each base had an average of 4 days 20 hours downtime last year.

your having a laugh!

25 years ago you'd have been waiting for a Dauphin to get airborne from Dublin or Finner,then refuel at Shannon/Cork/Blacksod etc and then get out to sea to look for you without any FLIR camera,and heaven forbid there was a few of you or else the little chopper would have to leave some of you for a return trip or for else a lifeboat to come and get to you
so lets not forget how far we've come

our service is world class.for a small country we are well covered by four bases well overlapping in coverage and even if one went off line your still far closer to the next base than you would be in many other nations

98% availability is recongised by the UK as a realistic availability figure for Helicopter operations,they wrote the book on Heli SAR

www.dft.gov.uk/mca/2001_coverage_report-9.pdf

The working group also considered that another fundamental criteria for SAR helicopters was
that the helicopter should be available at all times throughout its operating times, notwithstanding
it being deployed on a SAR task. Recognising practicality, the group felt that 98% was a realistic
figure for helicopter availability. Availability means that the helicopter is ‘on-state’ ie the aircraft
is serviceable, correctly roled for SAR and ready to take off as soon as the crew have completed
their planning, pre-start checks and starting procedures; it also assumes that a crew is
immediately available. In addition, it was acknowledged that to achieve this level of availability
for 1 aircraft, it was necessary to provide a second aircraft that could be on-state whilst routine
and minor servicing of the primary aircraft was being carried out.

only once in an entire year did the all base average drop below 98%

punchdrunk

just to note that alot of the times shown as offline would be because getting all this gear...



out of the U/S machine and loaded onto the backup takes quite a while to get it stowed away and checked(and double checked) hence breaking the 15 minutes airborne rule i.e there's probably a helicopter there that's flyable,it's just going to be a bit slower than normal getting off the ground

Klunk001

http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/sar-2011-uk-urged-to-reconsider-sar/8828/

An interesting little article, paticularly the last bit. Maybe a chance for the IAC to do their stuff now and provide top cover for the UK, as well as ourselves, when needed. I believe the French might be on board also.

If it doesn't happen, well.. maybe you might see a joint agreement between the IRCG and MCA to provide their own dedicated top cover service in partnership.

xflyer

It simply isn't realistic to think the Air Corps could provide 24/7 SAR cover. They couldn't. Potentially they could provide a back up service for major disasters or other situations where more than one helicopter is needed.

Apart from buying new helicopters there's the recruitment issue. You need a constant supply of pilots and aircrew all of whom need to trained from scratch unless there was a policy of signing up experienced pilots from elsewhere. The Air Corps is hardly likely to be an attractive career option to ex RAF/RN or offshore pilots assuming the Air Corps could even stomach bringing in outsiders. But without this backbone of experience it would take years to get ready to provide the service. But of course as soon as they were experienced they would clear off to fly for CHC or someone else.

Then there's the basing issue. The relevant crews would have to live in the area they're based along with maintenance crews and the usual military support people. How likely is that going to be popular with military personnel? Or even affordable, unlike a civil set up. Each base would in effect be a military post.

Yes it could be done by expanding the Air Corps in a way never before considered. How likely is that in this day and age?

Klunk001

Lets just park IAC heli SAR thing for the moment, that just isn't a runner any time soon. Why is it not reaslistic ? Are you saying the IAC are not in a position either to provide top cover 24/7. They have two Casa's which are not as maintainance intensive as helo's, enought crews to run a 24hr roster system and the infastructure at Bal, forget about basing at Cork and Shannon for the moment. What is the problem

By the way having read some previous posts on the forum, being an IAC pilot does not guarantee you a job in SAR with CHC. I believe out of approx 32 pilots currently doing SAR in this country approx 4 are ex IAC with previous SAR experience, something that is very short on the ground with current IAC crews.

xflyer

The Casas could provide 24/7 top cover but wasn't there a situation lately were they couldn't and a civilian manned aircraft came over from the UK? Indeed why not simply civilianise the top cover? There is no real reason it should be a military function.

Interesting statistic about the pilots but not surprising really. I wonder what proportion are ex HM forces? I don't know if I'd read too much into that. I would say that a fair proportion of ex Air Corps pilots go into the airlines. When you are a family man as most would be by the time they leave, hazardous flying like SAR loses it's appeal as does going overseas to work particularly when you have a young family. Indeed the author of 'Nine Lives' David Courtney is an example of that. He left and joined Ryanair.

Trotter

Would it be too much to hope that Simon Coveney would read this thread? I suspect a lot of his briefings may include a lot of IAC nostalgia. The IAC personnel saved many a life and some even gave their own, however CHC are surely the best option in the medium to long term future.

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

The Casas could provide 24/7 top cover but wasn't there a situation lately were they couldn't and a civilian manned aircraft came over from the UK?

Yup that is correct, see here: http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=17324&highlight=Top+cover

xflyer wrote: »

Indeed the author of 'Nine Lives' David Courtney is an example of that. He left and joined Ryanair.

Have you met Mr C? Absolute gent.

Klunk001

xflyer wrote: »

The Casas could provide 24/7 top cover but wasn't there a situation lately were they couldn't and a civilian manned aircraft came over from the UK? Indeed why not simply civilianise the top cover? There is no real reason it should be a military function.

As Steyr has added the link in question there does appear to have been some issues. The fact that the spotlight is on the IAC now in relation to this IT article, maybe things are about to change. If it doesn't change, well other options will have to be looked at... I would think.

Morpheus

not speculating ... but (",)

I know that 20 IAC pers are currently about to undergo either full EMT or the paramed training course with DFB I believe... could be standard requirement ... could also be in order to be able to station parameds on aircraft.....

was that a ball hopping?

Klunk001

Ant idea how long it takes to train up from say first responder to Phecc EMT, Paramedic ?
If true, that's alot of crew being released to do this. Must be quiet enought in Bal.

xflyer

Steyr wrote: »

Have you met Mr C? Absolute gent.

No, but no doubt we'll cross paths eventually.

Interesting about the IAC sending people for paramedic training. If you think about there is a certain logic even there isn't a plan to pitch for SAR. Suppose there was a major accident where all helicopters were called on. Better to have a paramedic on every chopper. It makes sense.

In any case it would be useful in career terms particularly since CHC require that qualification now for their non pilot crew.