Air Corps Question

Preset No.3

This may seem like a stupid question and one that will probably be easily answered. I do not wish to get into an argument over the want/need or anything like that for the Irish Air Corps BUT:

We know the extensive uses of the GIV and the Learjet, same for the CASA maritime patrol, and even the use of the helicopter fleet to a certain extent. Are the 139's used abroad? Why do we need 6?

Its the PC-9 that I have a hard time getting my head around. Ok, its a trainer. Seems like an expensive trainer to me. Could someone explain the process by which this aircraft was chosen to replace the very old jet fleet.

Speaking of the fast jet fleet, and this is the part where I am going to sound stupid. Height of terrorism etc etc, but why do we not have some sort of fast jets that can intercept the amount of aircraft that fly over our airspace. Example, commercial aircraft 200 miles off the coast of Galway, reports a hi jacking on board etc, where does the aircraft come from? The UK?

Its when I saw the pictures of the retired US army aircraft in the boneyard that I was thinking, some of the these birds must be airworthy.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055093842&page=147

Could the Irish Government not pick up some of these intercept aircraft for a song? 4 aircraft with spare parts from other machines. Would this not be better than seeing the PC-9's doing circuits of BAL?

I know its not as simple as the Irish saying, Hello USA, can you give us 4 F-16's to protect our airspace but then again, can it????

There is a few here..............

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/General-Dynamics-F-16A/1930093/L/&sid=c661525d3672a3e5e52c71e25a39023b

280special

This has been discussed several times including here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59204088

I am sure some of the more experienced members can direct you to some of the better discussions.

Given the current economic situation there is no hope of an expansion of the Air Corp, we will be lucky if they dont go for a downsizing. Currently we are in a situation where we are dependant on a neighbouring state for our Air Defence. Given the fact that that neighbour is seriously reducing the size of its airforce and is in a much more dangerous situation than us, with regards to possible terrorist attacks, we will be defenceless if the UK finds itself trying to handle multiple hijacked airliners or other airborne threats.

A crazy situation but sadly its the reality of where we are.

xflyer

MicB.............stovepipe will give a better insight.

But you should know that Ireland was removed as country that would receive miliitary aid from the USA because it voted in favour of a particular UN law that would result in members of the US military being accused of breaches of human rights.

The fact that we never ever received military aid from the USA is neither here nor there. But we won't receive it now because we like to pretend we are neutral. So we pay full price.

shamrock421

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Its the PC-9 that I have a hard time getting my head around. Ok, its a trainer. Seems like an expensive trainer to me.

Seems like good value to me. Considering the fact that after there cadetship they get sent straight to the Prestige Cessna 172 Fighter Rocket Bucket Squadron. Only people who have learned how to fly on a cheap operating aircraft like a PC-9 can fly a Cessna 172 to such a high standard.

Also, its worth noting that the Irish goverment also teach the art of rotary flight to new pilots in a EC-135.
They looked at the R44 and S300CBi at first but there operating cost was much more than the EC-135.

Ok, to be fair, the above comment isnt serious lads, but you have to wonder dont you on who makes the decisions in the Don sometimes and the logic behind it. The air corps do a great job to be fair with that they are given.

xflyer

Part of the rationale behind the PC9s was pilot retention during the Celtic Tiger years. Pilots were leaving because there was no attraction in flying ancient 1950s jets.

There is no chance of getting fast jets. It would be analagous to you buying an old Ferrari relatively cheaply. But you couldn't use it as the maintenance costs, consumable costs, fuel and insurance costs would be crippling.

Old jets are maintenance nightmares. They're expensive to operate, need a lot of infrastructure, a ground based military radar would be needed. That in itself would blow the Air Corps budget in one fell swoop. Plus they crash a lot so pilots would be killed and replacements for both jets and pilots needed. Training would be a huge issue at all levels in the Air Corps.

It's a non runner and will never happen.

The AW139s wouldn't be used abroad. The Air Corps lacks the ability to deploy anywhere away from Bal for more than a few days. Plus they're not really militarised helicopters. Basically executive helicopters painted Olive Drab.

Not a pretty picture really.

dechand

What crashes have the Irish air force had with their jets?

Davidth88

I must admit similar thoughts have crossed my mind.

If you want to train pilots so they can fly the exec jets/helicopters , send them to Cranwell , after all a lot of other air forces do exactly that .

To me they smell of a vanity project .

Wasn't there some talk of the IAC getting some Saab Drakens when the Swedes were retiring them ?

westdub

Will people never get the fact that we can not afford to run a fleet of fast jets even if we got them for free..... The cost or flying and maintaining a jet like a F16 is roughly €3000 a hour....and that's only the jets... you then need a Radar system that can support them @ approx €50 million, then you need to buy the missiles that they fire @ roughly $85,000 each and you need to fire a few each year to keep the pilots skills up... then add the cost of training the pilots , in 2005 it was costing the RAF nearly £2 million to train each fast jet pilot not including type conversion..

RAF Pilot Training

Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of training a pilot (a) through and (b) by direct entry to the Royal Air Force. [15667]

Mr. Touhig: The difference in the cost of training a pilot through the University Air Squadron and direct entry is shown in the following table.
Pilot training costs
£

Pilot type Cost
Fast jet
University air squadron 1,857,541
Direct entrant 1,848,181
Multi engine
University air squadron 400,298
Direct entrant 390,938
Rotary wing
University air squadron 581,323
Direct entrant 571,963




Note:
Costs exclude operational conversion unit training.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051010/text/51010w05.htm
would you agree for the tax rate to be 80% so you can say we have jets?

I would love a Ferrari but even if I got one for free I could never afford to keep it either... :rolleyes:

dechand

what would make Cranwell better than the Don for trainlng pilots?
Would it not be better to get the Irish air force pilots to pay for their training anyway ? at least then they might get a different calibre of candiddate .

roundymac

dechand wrote: »

What crashes have the Irish air force had with their jets?

Don't know jet's, the last two crashes that I know about were the PC9 that crashed into the hill side in Mayo, both pilots were killed, and the Dauphin that crashed returning from a SAR in Waterford, late eighties/ early nineties, all four crew were lost.

westdub

dechand wrote: »

what would make Cranwell better than the Don for trainlng pilots?
Would it not be better to get the Irish air force pilots to pay for their training anyway ? at least then they might get a different calibre of candiddate .

Whats the Irish Air Force? We have a Air Corps..... :rolleyes:

They have never lost a Jet.. although a Vampire had a close call and ended with the only ejection from a Air Corps aircraft......

Cadet McPartland was on a spinning exercise in a Vampire, with an instructor. The aircraft entered the spin which went "flat". After several attempts to get the aircraft out of the spin, the instructor gave the order to eject and jettisoned the canopy. McPartland ejected and the exhaust of the seat's rocket and/or the alteration of the aircraft's C of G allowed the instructor's input to get the aircraft out of the spin. He made a successful return to base whilst the cadet astonished locals by descending safely by parachute.

The PC9s are also used for training the army on tactics when dealing with aircraft attack and when VIPs visit they also do CAP to provide protection.. Can we hire the RAF to do this also?

tricky D

roundymac wrote: »

Don't know jet's, the last two crashes that I know about were the PC9 that crashed into the hill side in Mayo, both pilots were killed, and the Dauphin that crashed returning from a SAR in Waterford, late eighties/ early nineties, all four crew were lost.

Also Marchetti 223 crashed in 1990 which killed Lt Gavin Foynes RIP.

xflyer

what would make Cranwell better than the Don for trainlng pilots?
Would it not be better to get the Irish air force pilots to pay for their training anyway ? at least then they might get a different calibre of candiddate .

They certainly would.:eek: A millionaires club. :cool: It costs about a €100k to train a civil pilot. I hate to think what it costs to train an Air Corps pilot.

Klunk001

I believe a brain drain is on the the way within the IAC. Due to the upcoming change in public pensions up the 20 pilots are about to leave the nest at Bal. I know some are going to Aer Lingus, some are going to guess who.... The auld enemy, CHC to fly SAR:D

Mickey_D

I have to say, there's nothing more that pisses me off when i see the amount of money being wasted by the air corr....

It seems to me that when the pilots are finished their initial training on the PC9 that they do nothing but play snooker, pool and exercise during rest of the 7 hours of the day (on average) that they waste at the tax payers expense.

On another point, about the aircraft; the PC9 was not initially designed for pilot training, but it was for pilot transition from SEP to jet aircraft.
I cant even imagine who came up with the idea to give brand new trainee ''pilot'' near 1000 shaft horsepower the first time they probably fly an aircraft.

Another part of the Air Corr i think is completely stupid also, is the selection process; In my opinion, how the f**k can you give somebody a job flying an airplane by giving them an aptitude test etc. etc..

However at the end of the tunnel there is light, I agree that we an a country need the fisheries patrolling, presidential transport, air ambulance and gardai air unit. As to why they needed 8 aircraft to train bookworms in i'll never understand.

In all fairness, If i was to go hire out a 172, i would take off and make it pretty much anywhere in the country within an hour if i was on a ''terrorist misson'' and i'd be suprised if a PC9 in bal would be hot and ready in 30 mins (and thats being generous as they'll probably be busy drinking tea and out running)

If i could shut down 80% of the IAC i would, and i'd sleep better than ever at night!

Anyway thats my twopence worth on the biggest waste the country has in it's budget.

OUT

And PS: Any pilot in the IAC is just there because they think it makes them look cool for some reason in my opinion. All i can say is i cant imagine spending on average one hour a day for the rest of my life within the only place in the world i'd land (BAL) is pathetic by all mean. They're not pilots

dechand

Oh no , another one of those guys with a chip on his shoulder , plenty of anti air corps info in the previous post.
Let me guess , a guy who either didnt get in or a guy who doesnt even have the basics to even apply in the first place.

Mickey_D

@ dechand:

No chips on my shoulder, Was just my opinion.
Never applied for it and never would.
And as for having the basics to apply, i've a great education in the last twenty years in aviation to have an opinion.
Your probably just another wannabe - wishing you could live in a pilots world

dechand

yes just because you say you work or maybe have worked in the aviation industry for 20 years doesnt mean you would have the basics to apply.
perhaps you left scool with a group or inter cert and got a job as a baggage handler , that doesnt qualify you to apply .
From your other post you have a problem with apptitute tests in general, those tests are pretty good are weeding out the fakers and wanabees.

Mickey_D

dechand wrote: »

yes just because you say you work or maybe have worked in the aviation industry for 20 years doesnt mean you would have the basics to apply.
perhaps you left scool with a group or inter cert and got a job as a baggage handler , that doesnt qualify you to apply .
From your other post you have a problem with apptitute tests in general, those tests are pretty good are weeding out the fakers and wanabees.

I'm not willing to waste my time proving myself to you; you arrogant little infant

westdub

Mickey_D wrote: »

: Any pilot in the IAC is just there because they think it makes them look cool for some reason in my opinion. All i can say is i cant imagine spending on average one hour a day for the rest of my life within the only place in the world i'd land (BAL) is pathetic by all mean. They're not pilots

Yes... You don't have a chip on your shoulder...

Its a complete concrete block...... :rolleyes:

dechand

yep that guy is a baggage handler alright but one with aspirations on becomming a security guard ,
dont you just love these power hungry people ,they stop at nothing to get on the second rung of the stepladder.

andy_g

Back on topic please. user infracted for breach of the charter any more abuse will lead to bans.

Mickey_D

Why do we need 6 139's? Simply put; we dont.
And they're all grounded at the minute for tail rotor AD's

Its the PC-9 that I have a hard time getting my head around. Ok, its a trainer. Seems like an expensive trainer to me. ME TOO. They're suppose to be transition trainers.

It's an interesting discussion, and would love the opportunity to talk to the man in charge to try explain it to me in more detail.

I'll leave this as my last post in this topic.

westdub

Mickey_D wrote: »

Why do we need 6 139's? Simply put; we dont.
And they're all grounded at the minute for tail rotor AD's

Its the PC-9 that I have a hard time getting my head around. Ok, its a trainer. Seems like an expensive trainer to me. ME TOO. They're suppose to be transition trainers.

It's an interesting discussion, and would love the opportunity to talk to the man in charge to try explain it to me in more detail.

I'll leave this as my last post in this topic.

Glad to see you know what your talking about....
The AW 139s are not all grounded, there are two flying at the moment and the rest will follow shortly....

The PC9 is in service and being used very well for what it was bought for so why keep going on about it??

Delancey

Don't forget the Cessna 172 crash at Edenderry a few years back - pilot killed.

The Air Corps is a waste of money - it has no air defence capability , no search and rescue capability , it's helicopters as mentioned are civilian machines and unsuitable for overseas use.
My view is that if the government are not prepared to put in the money to bring it up to scratch then perhaps the whole thing should be wound up ?

VIP transport could be outsourced to a private operator.

Not having a go at Air Corps personnel but the question needs to be asked just what can the organisation do ? I'd love to see us being capable of defending our own airspace but that will never happen - why bother putting money into an organisation that really will not make much difference ?
A tough and perhaps unpopular question but it needs to be asked in the current economic environment.

roundymac

Beware of trolls.:mad:

dechand

Whos the troll the posters or the mods , seems like a lot of anger out there in the aviation community for the AC and its members, WHY?

Delancey

dechand wrote: »

Whos the troll the posters or the mods , seems like a lot of anger out there in the aviation community for the AC and its members, WHY?

Well as I made clear I have no beef with Air Corps members , I suppose my issue is with the government spending money on an organisation that it ( the government ) has no intention of funding properly to enable it to function as an effective military force.
If the government wont spend what is required ( and they never will )then why spend anything ?

tricky D

Delancey wrote: »

The Air Corps is a waste of money - it has no air defence capability , no search and rescue capability , it's helicopters as mentioned are civilian machines and unsuitable for overseas use.

Need to make you aware that they do have a SAR role and capability, despite not being used much. They were recently doing SAR exercises with the RNLI in Howth. Iirc they also helped find some missing climbers in Wicklow, near the Glenn of Imaal, during the snows last year.

They also have hostage rescue (recent ferry exercise in Dublin Bay) and a few other small military roles.

However, despite those points, their function and value is quite limited (putting it diplomatically).

dechand

I see your point , but imagine if we did have a superior military force in this country , just imagine the racket the Gay Whales against nuclear power and weapons would create.

Blue Punto

To Be Honest

I believe everyone is correct to a certain degree

While we do not and never will have jets in the F-16 bracket due to financial reasons it ishould still not be above expectations to have an Aer Corp that can be of useful service to the country.


While the PC-9's are nice to look at realistically the
procurement agency that decided to buy them and the A139's should have put a little more thought into it.

A larger Maritime Divsion for fisheries etc and a Helicopter Sq that had an
aircraft capable of what the CHC are doing would be a good start.

The lads flying for the Aer Corp can only fly and learn to fly what the Goverment /procurement agency buys.

They do a great job with what they have can you imagine what they could do with equpment more suited to the countries needs.

dechand

Dont mention that 3 letter word beginning in C ending in C and having a H in the middle , you will attract a whole different crowd of know it alls and idiots with a big axe to grind.

Klunk001

Blue Punto wrote: »

A larger Maritime Divsion for fisheries etc and a Helicopter Sq that had an
aircraft capable of what the CHC are doing would be a good start.

For that to happen there has to be a complete change of mindset by them, which they seem to be able to do.... once they leave the IAC and join the likes of Aer lingus, Ryan air, CHC. According to Wikipedia they have 930 personel, 24 airframes, don't know airframe numbers on 24/7 readiness.
3 GASU airframes, crewed and maintained by civilians except for pilots. Hard to get a figure on actual pilot numbers, but somewhere in the region of 100, approx 20 from that group leaving soon (and taking away a lot of experience) at an average age of mid thirties, leaving on a hefty state pension for the rest of their days.
The 135 has a good serviceability rate. Figures for the 139 are harder to get, 33% is a figure mentioned, similar to the Dauphine when in service with the IAC.

Preset No.3

As predicted, I knew this would be a hot topic. I think most of us are in agreement that the air corps in its current guise is a bit left of centre. I have no desire to slag off the IAC, as someone pointed out they work with what they are given.

In the big bad fantasy world, I would make the suggestions:

GIV and the Lear stay as they are. Politics aside, we do need some form of transport.

I would expand the CASA fleet. We are an island and having 2 aircraft to patrol our countries sea areas really is not enough.

I would also expand the Cessna fleet, again as the main trainer for fixed wing. I would also add some form of dual engine trainer. Get rid of the PC-9's

I would expand the EC135 GASU fleet. Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Donegal. The great work done by the Garda is self evident.

Rotary Wind trainer, something like a Robinson R44 or R66.

Get rid of the EC-135 army, and the AW139, and the BN4000.

Now, I await my suggestions to be torn apart! :D

Klunk001

The facts of the matter are the IAC budget has been cut and will continue to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That large group of people who are leaving in all likelihood will not be replaced.
Leaving GASU aside, ther is no argument for expanding their fleet. If anything, looking at the figures that are available, the trend seems to be that their current airframes if anything are under utilised.

In relation to rotary training as I understand it the French, Spanish and UK outsource it to private operators using relatively simple aircraft (EC-120, Squirrel, Similar) for the basic training.

roundymac

Who's budget does the GASU come from. If it's the Garda do they contribute as well for the pilots?

xflyer

The Air Corps

a worthless orgainisation costing £100,000 annually, with junk equipment and insufficient mechanics.

and

the Air Corps was not an effective unit of the Defence Forces during the Emergency

The first quote from 1929 the latter from 1945.

Arguably not much has changed. Some of you would do well to read Stovepipe's comments on the 'Replacement for the Cessna 172' thread over on the Military forum.

A little taster:

For years, the culture was against either (forced) cooperation with outside agencies (the gardai) or the "real" Army. There was a genuine disdain for all things "real" Army, even within Heli Flight, who were most in contact with the Army units.

and

There was one famous incident where a senior Officer from a Curragh unit rang Heli Flight demanding to know where the much-promised helis were (this is back in Alouette days), so there began a sequence of him being handed from Billy to Jack around the phone-lines of Heli Flight. Eventually, the phone rang and rang until one of the Airmen Techs answered it, along the lines of "What? Who? No! **** Off!", thinking it was a local wind-up, and put the phone down.

Things may have changed since but you don't have to be an expert to realise the Air Corps is not as effective a unit it could be.

A great deal of it roles could be done more cheaply and more effectively by civilian contractors the same way SAR was farmed out after the Air Corps proved incapable of providing it.

VIP transport being one, it's far less expensive to charter suitable aircraft as and when needed. Same with helicopters.

Air ambulance too, in fact it isn't true air ambulance it's patient transport. All very laudable but of limited use when the patient is critical. Again arguably there is a need for a true air ambulance service.

Fishery protection could easily be outsourced, the British do it. There was a bit of fuss recently when the Air Corps couldn't provide top cover for the Coastguard helicopter. There's no excuse for that.

Much of the 'Aid to the civil power' roles should be better served by civilian charters, cheaper too. Surveying bird populations and other similar jobs should be done by civilian charters. For example the operator of the Ordnance Survey contract.

So what does that leave? Military roles in support of the rest of the Defence forces. But we have the wrong helicopters for the job.

Then there's the PC9s, hard to defend really. I was listening in recently when they were practising intercepts on 'bogies' in preparation for the Queen's visit. The radar controller was attempting to vector one onto a helicopter. It was excruciating to listen to. The pilot closed within a mile or so but simply couldn't see the helicopter, which to be fair was military and thus camouflaged. You could hear the frustration in the controller's voice. It was pointless anyway as in much of the country below 2000 feet aircraft are invisible to ground based radar. That's all anybody with ill intent needs to do, stay low. Without airborne radar or onboard radar. The patrolling PC9s are powerless to stop any determined bad guy.

The Air Corps may be at it's most modern ever in terms of aircraft but it's essentially obsolete in it's role. In this era of cutbacks it will need to justify itself. My own view is that it needs to back to green uniforms and become a Corps of the army again.

Others will have other ideas.

Delancey

I agree that as an island we need better maritime surveillance capability but perhaps that could be done by private operators - the Australian coastline is vast and as far as I know that work ( Coastwatch ) is outsourced.
We have already outsourced Search and Rescue , VIP transport could go the same way.
Where does that leave the Air Corps ? Their continued existence is hard to justify.
These comments are not directed at Air Corps members who probably are doing well given the poor resources they have but rather at Defence Chiefs / Civil Servants / Politicians who have allowed this situation to develop.

The PC-9's scream '' expensive toys '' with no contribution to national defence.
I would rather the money saved by axing the Air Corps went to improving our naval service which given we are an island is a joke at present.

Turbo Porter

Delancey wrote: »

the Australian coastline is vast and as far as I know that work ( Coastwatch ) is outsourced.

Not forgetting that their Air Force also have a fleet of AP-3C Orions among other types that can be and are used for coastal duties.

Poccington

Delancey wrote: »

I agree that as an island we need better maritime surveillance capability but perhaps that could be done by private operators - the Australian coastline is vast and as far as I know that work ( Coastwatch ) is outsourced.
We have already outsourced Search and Rescue , VIP transport could go the same way.
Where does that leave the Air Corps ? Their continued existence is hard to justify.
These comments are not directed at Air Corps members who probably are doing well given the poor resources they have but rather at Defence Chiefs / Civil Servants / Politicians who have allowed this situation to develop.

The PC-9's scream '' expensive toys '' with no contribution to national defence.
I would rather the money saved by axing the Air Corps went to improving our naval service which given we are an island is a joke at present.

Oh I dunno, maybe if all the civvie functions were outsourced we could focus on having an Air Corps which is properly capable to carry out it's prime function, Army support. Both at home and overseas.

As it stands, using our whole Heli fleet, we couldn't even move a Company.

Mickey_D

Poccington wrote: »

As it stands, using our whole Heli fleet, we couldn't even move a Company.

Hilarious

dechand

The Air Corps always seems to be a great source of entertainment for a certain group of people.

newcavanman

I have to say i agree with most of the sentiments aired in this thread . While the IAC supporters say they can only use what they are given , i think its up to them selves to make the case so that they do recieve the right equipment . Qhatever the current finbancial situation, the truth is we have been unable to defend our own air space in any way since the late 1940s .
As i see it we have a couple of options, the one id like to see is that we source surplus jets from some of the nato countries . Both Belgium and the Netherlands have recently sold perfectly up to date F-16s . While i agree they would be expensive to operate, we would have ben able to acquire them very cheaply . The other handy option would have been to acquire surplus Tornado F3s . There have been quite a fewof these available since the mid 90s, and the truth is , that for what we want, they would be perfect, as we are unlikely to require an air defence fighter that can actually dog fight .
Having outlined the above , i believe the most practical would have been to invite the UK or France to base a QRA flight here. We could have provided the ground crew and perhaps some of the aircrew towards meeting the cost and i think overall it would be the cheapest form of air defence we could have . Remember, the threat of a 9/11 type attack on sellafield or similar is just as great today as it was 10 years ago .
As to our helicopters, there was only ever one type we should have got, the UH 60 blackhawk . If you remember, Austria had a serious event with avalanches about 10 yrs ago, and wasnt able to cope . They had to call upon their neighbours, and were so impressed with the american blackhawks they immediatly ordered a squadrons worth . That is exactly what we should have done a very long time ago .
Unfortunatly , even tho its not completely accurate, the IAC is viewed as a rich mans flying club where people bide there time till they get a job in EI , Cityjet or CHC. As it stands they have almost no practical use as a military force

dechand

Well newcaveman, I note with interest that you say that the IAC is a rich mans flying club. Isnt it true that all student pilots who want to fly commercial have to have in excess of a 100k in order to get into the game .
How much do you have to have ? or what connections do you need to get an air corps cadetship these days ?
I would have assumed that candidates were taken in on merit and ability , am I wrong?
Tell us more if you would be so kind.

newcavanman

Well the rich mans flying club is perhaps the wrong phrase to use . I suppose speaking as someone who works quite hard, there is tbh a small amount of jealousy at people who do very little but are paid very well for it .

Merch

dechand wrote: »

Well newcaveman, I note with interest that you say that the IAC is a rich mans flying club. Isnt it true that all student pilots who want to fly commercial have to have in excess of a 100k in order to get into the game .
How much do you have to have ? or what connections do you need to get an air corps cadetship these days ?
I would have assumed that candidates were taken in on merit and ability , am I wrong?
Tell us more if you would be so kind.

oh it is, in an in the know who you know certainly helps, but only for certain ranks, the cannon fodder dont have to worry about that stuff.

dechand

Thats very interesting, relation of mine has tried to get an AC cadetship for the last 5 years , has everything thats needed but not getting on the final list.
No family or other connections with the military .
Hardly seems fair but do they keep places for family members?

savagecabbages

Not being smart but your relation mustn't have everything they need...

I applied years ago, the selection process narrowed it down from about 600 applicants to 20 or so for a final interview. We were told that anyone in the final 20 had a decent chance of getting a cadetship, but unfortunately I didn't make it... Think they took on 5 or 6 that year. In another year where they would have taken more on I might have been lucky. Who knows! I resigned myself to the fact that I dont have everything they need:(

As for the family spaces, there might be an element of truth that more than one member of a family might get in, but I'd say that's just down to certain families being very much suited to the heavily regimented, lights-on lights-off lifestyle thats required..

Delancey

The official story would be that pull or nepotism has no part to play - those with experience may take a somewhat more jaundiced view..

xflyer

Of course pull has it's part to play. The saying like Father like Son is all too true. I see in my boys, the poor little mites. But as much as anything the decision is probably based on whether or not the person in front of them fits in with their perception of a fellow officer and pilot.

On top of that the number of cadets was alway tiny. The most I remember them recruiting at a time was ten. In recent years it's dropped to as low as two. The truth is that if you got into the last twenty or so you would probably make a good officer and/or pilot. But there are no places in our tiny Air Corps.

It's not like in bigger countries where if you meet the requirements you get in. I applied many years ago, generally they took between six and ten cadets. I hadn't a chance even though I was ridiculous confident. But in the end I was finished off by an unexpected rule change which meant I wasn't even eligible to apply. Talk about bad timing!


The truth is that more people win the lottery every year than get an Air Corps cadetship.

newcavanman

I think that backs up my view. Getting a cadetship is like a lotto win. Your training is paid for, you get quite well paid while you build your experience, and then you leave in your mid 30s and go to EI or cityjet, nice salary and your pension as well