Air Corps Cadetship 2012

Harto45

TW Mr Tayto wrote: »

How about this:

I'm a PPL(H) applying for the cadetship this year (doing the LC ).
I'm guessing I should mention my license in the interview (if I get there) - not in a snobby sort of way but plug that my basic understanding of concepts like met. and p.o.f. will have a solid ground upon which to build upon etc. Am I wrong? Should I keep my trap shut about it?

If I DO bring them, should I bring my license/training records to the interview?

Other than the PPL issue, any tips for the interview stage (hopefully I'll get there...) ?



To be clear: I don't see this as a cheap way to a CPL... this is the kind of flying I'd love to do - GASU chopper etc.

Just stumbled upon this thread and glad to see it is getting back on track. Whilst it is over 12 years since I interviewed for the Cadetship in the AC (and was successful) my thoughts are you don't need to bring the licence/log book but they are certainly worth discussing. They show an apptitude and interest.

My advice centres around being able to answer why you would like a career in the AC. Have a strong knowledge of the roles and functions of the AC as well as the fleet.

Best of luck with the application.

XWB

I am who I am and I am who I say I am. Take it or leave it and let us discuss it not further.

However NewSig I admire your obvious skill at flying from an early age, an over 20 year air corps veteran retiring in his early 30s!...didnt know they commissioned pilots in the air corps in their early teens!;)
I had hoped not to point that obvious slip of your mask out in an effort to let the thread get back to the air coprs hopefuls, but since you went and called me out...I couldn't resist....what was it I said earlier about people in glass houses not throwing insults at the kettle?:rolleyes:

That's my lot for this thread!

NewSigGuy

XWB wrote: »

I am who I am and I am who I say I am. Take it or leave it and let us discuss it not further.

However NewSig I admire your obvious skill at flying from an early age, an over 20 year air corps veteran retiring in his early 30s!...didnt know they commissioned pilots in the air corps in their early teens!;)
I had hoped not to point that obvious slip of your mask out in an effort to let the thread get back to the air coprs hopefuls, but since you went and called me out...I couldn't resist....what was it I said earlier about people in glass houses not throwing insults at the kettle?:rolleyes:

That's my lot for this thread!

Finally, but let me be clear, as I said My experience with the AC is over 20yrs, I retired a number of years ago after 12yrs service, I am sure you can do the sums.

bombs away

What was this post about again

Seriously though, I just joined. What did I miss. For entertainment factor alone the last few pages reading have been an absolute riot, I'm splitting my sides here laughing :P

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Finally, but let me be clear, as I said My experience with the AC is over 20yrs, I retired a number of years ago after 12yrs service, I am sure you can do the sums.

Retired officers of the DFs dont stay too linked in. It isnt a social club. To state you have 20 years experience may be overstating your experience. You may have joined 20 years ago but you only have 12 years experience. When you retire you're out and they dont want you hanging round.Some officers claim to have knowledge of the inside still but usually they dont.
When my bro went up for it my dad was still involved with them(although on the wind down). If he had have retired beforehand he would not have been able to sway any influence or give inside info(and hence why he held off).

Anyhow I'm not an Air Corps type so best of look to all who apply!

xflyer

Certain people seem to have a particular obsession with XWB and now Suits, casting aspersions on their credentials. Their main guilt in this thread is to criticise the Air Corps it seems.

Now I'm not here to defend him. I can't prove anything one way or another. I think in part it's XWB's rather folksy anecdotal, and yes sometimes less than accurate style that seems to draw the most ire. Leading to comments this from NewSigGuy:

These quite clearly are all made up, I think the comment about staying "Sub-Sonic" really proves that he has no idea what he is talking about and is in fact a complete bluffer.

Look back through this thread and Guys are still under the impression that XWB is an ex EI Captain, and this is clearly not the case, his comments about staying sub-sonic are the most revealing I believe, as EI never operated Concorde.

XWB actually said:

The Aer Lingus crew got permission to fly full whack and were in Shannon 4h 20mins after departure). Sometimes with a godd tailwind you have to slow down to stay sub-sonic!"

It's blatantly obvious he was being facetious. It's a joke, with respect NewSigGuy that's rather more revealing of you than him. No one, no matter how Walter Mittyish he is would make that mistake.

You have a rather pedantic style and you really don't seem to like any form of criticism of the Air Corps. Which is admirable in it's way.

I'm curious though, you have never hinted at what you actually do. You were an Air Corps pilot, you say. But you've given no clue as to your current position and from reading your previous posts there is no hint that you continue to fly. Which to me implies a non pilot ground job.

Now I speak as someone who has remained vague as to my position so understand that you may prefer not to supply details. But perhaps you'd care to comment?

Suits

I never posted here while XWB was posting on the Aer Lingus thread, but I have to say the comfortable fashion in which he spoke about various issues lead me to believe he was genuine if not a little eccentric in his manner.

What puzzles me is why people seem to care so much. Some people seem to be taking genuine offence to XWB's existence. Many "senior posters" here agreed with a lot of what he said and I get the impression those who launched the witch hunt were pro's who didnt reach the heights of a green airbus. Others seemed to not like loosing their hallowed status on the boards.

Throughout my time here I have noticed a base line lack of knowledge of the finer technical points of aviation and that many seem to be more along the enthusiast line(which is fine). As xflyer pointed out above XWB's comments on staying subsonic are a basic consideration for high altitude flight and perhaps pilots more accustomed to low altitude ops or without ATPL knowledge would not understand that fully. With a strong tail wind and cruise power you could well break the barrier and may have to throttle down, when I read XWB's comment that is how I took it. It seems some people are trying to edit things to suit their own ends.
I believe XWB quoted NY-DUB in 4H20..that would be a ground speed of 650kt...not impossible!
The manner in which people are being pedantic over little things I'd imagine people cant even remember saying and how they are cutting and splicing quotes in and out of context is a bit odd to be honest and smacks of other motives.

If XWB is a former skipper then people should be happy that he chooses to share his knowledge....and if he isnt well people shouldnt care so much and should get on with their life!

Jimdwyer

Here will yous seriously take your little debate elsewhere, you've completely destroyed this thread. Thank you.

veetwin

Jimdwyer wrote: »

Here will yous seriously take your little debate elsewhere, you've completely destroyed this thread. Thank you.

Have to say I disagree. Best thread on this forum for a long time!

xflyer

With a strong tail wind and cruise power you could well break the barrier and may have to throttle down, when I read XWB's comment that is how I took it.

Need to correct you there straightaway. No amount of tailwind with push an aircraft beyond Mach 1. The Mach number is measured from the speed of the aircraft through the air not the ground speed. Back to the books for you my boy!

There may be a need at some point to reduce power in order to remain below the limiting Mach number of the aircraft. But the original comment was not serious.

pclancy

Yep I took the subsonic comment just as Suits just said as in not being pushed over the plane's mac overspeed limit by a strong tailwind which even I know without an ATPL is something that can easily happen. I would never have read it that he thought EI once operated a supersonic aircraft.

Its always been a problem here that people doubted other peoples credentials and experience as its one of those industries where some people can know a lot without ever having actually flown a plane. I for example know the systems and procedures of a 737NG inside out but i've never and probably never will have actually piloted one.

I guess the reality is unless people reveal themselves you'll never really know who's who on an Internet Forum. The mods can tell that two people arent posting from the same IP but thats as far as it goes, we cant see emails or actual IPs etc so I cant prove or disprove that someone does or doesn work for an airline for example. But Ive built up a skill after being on here for the last ten years of being able to read people and see though stuff.

I would like it if we could all just get on and if people doubt someones credentials, just dont read their posts or even add them to your ignore list, problem solved.

I'm sorry for not stepping in earlier and asking people to stay on topic but it was good in some ways for people to air their fears, it would be best if discussions between people moved to PM now and this thread run its course by sticking to AC recruitment discussion.

Suits

xflyer wrote: »

Need to correct you there straightaway. No amount of tailwind with push an aircraft beyond Mach 1. The Mach number is measured from the speed of the aircraft through the air not the ground speed. Back to the books for you my boy!

There may be a need at some point to reduce power in order to remain below the limiting Mach number of the aircraft. But the original comment was not serious.

I see exactly what you mean and I should know better!:D
I wasnt fully reasoning all that in my head..however what I was getting at one way or the other was that you could exceed or get close to 661kts ground speed if you had a strong tailwind....and given that XWB said he was in Aer Lingus since 1974 I'm sure the law of averages dictate it could have happened in a freak situation atleast once in that time. He did also say it was "a crew" and so not himself personally..closing the odds a bit more. Record is 300 and odd kts over Asia if I remember my met correctly!

Sorry pclancy didnt see your post!...I shall divert the thread no more!

NewSigGuy

xflyer wrote: »

Certain people seem to have a particular obsession with XWB and now Suits, casting aspersions on their credentials. Their main guilt in this thread is to criticise the Air Corps it seems.

Now I'm not here to defend him. I can't prove anything one way or another. I think in part it's XWB's rather folksy anecdotal, and yes sometimes less than accurate style that seems to draw the most ire. Leading to comments this from NewSigGuy:



XWB actually said:It's blatantly obvious he was being facetious. It's a joke, with respect NewSigGuy that's rather more revealing of you than him. No one, no matter how Walter Mittyish he is would make that mistake.

You have a rather pedantic style and you really don't seem to like any form of criticism of the Air Corps. Which is admirable in it's way.

I'm curious though, you have never hinted at what you actually do. You were an Air Corps pilot, you say. But you've given no clue as to your current position and from reading your previous posts there is no hint that you continue to fly. Which to me implies a non pilot ground job.

Now I speak as someone who has remained vague as to my position so understand that you may prefer not to supply details. But perhaps you'd care to comment?

I would rather remain vague, however other guys on the Forum did not take the sub-sonic statement as a joke and still believed that with a strong tailwind an airliner might be supersonic! Plenty of walter Mitty types seamed happy with that.

I am not defending the AC, I have been openly critical of late, I am concerned by the myth of nepotism and its effect on potential candidates.

Thankfully I am gainfully employed "in the Airlines".

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I am not defending the AC, I have been openly critical of late, I am concerned by the myth of nepotism and its effect on potential candidates.

In fairness if an internet discussion board puts anyone off applying to the Air Corps or wider DFs they most likely lack the conviction to succeed there anyhow. I have never attempted to put anyone off applying and if anyone thought I was I'll state now that I wasnt!

It's a good career of you enter it for the right reasons.

Nepotism in any job in Ireland not just the air corps is far from a myth...small island and all that. Even the perceived bias of certain airlines toward integrated students or Oxford guys for example is a form of nepotism(as a lot of the higher ups are alumni). Any long running career organisation is going to have a degree of nepotism.
On reflection on my earlier comments I can say that they were based on my experience through my brother's feedback about the Army(Line) cadetship selection and my father's various comments over the years. Also the fact that my wider family are former/serving officers in the Army(and one black sheep in the Navy) and that seems a little improbable from a demographic point of view. I dont have any direct feedback on the Air Corps specifically however so I shall concede you that.

Given the back and forth here over the issue of nepotism I asked my father today in conversation about it and he said that when he applied after school his father, Lt Col Grandad Suits was a useful name to throw in for himself and his brothers at the interview(this was 1970ish...and in his opinion they were fully aware who he was). My great grandfather dropped off the radar in the early 20s and popped up again in the free state army, my grandfather followed him in with his brothers, and then my father and uncles went in, and now my brother and several cousins are in too. Personally I think that speaks for itself....
My father said today and I quote "If you're aul fella was an officer, and he was high enough up he could find out who was on the panel your day, and it's too small an army to rub a high roller up the wrong way".

I'm not saying every cadet is someone's child, but it helps to be from a DF family when you apply and certainly gives you a better chance of being selected. The downside is living in your parent's shadow...and that's why not many children of officers advertise it!

Dacian

To follow others off-topic I can remember begin onboard an EI A330 in early January 2006. From wheels up to touchdown was 4 hr, 34 mins......this was BOS-DUB. I remember it well as it was an important flight for me.
No idea of what the tailwind or Mach speed was. However it was not turbulent enroute, I assume a 200kt tailwind would be kicking the aircraft across the Atlantic?

So is arguing over the possible shortest JFK-DUB flight really that important?

NewSigGuy

Dacian wrote: »

To follow others off-topic I can remember begin onboard an EI A330 in early January 2006. From wheels up to touchdown was 4 hr, 34 mins......this was BOS-DUB. I remember it well as it was an important flight for me.
No idea of what the tailwind or Mach speed was. However it was not turbulent enroute, I assume a 200kt tailwind would be kicking the aircraft across the Atlantic?

So is arguing over the possible shortest JFK-DUB flight really that important?

Mach Number would have been Constant though!

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Mach Number would have been Constant though!

But ground speed may have approached 661kts which is supersonic speed at sea level. That is how I took the original comment. The word tailwind to me implied ground speed to me.

NewSigGuy

Suits wrote: »

But ground speed may have approached 661kts which is supersonic speed at sea level. That is how I took the original comment. The word tailwind to me implied ground speed to me.

But its not Super-Sonic, the aircrafts Mach No. would always be sub-sonic, I think you misunderstand the concept.

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

But its not Super-Sonic, the aircrafts Mach No. would always be sub-sonic, I think you misunderstand the concept.

No I understand the concept and agree with what you are saying. The mach number of the aircraft is sub 1.0. However if the aircraft did 661+ at sea level it would be supersonic. And since NY-DUB is 2800nm or so as far as distance covered 622kts GS would get you across is 4H30M. I've seen a couple of aircraft on flight radar doing high 500s-low 600s, so I suppose it isnt impossible.

I took the throttle back remark to mean the aircraft was going so fast in relation to GS that they would need to be slowed to meet shanwick's request/arrival slot the other end.

NewSigGuy

Suits wrote: »

No I understand the concept and agree with what you are saying. The mach number of the aircraft is sub 1.0. However if the aircraft did 661+ at sea level it would be supersonic. And since NY-DUB is 2800nm or so as far as distance covered 622kts GS would get you across is 4H30M. I've seen a couple of aircraft on flight radar doing high 500s-low 600s, so I suppose it isnt impossible.

I took the throttle back remark to mean the aircraft was going so fast in relation to GS that they would need to be slowed to meet shanwick's request/arrival slot the other end.

I still think you need to reconsider Mach No. versus GS, For example if:

A supersonic aircraft, say Mach 1.1, is flying into a 200kt headwind is it then subsonic?

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I still think you need to reconsider Mach No. versus GS, For example if:

A supersonic aircraft, say Mach 1.1, is flying into a 200kt headwind is it then subsonic?

Thats not what I mean. The comment XWB made was exaggerated and was more in reference to the distance you could cover with a strong tailwind. That is why I am quoting the ground speed. If an a330/747 did 1.1.......well I'm not sure it can do that can it?...but in any case I dont think he was suggesting the aircraft was in danger of going over mach 1, just that it would be going very very fast and cover a lot of ground quick unless airspeed was reduced.

NewSigGuy

No, none of the current crop of airliners can go supersonic, there critical mach number is quite a bit below the threshold, the A-330 cruises at about .81/82 max speed about .86, the 747 about .84/85 max speed is about .90ish neither could exceed Mach .90 and to do so would be dangerous to the structure.

Turbine

You'd swear with some of the replies being posted here that this topic was about the Air Corps! :pac:

Oh wait...

Suits

NewSigGuy wrote: »

No, none of the current crop of airliners can go supersonic, there critical mach number is quite a bit below the threshold, the A-330 cruises at about .81/82 max speed about .86, the 747 about .84/85 max speed is about .90ish neither could exceed Mach .90 and to do so would be dangerous to the structure.

You'd stall due to shockwave formation before you stressed the structure though wouldnt you...or shake the aircraft apart with mach buffet etc?

Delta Kilo

I think you are misunderstanding Suits, NewSigGuy.

Its the difficult concept of mach number and airspeed that I learned that I think he is trying to explain.

Mach number is the airspeed divided by the local speed of sound, which is less the higher you go. THis is because it is a function of the temperature, which decreases linearly until you reach the tropopause at 36,089ft. Above this the temperature is constant at -56.5 degrees.

Anyway, what Im getting at is say you are cruising at 35,000, due to the air being less dense your IAS which is being calculated by the difference in the dynamic pressure and the static pressure, is lower than it would be at sea level. However the temperature is decreasing too, lowering the speed of sound at 35,000, so your mach number should stay the same as you change altitude, hence why it is used.

So after my back of napkin calculations the fastest possible to travel is 499kts (GS)assuming you fly at mach 0.78 and you are flying in still air. However with a tailwind, think of it like walking on the moving floor at an airport, you travel at this 499kts upper limit plus the speed of the tailwind.

Therefore to make the time in question, you need to be travelling at an overall (Ground) speed of 661 kts, this means you need a tailwind of 162kts to attain that speed. Is this possible?

Sorry if I lost anyone.

xflyer

Suits, Google 'coffin corner' particularly in relation to early Learjets.

GoGoGadget

Nice explanation Delta Kilo!

From what I know the North Atlantic Jet Stream is (on average) 100kts but can reach around 200kts over winter so getting 162kts of tailwind is possible.

Jimdwyer

veetwin wrote: »

Have to say I disagree. Best thread on this forum for a long time!

Not from the perspective of someone looking for information on the actual cadetship. They're met with a pile of bullsh**t about civilian flying instead.

GoGoGadget

Jimdwyer wrote: »

Not from the perspective of someone looking for information on the actual cadetship. They're met with a pile of bullsh**t about civilian flying instead.

You'll rarely see a thread missing the usual ingredients of slander, waffle and plain abuse.

Some interesting info has come up like mach speed above which could easily be an interview question if they see someone is already up to speed... I was asked to explain the difference between counter and contra rotor blades!!

In fairness not many lads are asking for advice, some really experienced lads on this that could lead applicants in the right direction. Whether it's civilian or military pilots dishing out the info an aircraft still flies the same with or without IAC stickers!

NewSigGuy

Delta Kilo wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding Suits, NewSigGuy.

Its the difficult concept of mach number and airspeed that I learned that I think he is trying to explain.

Mach number is the airspeed divided by the local speed of sound, which is less the higher you go. THis is because it is a function of the temperature, which decreases linearly until you reach the tropopause at 36,089ft. Above this the temperature is constant at -56.5 degrees.

Anyway, what Im getting at is say you are cruising at 35,000, due to the air being less dense your IAS which is being calculated by the difference in the dynamic pressure and the static pressure, is lower than it would be at sea level. However the temperature is decreasing too, lowering the speed of sound at 35,000, so your mach number should stay the same as you change altitude, hence why it is used.

So after my back of napkin calculations the fastest possible to travel is 499kts (GS)assuming you fly at mach 0.78 and you are flying in still air. However with a tailwind, think of it like walking on the moving floor at an airport, you travel at this 499kts upper limit plus the speed of the tailwind.

Therefore to make the time in question, you need to be travelling at an overall (Ground) speed of 661 kts, this means you need a tailwind of 162kts to attain that speed. Is this possible?

Sorry if I lost anyone.

You are right, and for those prospective candidates, an understanding of POF such as this would an advantage.

But what Suits said was "With a strong tail wind and cruise power you could well break the barrier and may have to throttle down" and he clearly did not understand the concept of Mach. Hopefully your explanation has cleared things up.

In fact in my experience it is better at an interview to say you don't know something, then to try and waffle out a made up wrong answer. Remember they are not only testing your technical competency,(it is a competency based interview) they are also assessing your personality and decision/leadership potential.
A candidate who just waffles out some half truth/rumor as an answer to a straight forward question such as Mach No. is revealing more then just a lack of technical knowledge.

Consider that on this subject(technical ability) knowledge is not the key it is the potential to understand technical information taught in the future that is being assessed. I can expand further if anyone is interested.