air Corp future ?

newcavanman

What do people think of this article ? http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/we-cant-allow-defence-budget-to-vanish-into-thin-air-31509140.html

westdub

I think it's a piece of complete claptrap that's as well researched as a child's book about a cow jumping over the moon...

Yeah complete nonsense. It's not an objective article it's a personal rant.

Don't spend a few hundred million on a runway spend multiple on Baldonnel to create an new airport. Give me strength.

roundymac

Problem is people(voters) will read it and believe it.

L1011

"Ireland is one of the few members of the EU to have a Government jet. "

No. It isn't.

Denmark, who she claims has none, have FOUR.

Davidth88

L1011 wrote: »

"Ireland is one of the few members of the EU to have a Government jet. "

No. It isn't.

Denmark, who she claims has none, have FOUR.

Yep and she says Britain too..... what's 32 Sq then ?

It's utter twaddle TBH

Peregrine

Reading that, I wouldn't have thought she was a journalist. It's an uninformed populist rant with facts mostly taken from Wikipedia topped off with a few she pulled out of thin air while, supposedly, looking for the defence budget.

Pat Dunne

The piece is signed

Deirdre Conroy is an urban conservation specialist

Obviously not "specialist" enough to research her own article sufficiently.

A quick trawl through Wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_heads_of_state_and_government#Italy I know its not the most definitive or reliable source, but there again I'm not an "urban conservation specialist", either. Shows the following 15 EU members with government aircraft operated by their respective Air Force's or Corps

Belgium
15th Wing Transport of the Air Component of the Army,
One leased Airbus A321,
Two Dassault Falcon 20 modernised in 2004,
One Dassault Falcon 900, two Embraer ERJ 135
Two Embraer ERJ 145.[7]

Bulgaria
28th Air Detachment
Airbus A319,
Dassault Falcon 2000
2 Mil Mi-8
Agusta AW 109

Czech Republic
Czech Air Force
two Airbus A319CJs.
Bombardier Challenger 600
two Yakovlev Yak-40 aircraft.
Mil Mi-8 helicopters

Denmark.
The Royal Danish Air Force
Four Challenger CL-604
One AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin.

France
The ETEC operates
4 Dassault Falcon 50,
2 Dassault Falcon 900,
2 Dassault Falcon 7X
One Airbus A330-200.
Three VIP-configured Super Puma helicopters.
Escadron de transport 3/60 Esterel,
3 Airbus A310-304 and 2 Airbus A340-200s.
Airbus A330-223 from Air Caraibes for the exclusive use of the President of the Republic

Germany
2 x Airbus A340-313X VIP including the "Konrad Adenauer"
2 x Airbus A319-133X CJ
4 x Bombardier Global 5000
3 x Eurocopter AS532 Cougar

Greece
Gulfstream V
Two Embraer business jets

Ireland
One Learjet 45
AW139helicopter

Italy
Three Airbus Corporate Jets.
Two smaller Dassault Falcon 50
Five Dassault Falcon 900
Two Agusta SH-3D Sea Kings
two AgustaWestland AW139

Netherlands
Fokker 70
Gulfstream IV

Portugal
Three Dassault Falcon 50

Slovak
Two Tupolev Tu-154
Two Yakovlev Yak-40s
4 helicopters Mi-171

Spain
2 Airbus A310
5 Falcon 900
several helicopters

Sweden
Three Saab 340
Two Gulfstream IV
One Gulfstream G550

U.K
No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron of the Royal Air Force maintains
A fleet of Agusta A109 helicopters,
BAE-125 & 146 mid-size jets
Sikorsky S-76

elastico

westdub wrote: »

I think it's a piece of complete claptrap that's as well researched as a child's book about a cow jumping over the moon...

Bit harsh on the person who wrote the book.

Aerohead

Pat Dunne wrote: »

The piece is signed


Obviously not "specialist" enough to research her own article sufficiently.

A quick trawl through Wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_heads_of_state_and_government#Italy I know its not the most definitive or reliable source, but there again I'm not an "urban conservation specialist", either. Shows the following 15 EU members with government aircraft operated by their respective Air Force's or Corps

Belgium
15th Wing Transport of the Air Component of the Army,
One leased Airbus A321,
Two Dassault Falcon 20 modernised in 2004,
One Dassault Falcon 900, two Embraer ERJ 135
Two Embraer ERJ 145.[7]

Bulgaria
28th Air Detachment
Airbus A319,
Dassault Falcon 2000
2 Mil Mi-8
Agusta AW 109

Czech Republic
Czech Air Force
two Airbus A319CJs.
Bombardier Challenger 600
two Yakovlev Yak-40 aircraft.
Mil Mi-8 helicopters

Denmark.
The Royal Danish Air Force
Four Challenger CL-604
One AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin.

France
The ETEC operates
4 Dassault Falcon 50,
2 Dassault Falcon 900,
2 Dassault Falcon 7X
One Airbus A330-200.
Three VIP-configured Super Puma helicopters.
Escadron de transport 3/60 Esterel,
3 Airbus A310-304 and 2 Airbus A340-200s.
Airbus A330-223 from Air Caraibes for the exclusive use of the President of the Republic

Germany
2 x Airbus A340-313X VIP including the "Konrad Adenauer"
2 x Airbus A319-133X CJ
4 x Bombardier Global 5000
3 x Eurocopter AS532 Cougar

Greece
Gulfstream V
Two Embraer business jets

Ireland
One Learjet 45
AW139helicopter

Italy
Three Airbus Corporate Jets.
Two smaller Dassault Falcon 50
Five Dassault Falcon 900
Two Agusta SH-3D Sea Kings
two AgustaWestland AW139

Netherlands
Fokker 70
Gulfstream IV

Portugal
Three Dassault Falcon 50

Slovak
Two Tupolev Tu-154
Two Yakovlev Yak-40s
4 helicopters Mi-171

Spain
2 Airbus A310
5 Falcon 900
several helicopters

Sweden
Three Saab 340
Two Gulfstream IV
One Gulfstream G550

U.K
No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron of the Royal Air Force maintains
A fleet of Agusta A109 helicopters,
BAE-125 & 146 mid-size jets
Sikorsky S-76

Pat email that info to her and tell her to do some research before she publishes misleading articles in the paper

Negative_G

While the article itself is complete and utter rubbish it does mention one point worth mentioning.

Is there the potential to utilise Baldonnel for corporate jet traffic. I have no idea how much corporate traffic comes in and out of Dublin but perhaps it could be examined. Similar to RAF Northolt. Demand being the obvious problem.

roundymac

Better again CC it to the editor and let him what utter ****e she's writting.

I see Mick Liddy a well known IAC pilot is having a few words with her on Twitter and I see she is responding. If anyone does exchange words with her on Twitter be polite.

arubex

Pat Dunne wrote: »

The piece is signed

A quick trawl through Wiki... I know its not the most definitive or reliable source, but there again I'm not an "urban conservation specialist", either.

A few first-looks comments:

1. The four Danish Challengers are primarily long-range maritime recce aircraft with passenger kits.

2. 32 Sqn RAF no longer has any 125s.

3. The S-76s belong to the Queen's Household, not the RAF; basically private aircraft.

I don't know enough about other EU air forces to comment on those, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more inaccuracies in Wikipedia.

Aerohead

Negative_G wrote: »

While the article itself is complete and utter rubbish it does mention one point worth mentioning.

Is there the potential to utilise Baldonnel for corporate jet traffic. I have no idea how much corporate traffic comes in and out of Dublin but perhaps it could be examined. Similar to RAF Northolt. Demand being the obvious problem.

Is Weston not the place where corporate traffic go

L1011

arubex wrote: »

I don't know enough about other EU air forces to comment on those, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more inaccuracies in Wikipedia.

Its significantly more accurate than her 'article', though. Which isn't hard!

Irish Steve

Aerohead wrote: »

Is Weston not the place where corporate traffic go

For the larger and longer range jet aircraft, not in any significant numbers,due to a number of significant limitations.

The first, and fundamental issue, is that most larger biz jets would only be legal to take off from Weston and land with minimum fuel at Dublin, as the legally available runway is still very short, despite the attempts to get it extended, which were done without full approval.

Then, there's the problem that it's a VFR Day only airfield, so no instrument approaches, or night operations, which most larger corporate operators won't accept, they want Instrument approaches, preferably precision approaches, and night availability, so that they can operate at the times the owner wants, without having to either divert, or plan for an alternate in the first place due to non availability.

In different circumstances, Weston could indeed have been a much more active and viable General Aviation airfield, but there were a number of factors that got in the way, some related to the owners (not only in recent times) and some related to some very vocal and active opponents to the existence of the airfield, even though it was there a long time before they were.

newcavanman

I do think her article was very poor, didnt really seem to know what it wanted to say. I think Baldonnel has a lot of scope for biz jet traffic, it seems crazy to not utilize the facilites to their maximum.
I have to confess though, that I think she has a point regarding the PC 9s. What is the point of training pilots to wings standards on these aircraft when we have nothing operating in an operation role that requires it? Or do we, perhaps ive got the wrong end of the stick.
If we are not going to have either air defence or light stike aircraft, then what level of traing should we aspire to for our military pilots?

questionmark?

arubex wrote: »

3. The S-76s belong to the Queen's Household, not the RAF; basically private aircraft.

I'm sorry but saying they are private aircraft is wrong. They belong to the Crown which in turn is the State. If it belongs to the State and they are used by the Head of State they are not private aircraft.

Pat Dunne

arubex wrote: »

A few first-looks comments:

1. The four Danish Challengers are primarily long-range maritime recce aircraft with passenger kits.

2. 32 Sqn RAF no longer has any 125s.

3. The S-76s belong to the Queen's Household, not the RAF; basically private aircraft.

I don't know enough about other EU air forces to comment on those, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more inaccuracies in Wikipedia.

1. "Hair splitting", you could use the same arguement for the IAC Lear Jet, when it performs top cover for the Irish Coast Guard and the Naval Service.
2. I did say that my information came from Wiki
3. Who crews its, maintains it? Oh yeah, who pays the Royal Family, "private" me..........!!!

Maybe a bit of research on your part perhaps?

Negative_G

newcavanman wrote: »

I do think her article was very poor, didnt really seem to know what it wanted to say. I think Baldonnel has a lot of scope for biz jet traffic, it seems crazy to not utilize the facilites to their maximum.
I have to confess though, that I think she has a point regarding the PC 9s. What is the point of training pilots to wings standards on these aircraft when we have nothing operating in an operation role that requires it? Or do we, perhaps ive got the wrong end of the stick.
If we are not going to have either air defence or light stike aircraft, then what level of traing should we aspire to for our military pilots?

I can see where you're coming from and agree with you to a certain extent. On the face of it, training cadets on the Pilatus and then having some of them move on to a Cessna seems counter productive. But that's a separate topic.

The background as to why they were chosen must be considered. The original white paper laid the foundation for their purchase. You had an aging Marchetti fleet which were nearing the end of their service life and the Fougas which were retired. Jet trainers were all but ruled out so the replacement aircraft would have to cover elementary to advanced flight training.

The aircraft selected was always going to be a turbo-prop to meet the wide spectrum of the wings course.

I have no problem seeing cadets training in a very capable aircraft. The finished article after 200 hours in a PC9 is likely to be of a higher quality than a lesser piston engine aircraft.


Would agree about the biz jet traffic. I believe for it to work there would need be a separate civilian apron away from the military side. It would require so much red tape and investment it will likely never happen. I can see its appeal though. Once the operation can be self sufficient. I doubt the UK DOD are losing money through the use of Northolt. If civilian operators are willing to pay their way, let them at it.

Quebec Delta Mike

Hi,

Just picking up on a point earlier, why cannot Baldonnel be used for bizzjet traffic? There are many issues, some of which would take a lot of money and political will to address (neither of which we have anymore):

1.Baldonnel ATC are military, and except for some airshows in the past, and occasional EU ministerial visits, are prevented by a very narrow interpretation of IAA regulations, from providing an ATC service to IFR civilian or commercial aircraft. The same does not apply to civil controllers Vs military traffic here, or anywhere that I am aware of in the world. So, a change to legislation would be needed, or simply sack the military and replace with civilian ( ex military..probably!) controllers.
2. Many years ago when FG were last in power, there were attempts to develop Baldonnel for civilian use. Many soon lined up in opposition, local politicians, residents groups (south Dublin areas), and not least the Air Corps themselves, who saw the "sharing" of "their" facilities as dicing with danger (ridiculous argument,it already happens at joint civil/military airports all over the world quit safely)
3. Millions would need to be spent (though a lot less than a second runway at Dub), to upgrade the ILS, narrow taxiways, tiny apron etc...

They are just my off the cuff thoughts, I'm sure others could add some of their own...

Rocky

notharrypotter

.Baldonnel ATC are military, and except for some airshows in the past, and occasional EU ministerial visits, are prevented by a very narrow interpretation of IAA regulations, from providing an ATC service to IFR civilian or commercial aircraft.

I am open to correction but they do not hold a civil licence therefore it is illegal for them to provide an ATC service outside of military airspace.

There is a standard EU ATC licence which they do not have.

Not a narrow interpretation I would think.

Quebec Delta Mike

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am open to correction but they do not hold a civil licence therefore it is illegal for them to provide an ATC service outside of military airspace.

There is a standard EU ATC licence which they do not have.

Not a narrow interpretation I would think.

The point I was making was regarding providing a service to IFR civil traffic within military airspace, R15 & R16, arriving or departing Baldonnel. Military ATC licences are not recognised for use within civil airspace or airports, in Ireland or UK, not sure about elsewhere.

Rocky

Irish Steve

Quebec Delta Mike wrote: »

. Military ATC licences are not recognised for use within civil airspace or airports, in Ireland or UK, not sure about elsewhere.

Rocky

It was a long time ago now, but when I used to operate from Dublin to Exeter on a regular basis, 75% of the ATC service I was covered by was from Military airfields, on departure from Exeter, I was handed off to Chivenor, who would give me a very good radar service to ensure separation from the military traffic in the danger areas, (No TCAS in those days) and then they would pass me off to Brawdy for routing over the Pembry Ranges on the Northern edge of the Bristol Channel, (Through the Caldy Gap, effectively along the edge of 2 very active danger areas off the South Wales coast) and then onwards with Aberporth, who would usually let me route direct towards Dublin over Cardigan Bay, then hand me off to Dublin as I crossed the FIR boundary from UK to Irish Airspace. The limitation was that the military bases didn't operate a 24/7 service, so if they were closed, it was London Information, as I was operating most of the time outside of airways.

In the same vein, there was no problem working with Yeovilton and Portland, both of which were military stations, as they were more "in the loop" about the location and intentions of high speed low level traffic, which there was plenty of in the areas I was operating in. Most of the active military airfields in the UK were usually happy to provide service to aircraft outside of their immediate traffic zones, and in a lot of cases, it made for a shorter route, as if you were talking to them, umless it was mad busy at their location, they would often give a direct routing over the top of their airfields, or through their danger areas, which was often a lot shorter and quicker than routing round the outside of their areas.

Exeter to Dublin was 1 Hr 10 if I could route direct, but if there was live firing in the Bristol Channel, or the drones were up over Cardigan Bay, then it was at least an extra 20 minutes airtime, so talking to the Military was well worth it.

MrAviation

I'm actually not 100% sure what the journalist is trying to achieve or say in this article.
Although some proper fixed wing aircraft would be nice

Negative_G

MrAviation wrote: »

I'm actually not 100% sure what the journalist is trying to achieve or say in this article.
Although some proper fixed wing aircraft would be nice

Would you be willing to finance it by way of an increase in taxes? As that's the only way it will happen.

The Defence budget has been cut like everything else over the last few years.

The only way 'proper' and by proper I assume you mean fast jet or heavy lift aircraft will be purchased is by either increasing taxes specifically for Defence spending or else take it from elsewhere.

Neither will happen in my opinion and successive governments will just maintain the status quo.

Tenger

MrAviation wrote: »

I'm actually not 100% sure what the journalist is trying to achieve or say in this article.
Although some proper fixed wing aircraft would be nice

The author of the article was trying to argue that we spend too much on the Aer Corps, that it should be mostly wound down and their airfield used for civilian purposes as a revenue stream for the nation.

Easy to argue over a glass of pinot grigio, might be a little harder to actually make happen successfully for the reasons posted above

FishOnABike

Aerohead wrote: »

Pat email that info to her and tell her to do some research before she publishes misleading articles in the paper

Better still, send it in to readers comments or letters to the editor. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be published though.

Then again if it wasn't published a criticism of the original article and the reluctance to correct its manifest errors would make for a good piece in another newspaper.

Pat Dunne

FishOnABike wrote: »

Better still, send it in to readers comments or letters to the editor. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be published though.

Then again if it wasn't published a criticism of the original article and the reluctance to correct its manifest errors would make for a good piece in another newspaper.

I posted a comment with a summary of stats on the Independent website at the time of the article. Which are usually taken down after a set time period following publication.

Can't really see the point in dragging up an article from early September. Which, if memory serves me correctly got almost no support from anyone who commented on the piece at the time of it's publication.

Personally, I'm not into feeding Trolls!

Pat Dunne

FishOnABike wrote: »

Better still, send it in to readers comments or letters to the editor. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be published though.

Then again if it wasn't published a criticism of the original article and the reluctance to correct its manifest errors would make for a good piece in another newspaper.

I posted a comment with a summary of stats on the Independent website at the time of the article. Which are usually taken down after a set time period following publication.

Can't really see the point in dragging up an article from early September, which got little or no traction at the time of it's publication.

Its a bit like feeding a Troll.