Air Corps Availability

roadmaster

I have a question for anyone that has a background with the air corps. Its hard to fully understand from the press what is keeping the air corps from being 24/7 availability. Some reports say its shortage of ATC and Ground Crew while other reports says its pilots and aircrew. It may well be a mixture of both. if it mainly is a shortage of ATC staff and Ground crew would it not be possible to send the Casa and Learjet to Shannon and a Helicopter to Dublin airport to keep the country with a 24 hour service until Casement is able to be 24/7 again. Is one of the reasons this is not done is Casement would be afraid the Department of Finance could say sure look move there full time and you will save money and not need your ATC staff etc. I am sure its not that simple and there are many other reasons so if anyone with a background in the air corps can shine a light please do.

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

I have a question for anyone that has a background with the air corps. Its hard to fully understand from the press what is keeping the air corps from being 24/7 availability. Some reports say its shortage of ATC and Ground Crew while other reports says its pilots and aircrew. It may well be a mixture of both. if it mainly is a shortage of ATC staff and Ground crew would it not be possible to send the Casa and Learjet to Shannon and a Helicopter to Dublin airport to keep the country with a 24 hour service until Casement is able to be 24/7 again. Is one of the reasons this is not done is Casement would be afraid the Department of Finance could say sure look move there full time and you will save money and not need your ATC staff etc. I am sure its not that simple and there are many other reasons so if anyone with a background in the air corps can shine a light please do.

It appears ATC is the limiting factor. The availability of technicians and pilots doesn't enter the equation if you cannot launch the aircraft.

As has been widely published their is a large shortage of qualified pilots and technicians. This has been the case for many years with little or no effort made to retain personnel.

Positioning an aircraft to an international airport costs money, regardless of whether they are state aircraft or not. Positioning an aircraft to Dublin would cost several thousand euro per week, just to have it sit on the tarmac.

That's before you consider the logistical issue of personnel and maintenance etc.

Suddenly, there are very large bills which need to be paid and mouth breathers like SF/PBP/AAA etc will be all over it like a rash. You and I might be aware of the good work state aircraft do, in particular for air ambulance and organ harvests, but your average Joe on the street does not and doesn't care.

Its a political decision ultimately but if the general publix cared enough, politicians might be more willing to splash the cash required to maintain a 24 hour response.

roadmaster

i fully understand what you are saying about costs, But this a national priority we need aircraft on 24/7 such as the casa and a AW139 , not even taking in to account there primary military function they are needed as back up for atcp weather its supporting the guards, Top cover or medical transfer.

Air Corps 112 based in Athlone is costing plenty of money i am sure but i have not heard one person complain its the complete opposite everyone is full of praise and happy for the service 112 is providing. I believe if you transferred one of these aircraft to a civilian location temporarily the public will not care about the cost.

AAA/PBP would not say word can you imagine them trying to complain about the cost of a child being transferred to London for lifesaving surgery? they would be slaughtered no one will object.

If ATC is the main problem could IAA Controllers be subconded to Casement to help out? After all they are being paid by the state as well. This is of national importance and out side the box thinking needs to be done

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

i fully understand what you are saying about costs, But this a national priority we need aircraft on 24/7 such as the casa and a AW139 , not even taking in to account there primary military function they are needed as back up for atcp weather its supporting the guards, Top cover or medical transfer.

Air Corps 112 based in Athlone is costing plenty of money i am sure but i have not heard one person complain its the complete opposite everyone is full of praise and happy for the service 112 is providing. I believe if you transferred one of these aircraft to a civilian location temporarily the public will not care about the cost.

AAA/PBP would not say word can you imagine them trying to complain about the cost of a child being transferred to London for lifesaving surgery? they would be slaughtered no one will object.

If ATC is the main problem could IAA Controllers be subconded to Casement to help out? After all they are being paid by the state as well. This is of national importance and out side the box thinking needs to be done

I've heard GASU aircraft on Dublin tower at all times of day and night recently so they are not affected.

Civilian controllers cannot just be seconded into the Air Corps as they operate under Military rules and regulations which they are not familiar with. Not too mention the organisational differences and command structure. In a similar way you would not have a military controller seconded into a civilian capacity.

Several articles in the media have quoted May as being the time when the situation will be resolved. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.

I agree with your sentiments and it is a pity that this has developed but the reality is, as I said before, nobody cares enough to invest funds and resources to solve it.

Ireland is built on reaction politics. Nothing will happen until there is a death or someone misses an organ transplant because of the lack of 24 hour service.

Psychlops

I was watching "Warship" on Channel 4 recently about HMS Ocean, was interesting to see they needed 200+ personnel I believe just to keep the 2x Chinooks, 4x Merlins & 2 or 3 Apaches flying.

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

I was watching "Warship" on Channel 4 recently about HMS Ocean, was interesting to see they needed 200+ personnel I believe just to keep the 2x Chinooks, 4x Merlins & 2 or 3 Apaches flying.

Well I can see that given that you have 3 different airframes (at least one of which isn't really navalised (so would corrosion issues be higher?)) , with completely different Avionics, engines etc so I'd think along with the personnel for weapons etc.

roadmaster

I suppose if the USAF is struggling to put planes in the sky it's going to be a a lot harder for us

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/08/10/us/us-air-force-pilot-shortage/index.html

Victor

Hasn't there been an issue for a long time of the AC (and the wider DF) having an institutionalised 9-5 type attitude?

Negative_G

Victor wrote: »

Hasn't there been an issue for a long time of the AC (and the wider DF) having an institutionalised 9-5 type attitude?

While I don't believe they had full 24 hour maintenance like airlines etc there was a 24 hour capability for a long time prior to the recent restriction of ATC.

In the broader scheme of things, if soldiers are not on operations or duty at home or abroad there is no requirement to work anything other than office hours.

The Navy have vessels at sea all year round. The AC provide a 24/7/365 service to the Gardai, daylight service for EAS. They routinely operated at night and weekends also. The Army man numerous critical installations around the country. All of which mostly go unnoticed until there is an incident of some sort.

While there may have been an issue in the past I think its fair to say that the DF as a whole are moving in the right direction.

Barry Badrinath

Victor wrote: »

Hasn't there been an issue for a long time of the AC (and the wider DF) having an institutionalised 9-5 type attitude?

Attitude?

Barry Badrinath

Negative_G wrote: »

While there may have been an issue in the past I think its fair to say that the DF as a whole are moving in the right direction.

What issues?

Victor

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Attitude?

"We don't work past 5pm" - I'm blaming the institutions, not individuals.

Negative_G

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

What issues?

Issue is the perhaps wrong word.

The DF like many other public service bodies have had their fair share of organisational issues.

As soldiers are essentially gagged from speaking publicly, a lot "issues" were kept from the press. This is particularly true of the era prior to social media. As you are a serving soldier, I'm sure you can think many examples.

The point I was trying to make was that the DF has came on in leaps and bounds while working within a tiny budget.

The years of underfunding have now come home to roost with people leaving in their droves and morale pretty low across the board.

In short, the DF today is a very different animal than it was 15/20 years ago.

Barry Badrinath

Victor wrote: »

"We don't work past 5pm" - I'm blaming the institutions, not individuals.

Ah I know its not a personal dig or anything.

Its just, I have never heard that being used in my time.

Generally, if you are detailed to do something that needs to be done before or after "normal working hours", you do it. Its not up for discussion or refusal.

Most of that stuff is in house military stuff though.

Are you saying that ATCA duties are being blankly refused due to a 5pm shutdown of the DF? Im trying to understand where you are getting your opinion from.

Can you give me an example please.

Negative_G

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Ah I know its not a personal dig or anything.

Its just, I have never heard that being used in my time.

Generally, if you are detailed to do something that needs to be done before or after "normal working hours", you do it. Its not up for discussion or refusal.

Most of that stuff is in house military stuff though.

Are you saying that ATCA duties are being blankly refused due to a 5pm shutdown of the DF? Im trying to understand where you are getting your opinion from.

Can you give me an example please.

I've heard first hand of personnel being awarded an entire day off for working an hour or two late or getting a half day for "manning the office" during lunch.

I think for most in the private sector this is exactly the type of inefficiency that gives the public service a bad name. Rewarding someone who stays an hour after the normal closing time with a day off is indefensible regardless of circumstance.

Again, not meaning to turn this into a public V private debate but I believe DF personnel get 31 days annual leave, in addition to army holidays.

Again, a legacy issue which I believe is dying out is the half day Wednesdays and Fridays. Granted, I think this arrangement is specific to one location in particular.

Barry Badrinath

Negative_G wrote: »

Issue is the perhaps wrong word.

The DF like many other public service bodies have had their fair share of organisational issues.

As soldiers are essentially gagged from speaking publicly, a lot "issues" were kept from the press. This is particularly true of the era prior to social media. As you are a serving soldier, I'm sure you can think many examples.

The point I was trying to make was that the DF has came on in leaps and bounds while working within a tiny budget.

The years of underfunding have now come home to roost with people leaving in their droves and morale pretty low across the board.

In short, the DF today is a very different animal than it was 15/20 years ago.

I agree there are issues but ones the DF cant (are not allowed) fix.

The budget is ridiculous I agree but thats because the Government only pay lip service to defence issues. Its pretty much seen as a waste of tax payer money and the money is better used or wasted elsewhere.

The DF as a whole hasnt got many organic organisational issues. If the DF were left alone to run the DF, it would be fine.

The governance around it is the cause of the existing issues. The civilians in the DoD (who call all the shots, in all aspects) are the causes of the DF problems.

I agree that underfunding has led to widespread contempt among ranks, especially lower ranks.

Im in 17.5 years and if someone told me how much I would be earning at this stage, I probably would have just went to college and got my soldier fix from the RDF....and I class myself as one of the lucky ones.

Then again, when I joined I was laughed at by my friends who were on treble what I was on. Nearly 2 decades later, its still the same. Myself and others like me are not here to be rich, we are here because we believe its worth it. We are here because someone has to be, God forbid anything was to happen and we would be needed.

The recruiting drive 10 years ago was a farce. We took on many, many Recruits that had a certain mindset (playstation generation) that was counter productive and it really harmed the DF. They joined to get a job, not to soldier. It came at a stage where hard training was being scrutinised by H&S and other cotton wool attitudes which gave power to Recruits and diluted their training and hardships. This also affected the mindset of the instructors. It handcuffed one hand behind their back and expected them to still be able to juggle correctly.

This led to "softer soldiers" and bad eggs who had a dim attitude towards the DF, coupled with reduced wages, poorer terms and conditions, lack of promotion, lack of overseas service. Their attitude to superiors declined too.

These are meant to be the "cream of the crop" from applicants. After 3-4 years their interest is gone and they leave when their contract is up. A lot of the time its because they cant afford to stay in the DF or see no future for themselves because of the DoD influence.

The DoD has closed many Barracks, they have reorganised the DF, they want lads coming in for 5-10 years and then leaving so they can put new entrants on less pay with less entitlements and poorer terms and conditions.

So yeah you are completely roght. It's not a place to join up anymore. The ones who hang around do so for the sense of duty.

The DF has many, many issues but they all stem from DoD control and influence that has been imposed on the DF. Ultimately our General Staff are responsible. They are as soft as puppy sh1t and at that stage, are only interested in themselves and not their troops. Its a PR war they are playing.

Jaysis that was a rant and a half. Look what you did N_G! :pac:

Negative_G

Can only agree with you on all points.

I have a certain sense of admiration for what the DF as an entity do, in all aspects.

For many years they have been an easy target for cuts as the public empathy isn't there. The vast majority of the work undertaken is away from public eyes and goes unnoticed. That's how the military works but thankfully, in no small part to social media, people can get to see what they get up to.

The current state of play with regard to pay is nothing short of a disgrace. How anyone can be expected to survive, never mind raise a family or pay a mortgage on little more than 300-400 per week, is beyond me. It is shameful.

When looking at it through that perspective it is no wonder people become dissilussioned and leave.

The department have a lot to answer for, the buck ultimately stops with them. I made the point elsewhere that when Garda matters are brought before the Public Accounts Committee, the commissioner steps up because at least on paper, she runs the show. When defence matters are raised, you get the Sec Gen in front and centre. This tells me all I need to know with regard to who is running the Defence Forces.

As you say, let the military govern themselves with as little interference as possible. Oversight is required of course, but civilians have no place dictating the day to day running of a military.

Barry Badrinath

Negative_G wrote: »

I've heard first hand of personnel being awarded an entire day off for working an hour or two late or getting a half day for "manning the office" during lunch

Yeah that happens, depending on the Unit and working environment. There are a lot of variables to it and is not as simplistic or as unreasonable as you make it out to be. Its part of leadership, management and welfare of the troops. A lot of lads wont take the day when offered either, depending how busy they are.

Its to help with the work/life balance.

It happens a lot where lads have plans, lower paid lads with longer commute times. It also happens when that soldier might have repeatedly worked early or late in the past and has been shown some gratitude by his superiors.

It also happens for senior soldiers who have put a fcuk tonne of work in over the year or previous years. As I said, lots of variables involved and it could simply be that theres not much on that day.

Negative_G wrote: »

I think for most in the private sector this is exactly the type of inefficiency that gives the public service a bad name. Rewarding someone who stays an hour after the normal closing time with a day off is indefensible regardless of circumstance.

I cant agree with you at all there im afraid.

You would have to define inefficiency in a DF context. The DF isnt like for like with other PS establishments.

The General public wont suffer if Pte. Bloggs gets a halfer or a day off. For all you know, those extra hours he worked meant essential in house tasks were performed in order to allow further in house tasks to go ahead the next day....making things more efficient.

You could have a guy that had 2 x 24hr shifts and other duties to perform this week. He could be instructing or doing absolutely anything which means he is coming in early, working through break times, going home late and doing more prep when he gets home. So pretty much flat out all week.

You could have a guy that has spent 6 months training Recruits. Then is sent into Portlaoise Prison for 3 months Then doing weekend duties in between or running Unit level courses or going on courses around the country away from home for weeks or months at a time.

Its not unreasonable to cut a guy some slack when its not busy and letyimg him spend time with his family.

It is very defenceable for lots and lots and lots of reasons.

I can see your point of view but we are not just a bunch of bluffers.

Negative_G wrote: »

Again, not meaning to turn this into a public V private debate but I believe DF personnel get 31 days annual leave, in addition to army holidays.

Its partially true. Annual leave varies depending on rank and service. Not everyone gets 31 days annual leave.

We can also carryover up to 19 days annual leave from the previous year if we havent taken them. To be honest, I dont know many lads that have taken all their leave in a year.

Annual leave is also a privilidge and not an entitlement. Depending on ooerational requirements, you may be barred from applying for annual leave for certain months of the year. Your leave will also depend on Unit strength and any courses or overseas you look to do.

Very few people actually get to take their full accompliment of annual leave. I dont want you thinking that we all get massive amounts of time off because in reality, its the exception rather than the rule.

Yes we do get seperate army holidays (again if operations allow). I dont know how many right now but the 1916 Commemoration Day and National daybof commemoration are 2 of them. Not unreasonable IMO.

Negative_G wrote: »

Again, a legacy issue which I believe is dying out is the half day Wednesdays and Fridays. Granted, I think this arrangement is specific to one location in particular.

You are again partially correct.

That is actually officially designated as "Organised Recreational Training" or ORT. It is used for Units to train "off programme" under your own initiative. However, a culture exists in that SOLE location to abuse it by "going to the gym at home". Its up to individual Units to "police" it.

It was also the introduced as mandatory training times for personnel who were mainly in office bound employment.

Now in fairness, it has died out and is not as prevalent as in the past but im sure it still exists to an extent.

Barry Badrinath

I must apologise, I get very defensive when talking about the DF.

Its just hard to be thought of as a bluffer, a waste of tax payers money and being told "sure you dont do anything". The DF isnt an easy life, my body is broken from doing the job. The physical and mental demands can be overwhelming but you do it. The personal and social sacrifices can be big but thats the same in every profession.

It doesnt matter what I say I do, it means little to civilians, which is understandable. If im going on a course somewhere in the country or overseas for days, weeks or months, it doesnt mean anything to them.

Take me for exmple, last Friday night, all day Saturday and all day today I am prepping stuff for a thing on Wednesday in another part of the country. I have to have it done tonight as I am on a 24hr shift tomorrow and resting off on Tuesday and will be too tired to focus. I will be away from home on Wednesday until Thursday evening.

Typing on the intermet is as social as it gets for me this weekend and most weekends.

So, I am working all this weekend, a 24hr shift on Monday, away from home again on Wed til Thursday. Will need to catch up on regular work missed from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Which means in at 0700 on Friday and work without breaks until about 1800. Maybe a pee and tea break but thats it. IF all the work is done, I can have bank holiday monday off. If not, I will be in work.

Just on the 24hr shifts as well, we get a duty allowance (classed as overtime) that works out at less than €1 per hour. Most other organisations would be getting a hell of a lot more than €20 extra for working a 24hr shift.

Its ultimately hard to justify what you do when so much of it cant be discussed and what is discussed is intangible to most....lose lose.

Victor

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Its just, I have never heard that being used in my time.

I'm not in the DF, so a lot of it is second hand, including someone from Baldonnel.

One specific thing I remember, I think from the Engineers Journal, along the lines of 'a day in the life of air traffic control' and it went along the lines of:

0900 Turn on radar.
0915 Commence ATC duties.
0900 Commence flight operations.

It very much created the impression that nothing much happened before 0900 (maintenance & planning would of course have to be done).

Negative_G

@SFP, no need to apologise. None at all.

Again, I'm only getting second hand information so I'm not privvy to all that goes on behind the scenes.

I'm very pro DF and as an entity they provide excellent value to the taxpayer for all the services they provide.

I would quite happily see the budget increased. If for nothing else than to see those new entrants receive a living wage.

I see the department are looking for yet another assistant sec gen at the moment. Amazing that they could find another 130-140k a year to pay him or her.

And Btw, you don't come across as a bluffer, far from it.

Barry Badrinath

Victor wrote: »

I'm not in the DF, so a lot of it is second hand, including someone from Baldonnel.

One specific thing I remember, I think from the Engineers Journal, along the lines of 'a day in the life of air traffic control' and it went along the lines of:

0900 Turn on radar.
0915 Commence ATC duties.
0900 Commence flight operations.

It very much created the impression that nothing much happened before 0900 (maintenance & planning would of course have to be done).

Oooohhhh, im coming from an Army infantry setting. The Air Corps are a different kettle of fish altogether. And a specialised ATC role isnt going to look busy and glamorous either. I have no operational knowledge of ATC Ops and their timings.

This is the problem with information that is in the public domain, its selective and insufficient at best.

So my experiences of the DF and yours will be vastly different. Thats also true if I try to relate to your job, I wouldnt really have a clue about what gets done, should get done and if its worthwhile or not.

I can say that in my experience, operationally, if you are expected to work and get a job done, you dont drop shovels at 1700hrs and walk away. You get the job done. Most non operational or routine jobs are however done between 0800-1700 depending on the job. If it requires stayong longer, you stay longer.

I make no excuses for the lazy or less dilligent among our ranks, of which there are some. There are some pure chancers but thats a human trait and in the long term they suffer as a consequence of it.

Barry Badrinath

Negative_G wrote: »

@SFP, no need to apologise. None at all.

Again, I'm only getting second hand information so I'm not privvy to all that goes on behind the scenes.

I'm very pro DF and as an entity they provide excellent value to the taxpayer for all the services they provide.

I would quite happily see the budget increased. If for nothing else than to see those new entrants receive a living wage.

I see the department are looking for yet another assistant sec gen at the moment. Amazing that they could find another 130-140k a year to pay him or her.

And Btw, you don't come across as a bluffer, far from it.

I appreciate it.

Yeah I saw the advert on PublicJobs :pac:

€140k a year.....just to marginalize and decrease the DF's functionality further...bargain for the Government. Fcukers

They even want to reduce our deployments with the EU as its costs the State money...they just want us on UN missions.

roadmaster

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post this question here. I read an article from a link for the Irish times on irish military online about the air corps and it said with AC112 that the crew don't use rank when on mission would that be true of all other aircraft such as pc9s and casas?

Silvera

roadmaster wrote: »

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post this question here. I read an article from a link for the Irish times on irish military online about the air corps and it said with AC112 that the crew don't use rank when on mission would that be true of all other aircraft such as pc9s and casas?

I would guess that not using rank would only apply in the case of a (less formal?) medivac helicopter.

Victor

roadmaster wrote: »

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post this question here. I read an article from a link for the Irish times on irish military online about the air corps and it said with AC112 that the crew don't use rank when on mission would that be true of all other aircraft such as pc9s and casas?

It may be that crew are referred to by function instead of rank, e.g. if the winchman wants to talk to the aircraft commander, in a pressing moment,he shouldn't have to remember if today's aircraft commander is a lieutenant or captain, only for the wrong officer to respond.

I understand the same happens with vehicle crews.

Negative_G

Victor wrote: »

It may be that crew are referred to by function instead of rank, e.g. if the winchman wants to talk to the aircraft commander, in a pressing moment,he shouldn't have to remember if today's aircraft commander is a lieutenant or captain, only for the wrong officer to respond.

I understand the same happens with vehicle crews.

AC pilots are all officers. Enlisted ranks (rear crew) refer to them as 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' regardless of their actual rank.

The primary function of referring to other members of crew by first name is to minimise the risk of any "cockpit gradient" developing based on rank. For example a young inexperienced crewman may not have the confidence to announce something that they see as important to the flight to a senior officer at the controls.

By using first names, its no longer the 20 year veteran with thousands of hours, its just simply "Mick" or "Pat".

The unique nature of helicopter operations in the military and the fact that a pilots field of view is extremely restricted in terms of main rotor and tail rotor clearance. The crew man acts as the pilots eyes in certain instances so its vitally important that both can speak freely and frankly with each other without being overly concerned with rank.

Pilot cockpit gradients were a serious problem amongst certain far eastern Asian airlines whereby the aircraft captain was viewed as a "god" and to question his decisions would have drastic consequences for a young pilots career. So much so that co-pilots have remained silent while being fully aware they were heading to their doom.

I dont think fixed wing AC operations operate under the same first name terms.

roadmaster

Cheers for the replys sort of what I was thinking but wasn't sure. Did anyone read the HEMS report I taught it a very interesting read

roadmaster

Sorry to drag up an old thread but something I was wondering. The air corps can’t launch there own helicopters at night due to lack of ground crew . So how is the Garda helicopter launched do they have a separate ground crew with a SLA provided by the air corps for GASU operations only?

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

Sorry to drag up an old thread but something I was wondering. The air corps can’t launch there own helicopters at night due to lack of ground crew . So how is the Garda helicopter launched do they have a separate ground crew with a SLA provided by the air corps for GASU operations only?

Discussion around the availability of the Garda helicopter and its operation should be considered a breach of OpSec.

roadmaster

Negative_G wrote: »

Discussion around the availability of the Garda helicopter and its operation should be considered a breach of OpSec.

If it is fair enough the mods can remove but it’s hardly a secret it operates 24hrs all you have to is look up and you see its there

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

If it is fair enough the mods can remove but it’s hardly a secret it operates 24hrs all you have to is look up and you see its there

All the criminals need to know is that its always available.

roadmaster

Negative_G wrote: »

All the criminals need to know is that its always available.

I was thinking more along the lines of a crew can launch the GASU could they not launch Air Corps helicopters

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of a crew can launch the GASU could they not launch Air Corps helicopters

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-12-11a.90

The Air Corps have been launching and recovering helicopters from athlone without heavy maintenance facilities or ATC so they obviously have the capability to launch without ATC which appears to be the limiting factor.

Manic Moran

I don't see why ATC would be a limiting factor. Aircraft can fly without ATC below 7,500ft in Ireland. (Class G airspace)
You also don't need a ground crew to turn on a helicopter. As long as they gave it any necessary maintenance before they went home the night before, the helo will work. We're not talking F-16s here.

roadmaster

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't see why ATC would be a limiting factor. Aircraft can fly without ATC below 7,500ft in Ireland. (Class G airspace)
You also don't need a ground crew to turn on a helicopter. As long as they gave it any necessary maintenance before they went home the night before, the helo will work. We're not talking F-16s here.

That’s what I was thinking but you get the impression from various sources such as here, other Discussion Boards and the media that helicopters as well can’t take off out hours due to lack of ground crew.

Negative_G

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't see why ATC would be a limiting factor. Aircraft can fly without ATC below 7,500ft in Ireland. (Class G airspace)
You also don't need a ground crew to turn on a helicopter. As long as they gave it any necessary maintenance before they went home the night before, the helo will work. We're not talking F-16s here.

I'm putting two and two together given the reports that have been in the media since the R116 crash.

It has been widely reported that 24 hour ATC has been unavailable due to a lack of personnel. The knock on being that the AC cannot (under normal circumstances) launch aircraft without ATC. Obviously GASU is the exception to the rule.

The AC are also not providing a 24 hour air ambulance service to the HSE at the moment so their is no routine requirement to launch non GASU aircraft at night time which addresses the original question from roadmaster. It appears to be an ATC issue, not a technical personnel issue.

http://www.thejournal.ie/air-ambulance-ireland-3693837-Nov2017/

roadmaster wrote: »

That’s what I was thinking but you get the impression from various sources such as here, other Discussion Boards and the media that helicopters as well can’t take off out hours due to lack of ground crew.

Not true. Ground crew are not the issue.

Manic Moran

It depends on the weather. VFR rules, you don't need any form of ATC. If you're taking off from Baldonnel in IFR conditions (or whatever the Irish version is, I've a US pilot's license), then you have to have ATC.

Most air/sea rescue ops will, by their nature, be in IFR conditions, so the lack of ATC is most definitely going to affect the CASA or Dauphins more than the GASU fleet which, by nature of their job, tends to require visibility between where they're flying and the ground and thus will meet VFR requirements.

Actually, there is a caveat on there. In the US, at least, military aircraft may be exempted from this requirement, because they have the training and equipment to fly in IFR conditions without ATC. (After all, can't call off the war because the weather is poor). I don't know if Irish military aircraft are not given the same exemption, or if someone has simply made a judgement call that it is not worth the risk.

Negative_G

Manic Moran wrote: »

It depends on the weather. VFR rules, you don't need any form of ATC. If you're taking off from Baldonnel in IFR conditions (or whatever the Irish version is, I've a US pilot's license), then you have to have ATC.

Most air/sea rescue ops will, by their nature, be in IFR conditions, so the lack of ATC is most definitely going to affect the CASA or Dauphins more than the GASU fleet which, by nature of their job, tends to require visibility between where they're flying and the ground and thus will meet VFR requirements.

I think the point is being missed here.

We are all in agreement that aircraft can be launched without ATC in Class G airspace without issue. Which is the case every day with the EAS service in Athlone. And the same with the GASU outside of ATC hours at casement.

The question that was asked was why are the rest of the AC fleet (specifically rotary) not launched without ATC and this would appear to be an operational decision based on ongoing training and operational requirements.

The AC currently do not provide a 24 hr service to the HSE as per the link above, which is quite likely as a result of the lack of ATC as was widely discussed in the wake of the R116 accident.

As it stands, outside of a national emergency or security situation, there is no requirement to launch aircraft, rotary or otherwise, outside of the current ATC hours.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, there is a caveat on there. In the US, at least, military aircraft may be exempted from this requirement, because they have the training and equipment to fly in IFR conditions without ATC. (After all, can't call off the war because the weather is poor). I don't know if Irish military aircraft are not given the same exemption, or if someone has simply made a judgement call that it is not worth the risk.

I don't think the Air Corps do anything that would require an uncontrolled take off into immediate IFR conditions. I can't think of a scenario where that would be an acceptable risk, especially considering the proximity of Baldonnel to Dublin airport.

That said, requesting an IFR climb from a VFR flight plan is relatively straight forward and common.

roadmaster

Just thinking there I read somewhere in the last few weeks that 112 could be going 24 hrs so that answers my question probably anyway about helicopters operations at night.

On a Side note 112 never seams to be out of the air. I know it’s not the same helicopter there using all the time but would the extra flight hours that would probably not of being foreseen when the AW139 where bought cause any extra maintenance issues or longevity for the AW139 fleet furthermore if the air corps ended up providing a second service based in the south as well would that effectively tie up the entire AW139 fleet with the aeromedical service due to aircraft being used and and aircraft being serviced?

Markcheese

Is there much a helicopter can do that a couple of (serious) drones with a decent operator can't do for a fraction of the price...(instead of the garda helicopter)

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

Just thinking there I read somewhere in the last few weeks that 112 could be going 24 hrs so that answers my question probably anyway about helicopters operations at night.

On a Side note 112 never seams to be out of the air. I know it’s not the same helicopter there using all the time but would the extra flight hours that would probably not of being foreseen when the AW139 where bought cause any extra maintenance issues or longevity for the AW139 fleet furthermore if the air corps ended up providing a second service based in the south as well would that effectively tie up the entire AW139 fleet with the aeromedical service due to aircraft being used and and aircraft being serviced?

You are probably correct.

The 139's were originally procured to fulfil the "support the army" role that the Dauphins never quite managed to. The end of SAR ops was meant to mean the army would get plenty of face time with rotary assets.

There is no mandate or rumours for deploying AC aircraft overseas to support UN/EU missions and it could be argued that, given the HR issues, they quite possibly couldn't anyway, even if they wanted to. There was no mention of it in the 2015 White Paper.

As a tax payer, I'd much rather see the helicopters used in the EAS service than flying around the Curragh doing parachuting or lugging artillery pieces.

What I would be interested to know is whether the Dept of Health is renumerating the Dept of Defence for the use of their assets. Having an aircraft available every single day is bound to take a toll on a small fleet of six.

You could argue that a solution would be for the HSE to buy their own 2/3 helicopters, paint them yellow, crew them with AC pilots and HSE rear crew.

It works for the GASU, let Defence provide the crews and the HSE worry about the running costs.

Psychlops

Negative_G wrote: »

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-12-11a.90

The Air Corps have been launching and recovering helicopters from athlone without heavy maintenance facilities or ATC so they obviously have the capability to launch without ATC which appears to be the limiting factor.

No heavy maintenance as the airframes are rotated back to bal every few days for that but they do carry out & have maintenance crews in the EAS base. They put up vids of this on Snapchat not that long ago.

As soon as they are airborne they are onto Shannon ATC.

Psychlops

Victor wrote: »

One specific thing I remember, I think from the Engineers Journal, along the lines of 'a day in the life of air traffic control' and it went along the lines of:

0900 Turn on radar.
0915 Commence ATC duties.
0900 Commence flight operations.

I remember this too, from an IAC book brought out I think in 1997, a day in the life of ATC, when the Fouga's were still flying.

Psychlops

roadmaster wrote: »

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post this question here. I read an article from a link for the Irish times on irish military online about the air corps and it said with AC112 that the crew don't use rank when on mission would that be true of all other aircraft such as pc9s and casas?

I remember watching a video from the RAF/RN its the same for them for all helicopter crews, no rank used when inside the helicopter. All 1st name basis.

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

No heavy maintenance as the airframes are rotated back to bal every few days for that but they do carry out & have maintenance crews in the EAS base. They put up vids of this on Snapchat not that long ago.

As soon as they are airborne they are onto Shannon ATC.

I'm quite aware of how the operation works.

My point is that carrying out first line maintenance doesnt require a lot of infrastructure.

roadmaster

Negative_G wrote: »

You are probably correct.

The 139's were originally procured to fulfil the "support the army" role that the Dauphins never quite managed to. The end of SAR ops was meant to mean the army would get plenty of face time with rotary assets.

There is no mandate or rumours for deploying AC aircraft overseas to support UN/EU missions and it could be argued that, given the HR issues, they quite possibly couldn't anyway, even if they wanted to. There was no mention of it in the 2015 White Paper.

As a tax payer, I'd much rather see the helicopters used in the EAS service than flying around the Curragh doing parachuting or lugging artillery pieces.

What I would be interested to know is whether the Dept of Health is renumerating the Dept of Defence for the use of their assets. Having an aircraft available every single day is bound to take a toll on a small fleet of six.

You could argue that a solution would be for the HSE to buy their own 2/3 helicopters, paint them yellow, crew them with AC pilots and HSE rear crew.

It works for the GASU, let Defence provide the crews and the HSE worry about the running costs.

i know from reading another forum the posters are not to happy about the air corps providing EAS service, but one important fact is the public are very much in favor of it and impressed. Rightly or wrongly it is a great PR exercise and shows the air corps in a very good light while providing an excellent service

roadmaster

I think i heard on the radio the air corps have six helicopters putting out fires so that would be probably all the 139 fleet except 112. So they must be also using one of the 135s . Would they normally be able carry a fully loaded bambi bucket?

Edit: just seen a picture of a ec 135 with a bambi bucket in the indo. Thats that answered

Psychlops

Negative_G wrote: »

As a tax payer, I'd much rather see the helicopters used in the EAS service than flying around the Curragh doing parachuting or lugging artillery pieces.

And as a tax payer id rather see the Military do a Military job, EAS is not their main job, yes the IAC has a long & excellent service with the HSE but they were not bought for that purpose, while ATCP is one of the jobs their main role is not that, their primary role is to support the Army.

If we were going to go that way then why paint them green in the 1st place, you may as well tell any lad or lady signing up to the IAC that they wont be doing Military jobs they will be medical flights..

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

And as a tax payer id rather see the Military do a Military job, EAS is not their main job, yes the IAC has a long & excellent service with the HSE but they were not bought for that purpose, while ATCP is one of the jobs their main role is not that, their primary role is to support the Army.

If we were going to go that way then why paint them green in the 1st place, you may as well tell any lad or lady signing up to the IAC that they wont be doing Military jobs they will be medical flights..

Psychlops wrote: »

And as a tax payer id rather see the Military do a Military job, EAS is not their main job, yes the IAC has a long & excellent service with the HSE but they were not bought for that purpose, while ATCP is one of the jobs their main role is not that, their primary role is to support the Army.

If we were going to go that way then why paint them green in the 1st place, you may as well tell any lad or lady signing up to the IAC that they wont be doing Military jobs they will be medical flights..

Sigh..

Three months later - Seriously?

Have a read of the 2015 White Paper. In the very first few pages you will find the following:

"To provide a range of other supports to government departments and agencies in line with MOUs and SLAs agreed by the Department of Defence e.g. search and rescue and air ambulance services".

This effectively allows the Government to task the Defence Forces with whatever the needs of the state are at the time.

You are correct - One of the primary roles of the Air Corps is to support the Army. However, given that the Air Corps do not support the Army in an ongoing overseas environment, a vast amount of resources would be used purely for training. Training for an eventuality that will probably never happen, certainly in the next 10-15 years.

The Air Corps do provide support routinely for domestic operational taskings (not training). Just because you don't see it advertised on social media don't think that it doesn't happen.

The only scenario where you are going to see AC rotary aircraft doing substantial dedicated military training and operations is if the UN/EU ask the Government to contribute rotary assets to a PKO/EU Battlegroup etc. Even then, with the HR issues the AC are suffering, it's unlikely to get off the ground. And it would likely require the ceasing both EAS and GASU which would cause significant headaches and would likely result in the respective Government dept's dragging their feet.

In the mean time, I am quite happy to see the AC carry out the EAS job. I'm pretty sure the air crew get significant job satisfaction out of it, more so than logging around an artillery piece. I'm also pretty sure that most aircrew applicants are aware of the roles and responsibilities of the AC prior to joining so if anyone is disillusioned, they only have themselves to blame.

roadmaster

Negative_G wrote: »

Sigh..

Three months later - Seriously?

Have a read of the 2015 White Paper. In the very first few pages you will find the following:

"To provide a range of other supports to government departments and agencies in line with MOUs and SLAs agreed by the Department of Defence e.g. search and rescue and air ambulance services".

This effectively allows the Government to task the Defence Forces with whatever the needs of the state are at the time.

You are correct - One of the primary roles of the Air Corps is to support the Army. However, given that the Air Corps do not support the Army in an ongoing overseas environment, a vast amount of resources would be used purely for training. Training for an eventuality that will probably never happen, certainly in the next 10-15 years.

The Air Corps do provide support routinely for domestic operational taskings (not training). Just because you don't see it advertised on social media don't think that it doesn't happen.

The only scenario where you are going to see AC rotary aircraft doing substantial dedicated military training and operations is if the UN/EU ask the Government to contribute rotary assets to a PKO/EU Battlegroup etc. Even then, with the HR issues the AC are suffering, it's unlikely to get off the ground. And it would likely require the ceasing both EAS and GASU which would cause significant headaches and would likely result in the respective Government dept's dragging their feet.

In the mean time, I am quite happy to see the AC carry out the EAS job. I'm pretty sure the air crew get significant job satisfaction out of it, more so than logging around an artillery piece. I'm also pretty sure that most aircrew applicants are aware of the roles and responsibilities of the AC prior to joining so if anyone is disillusioned, they only have themselves to blame.

In a way the EAS is giving the air crew good training in landing operations all over the country in different areas