Irish SAR discussion

Oscar Bravo

Nice article on the FII website "Remembering Rescue 111" in which Dauphin helicopter, ‘248’, callsign ‘Rescue 111’, crashed in dense fog at Tramore beach this night back in 1999 https://flyinginireland.com/2016/07/remembering-rescue-111/

_dof_

Remembering Rescue 111, 18 years today.

Go Mairidis Beo

Psychlops

Big long range mission today done by R117 & one of the Air Corps Casa fleet (C253) well done all, they are very lucky to be alive.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/record-chasing-rowers-rescued-after-boat-capsizes-165-miles-off-irish-coast-798928.html

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

Big long range mission today done by R117 & one of the Air Corps Casa fleet (C253) well done all, they are very lucky to be alive.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/record-chasing-rowers-rescued-after-boat-capsizes-165-miles-off-irish-coast-798928.html

Very well done to all indeed.

A very real conversation needs to happen regarding the acquisition of more capable and modern maritime assets.

DPER produced a Defence Vote Group report this month. In 2014-15 the average Defence spend per head of population was €190.50. In 2013-14 only 8.65% went on toward the acquisition of new equipment. Well below the average of 14.5% compared to other EDA members. The current level of spending on Defence is well below 1% of GDP at around €850m. Given 70% of this is required for pay and pensions. It leaves a tiny amount to pay for the upkeep of the entire Defence Forces inventory and for the procurement of new equipment for all of the Defence Forces.

Given the well documented issues surrounding the availability of the CASA's after the R116 crash, it should be treated as a matter of priority.

The Air Corps CASA's are now the highest airframe aircraft of their type in existance and are approaching 24 years in service.

The 2015 White Paper specifies that they are scheduled for replacement in 2019. The question needs to be asked though that given the size of our EEZ and our national responsibility toward SAR, is two aircraft enough? Personally I don't think so.

Realistically purchasing 3-4 upgraded replacements including mission equipment and training will probably cost the guts of €200m. A huge investment in defence but a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

As far as I am aware, the two current CASA's were part funded by the EU in 1994. I don't see why this couldn't happen again.

ED E

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 White Paper specifies that they are scheduled for replacement in 2019. The question needs to be asked though that given the size of our EEZ and our national responsibility toward SAR, is two aircraft enough? Personally I don't think so.

While the CASAs provide an important role would it not be a smaller more beneficial start getting the AW139 performing the EAS up to 24/7-365? Top cover is a supporting role, no point adding support when the front line is under resourced.

The fact that Waterford responded not SNN hints that maybe they were already on a call backing up just how busy the CHC crews are.

Edit:
Just spotted that 115 was on Inishmore and on to UHG today.

Negative_G

ED E wrote: »

While the CASAs provide an important role would it not be a smaller more beneficial start getting the AW139 performing the EAS up to 24/7-365? Top cover is a supporting role, no point adding support when the front line is under resourced.

The fact that Waterford responded not SNN hints that maybe they were already on a call backing up just how busy the CHC crews are.

The overall primary role of the Air Corps is to support the Army and the wider Defence Forces and provide whatever limited Air Defence it can. Aid to the Civil authority and other Government departments are a secondary role, apart from GASU operations.

EAS is being operated under a SLA with the HSE. This can be terminated at any stage at the stroke of a pen. EAS is without doubt sucking up a huge amount of resources. The AW139's were bought for the purpose of Army Co-Op and support, not to become the equivalent of a civilian air ambulance service, which is what it has become.

The HSE were the ones who obviously wanted the service and the Air Corps were likely directed to act as the guinea pig on foot of a political decision.

In my opinion, if the HSE want a 24/7/365 or any type of capability, let them pay for it, out of the health budget. You can be damn sure that the airframe hours and maintenance are being paid for out of the Defence Vote and while you may argue that "sure its all the same" its not when the remaining budget for other training & equipment suffer as a result.

It's the equivalent of me driving a very expensive car that belonged to you while you taxed, NCT'd, insured, refuelled and repaired anything that went wrong. Of course I'd think it was a great deal. I'm sure the crews are enjoying it and it has to be rewarding but then again I'm sure there are plenty of flying crew who would enjoy more military operations just the same.

Ultimately, while EAS has proven to be a great success. It is not and has never been officially a primary function of the Air Corps.

Replacing the CASA's isnt just about Top-Cover. Upgrading the CASA's allows for a huge leap in capability in whole host of primary roles. Surveillance, reconnaissance, airlift, troop transport, special operations, maritime patrol, fisheries protection, drug interdiction.

The reason I am making the reference to the R116 crash is because the general public and the political class are always reactive. Top-Cover is only a secondary role and according to the SLA, is only provided on an "as available" basis. This fact was lost on the majority of the public. CHC were obviously happy enough to sign the a contract on the basis that they would provide their own Top-Cover if needed. Another fact which was glossed over when the blame game began.

While I am not having a go at you personally, your lack of understanding about the functions of the Air Corps are part of the problem. This is partly due to a general public disinterest amongst other things.

CHC were awarded a €500m contract over 10 years. If that contract isn't renewed, CHC will take all their assets and any removable infrastructure and move onto the next customer.

If it was announced that €200m was to be invested in replacing the CASA's there would be a public outcry. Despite the fact that the assets would be fully owned and operated by the state and potentially perform a multitude of roles both domestically and internationally over 20-25 years.

ED E

While this may offend some, Joe Public doesnt care about the PDF. Thats why there's no funding. The public dont care so the Dail doesnt.

Using the AC in a "humanitarian" role like SAR/EAS, while you're right its not their job, is a great way to endear them to the public. Fisheries are important, but when you have a fleet of 6x patrol vessels but only 2x crewable (that may be dated) there's no way you can be effective. Fisheries doesnt win elections.

Personally I'd much rather the AC scrap all their unarmed fixed wing stuff and just keep the CASA and helo wing. Focus on what you're useful at.

Negative_G

ED E wrote: »

While this may offend some, Joe Public doesnt care about the PDF. Thats why there's no funding. The public dont care so the Dail doesnt.

Using the AC in a "humanitarian" role like SAR/EAS, while you're right its not their job, is a great way to endear them to the public. Fisheries are important, but when you have a fleet of 6x patrol vessels but only 2x crewable (that may be dated) there's no way you can be effective. Fisheries doesnt win elections.

Personally I'd much rather the AC scrap all their unarmed fixed wing stuff and just keep the CASA and helo wing. Focus on what you're useful at.

You've chosen to deliberately avoid addressing most of my comment regarding the issues of budgetary constraints. I'll assume that is because you have less than a passing interest in Defence matters, which is entirely your prerogative.

It seems, from what I can gather, that you're in agreement with the principle that politicians should pander to whatever will win votes. It's that type of attitude that results in gombeens like the Healy Rae's being elected. The notion of "sure he got the potholes fixed, he did the community a great service, never mind that long term infrastruture or education plan, he got results". The very definition of parish pump politics and the very reason we have such a regressive Government for a first world nation. Very little outside of the box thinking.

Speaking of humanitarian missions, the Naval Service has been heavily involved in a high profile humanitarian mission for several years now in the Mediterranean. Despite their life saving humanitarian work, any time I see it in the media it is often accompanied by negative comments from the general public. They are carrying out the will of the Government, on behalf of the people who elected them so who is to blame? The guys on the front line? The Government? Or the electorate?

You're data regarding the current naval fleet and staffing is also incorrect.The Naval Service has undergone its most expensive fleet modernisation programme in its history, and it isn't finished yet. And like the Air Corps, it was long overdue.

Fisheries and maritime surveillance may not win votes but it is a national responsibility and a role which we are obliged to conduct due to our membership of the European Union.

Which boils back to my point regarding parish pump politics. Appease the masses, rub their bellies and they will be happy, hopefully resulting in votes at the next GE.

Put simply, money needs to be invested, otherwise you get a token service which is what has become the norm. The entire Defence Budget would probably last about 6-7 weeks in the Department of Health and yet we have one of the most overstaffed and inefficient health services in Europe and the Western world.

Anyway, this is straying off topic so I will digress. I accept and agree with your points regarding the lack of political and public interest. I disagree that this should just be accepted for what it is as a result of years of political disinterest.

Psychlops

ED E wrote: »

While the CASAs provide an important role would it not be a smaller more beneficial start getting the AW139 performing the EAS up to 24/7-365? Top cover is a supporting role, no point adding support when the front line is under resourced.

The fact that Waterford responded not SNN hints that maybe they were already on a call backing up just how busy the CHC crews are.

Edit:
Just spotted that 115 was on Inishmore and on to UHG today.

There was talk in the PFG of the Govt making the EAS a 24/7 job. You are right, R117 did that job as R115 was on a different tasking. R115 was also in again this morning around 5am.

Psychlops

ED E wrote: »

.

Personally I'd much rather the AC scrap all their unarmed fixed wing stuff and just keep the CASA and helo wing. Focus on what you're useful at.

Highly agree, the Casa's should maybe go to the Navy? The IAC really should be a purely rotary force, 6 x AW139 with 1 on EAS duty with that airframe being rotated does not cut the mustard, we could open air policing to other nations & base them at like maybe SNN as is done in Iceland?, they have no military but have an air policing detachment there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

Highly agree, the Casa's should maybe go to the Navy? The IAC really should be a purely rotary force, 6 x AW139 with 1 on EAS duty with that airframe being rotated does not cut the mustard, we could open air policing to other nations & base them at like maybe SNN as is done in Iceland?, they have no military but have an air policing detachment there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

How would you propose that the issue of NATO membership is addressed to facilitate such an arrangement? Membership of NATO also has other spending implications. Iceland is unique in being the only nation who is not required to meet the 2% of GDP spend on Defence.

Mick Wallace and Flare Daly would have a field day.

ED E

Negative_G wrote: »

How would you propose that the issue of NATO membership is addressed to facilitate such an arrangement? Membership of NATO also has other spending implications. Iceland is unique in being the only nation who is not required to meet the 2% of GDP spend on Defence.

Mick Wallace and Flare Daly would have a field day.

Dropping "cruft" from the AC doesnt mean don't spend the money, just spend it elsewhere. Feed it into the naval service or up the CASAs numbers.

Negative_G

ED E wrote: »

Dropping "cruft" from the AC doesnt mean don't spend the money, just spend it elsewhere. Feed it into the naval service or up the CASAs numbers.

And the issue of NATO membership?

How do you think the beloved politicians would sell that notion to the electorate?

Psychlops

Negative_G wrote: »

And the issue of NATO membership?

How do you think the beloved politicians would sell that notion to the electorate?

We already partake in NATO led PFP missions so it really would not be an issue, nobody kicked up about it, they did not kick up either about the Navy's newest role in the Med either that's due to happen soon.

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

We already partake in NATO led PFP missions so it really would not be an issue, nobody kicked up about it, they did not kick up either about the Navy's newest role in the Med either that's due to happen soon.

Being involved in NATO PfP missions is a world away from being a NATO member. The two are in no way comparable.

Similarly, OP Pontus, soon to be OP Sophia is an EU led humanitarian operation.

The reason the change of mission status was approved through the triple lock so quickly is because it posed absolutely no threat of greying the lines of Irish "Neutrality" or to be more correct, the Irish policy of military non-alignment. And more importantly, poses almost a zero risk to Irish lives and maritime assets.

Joining NATO is a complete game changer from a constitutional and cultural perspective and would likely require a referendum to amend the constitution accordingly. To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Psychlops

Negative_G wrote: »

Being involved in NATO PfP missions is a world away from being a NATO member. The two are in no way comparable.

Similarly, OP Pontus, soon to be OP Sophia is an EU led humanitarian operation.

The reason the change of mission status was approved through the triple lock so quickly is because it posed absolutely no threat of greying the lines of Irish "Neutrality" or to be more correct, the Irish policy of military non-alignment. And more importantly, poses almost a zero risk to Irish lives and maritime assets.

Joining NATO is a complete game changer from a constitutional and cultural perspective and would likely require a referendum to amend the constitution accordingly. To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Indeed PFP is different but still NATO led, R Boyd Barret threw a hissy fit over Op Sophia. Regardless of the fact I believe it could be something we could look at. the majority of the EU is in NATO & even Iceland contributes not much to NATO as a whole so it is something that can be looked at.

roadmaster

Mods please delete this if it's inapproiate , I was thinking with the potential legal cases coming up in the future , if CHC Ireland went in to bankruptcy due to the cases ( I have read that CHC in general are not in good finiancial shape) What would happenthen ? could the IRCG keep the bases going directly some how until another company is got or could the air corps step in temporary but there problem being they may only able to supply two air frames?

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

Indeed PFP is different but still NATO led, R Boyd Barret threw a hissy fit over Op Sophia. Regardless of the fact I believe it could be something we could look at. the majority of the EU is in NATO & even Iceland contributes not much to NATO as a whole so it is something that can be looked at.

The primary difference we can opt in and opt out when it suits us. If a PfP is deemed to hot and risky whereby lives may be in danger. It is bypassed. If you are a full NATO member, you don't have that luxury. If your NATO ally is attacked, you are expected to row in with all you can regardless of any other existing polticial, cultural or economic ties.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Ireland grow a pair and join NATO. it won't happen because of the spending requirement. Sitting on the fence and letting someone else (the RAF) do the donkey work is a far cheaper option for politicians and far more palatable for the soft Irish "sure it will be grand" electorate.

It's nothing more than a pipe dream and as I said, how do you sell it to the general public? How do you convince them that we need to increase defence spending by over 100%?

Mech1

At least one of our SAR helicopters assisting in major rescue of 40 army cadets in the Mourne mountains N Ireland at the moment.

http://uknip.co.uk/2017/08/major-rescue-operation-involving-70-people-on-the-mourne-mountains-northern-ireland/

ED E

EI-ICU (116) is up there with them as of 2hrs ago when they last pinged AIS.

vicwatson

117 was out for five hours yesterday off Rosslare seeking a swimmer, not sure if they were ever found.

vicwatson

Actually, did they not retire the number 116? Why was that?

ED E

vicwatson wrote: »

Actually, did they not retire the number 116? Why was that?

That was discussed in the crash thread. The spare airframe took up the mantle, it was suggested that changing SAR names is not a matter of just deciding as there are international considerations.

R111 was retired after it was lost.

faoiarvok

ED E wrote: »

That was discussed in the crash thread. The spare airframe took up the mantle, it was suggested that changing SAR names is not a matter of just deciding as there are international considerations.

R111 was retired after it was lost.

The aircraft aren't actually named or registered as R11x, they're the callsigns assigned to aircraft from a particular base when on an active rescue mission.

R115: Shannon
R116: Dublin
R117: Waterford
R118: Sligo

Not sure of the registrations usually based at each station, but they also rotate a bit to allow for maintenance and operational requirements.

The callsigns are a matter of international and interagency agreement.

From a pragmatic point of view, I think continuing with the callsigns unchanged allows other rescuers continue with what they're used to from their experience.

In my opinion, continuing to fly and help the public with the callsign Rescue 116 honours the memory of the deceased better than retiring it, but I can totally understand the opposite view.

Reati

faoiarvok wrote: »

The aircraft aren't actually named or registered as R11x, they're the callsigns assigned to aircraft from a particular base when on an active rescue mission.

R115: Shannon
R116: Dublin
R117: Waterford
R118: Sligo

Not sure of the registrations usually based at each station, but they also rotate a bit to allow for maintenance and operational requirements.

The callsigns are a matter of international and interagency agreement.

From a pragmatic point of view, I think continuing with the callsigns unchanged allows other rescuers continue with what they're used to from their experience.

In my opinion, continuing to fly and help the public with the callsign Rescue 116 honours the memory of the deceased better than retiring it, but I can totally understand the opposite view.

Yeah, I always thought the retiring thing was a two fold thing of

• Superstition of reusing the same name
• Later: Tribute / mark of respect to lost souls onboard

ED E

faoiarvok wrote: »

The aircraft aren't actually named or registered as R11x, they're the callsigns assigned to aircraft from a particular base when on an active rescue mission.

Im aware, I was suggesting the callsign was retired not the craft.

ED E

UPDATE – UK Coastguard confirm that a total of 73 people are currently being evacuated from Mourne Mountain – 63 youngsters aged between 12-17 and 10 adults.
Most of those are being walked down the mountain to safety, but up to 20 people may require stretcher evacuation as they are suffering from exposure.
The incident is ongoing but all members of the group have been accounted for and are believed to be out of immediate danger.
We will provide further updates when we can.


Jesus.

faoiarvok

ED E wrote: »

Im aware, I was suggesting the callsign was retired not the craft.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you weren't aware, just hit reply on the last post, meaning to add context for the previous commenter.

ED E

Evac complete, 73/73 safe and sound.

Hopefully the cadettes(MOD?) will do a review as to how it happened. Testing multi agency responses is good but not worth risking kids for.

Psychlops

faoiarvok wrote: »

Not sure of the registrations usually based at each station, but they also rotate a bit to allow for maintenance and operational requirements.


In my opinion, continuing to fly and help the public with the callsign Rescue 116 honours the memory of the deceased better than retiring it, but I can totally understand the opposite view.

Currently:

EI-ICG~R118~Sligo
EI-ICA~R115~Shannon
EI-ICD~R117~Waterford
EI-ICU~R116~Dublin

A new S92 to replace EI-ICR is due in September, AFAIK it was all agreed to keep the RESCUE116 callsign out of respect & its what they would have wanted.