Air Corps SAR

wotswattage

Negative_G wrote: »

Of course it should be considered but statistics and the occurances of such events have to be considered. There is a balance to be met.

In every scenario there is risk, you put in place mitigation to reduce the consequences of that risk if it comes to fruition.

Do you happen to know the statistics of how many flight hours were spent on on island or inshore operations by R115 and R117 over the last decade?

The simple reality is the east coast does not require the capability of an S92. Its completely overkill.

As regards cutting corners, have you read the Air Corps submission? Or are you basing your opinion on your own conclusions and the emotional prerogative that is being broadcast by sock puppet accounts on social media who are by all accounts CHC emoloyees slinging mud because they are in fear of losing their job.

do you have an opinion on the R116 report and the delays it has experienced? Do you perhaps have an opinion of the situation regarding the use of Night vision equipment by CHC and purchase of same?

For the record. I'd rather see AC assets deployed overseas but the lack of political will isn't there. If it can be proven that an additional service can be adequately staffed and provided in the domestic setting, I'd settle for that. I'd rather see a portion of a €1 billion contract go to the defence forces than CHC.

There are a number of easy incentives (cash is king) which can be introduced to remedy the HR issues which are consistently referred to.

I note IALPA had an article published today supporting their CHC members. It would be interesting to see which side of the line they would fall when there are a number of Aer Lingus pilots who have returned to the Air Corps due to COVID, who would be in line to be involved in a potential SAR service.

Have you read the Air Corps submission? Is it in the public domain?
I feel its not fair to comment at all unless we can see what has been put on the table.

For what its worth I don't think CHC have covered themselves in glory over the course of this contract, though I'd be very wary of the capability the Air Corps would be able to provide given the historic manpower issues and complete lack of experience in SAR lately.

Negative_G

wotswattage wrote: »

Have you read the Air Corps submission? Is it in the public domain?
I feel its not fair to comment at all unless we can see what has been put on the table.

For what its worth I don't think CHC have covered themselves in glory over the course of this contract, though I'd be very wary of the capability the Air Corps would be able to provide given the historic manpower issues and complete lack of experience in SAR lately.

I haven't read the Air Corps submission. I haven't read the CHC proposal either which will have to likely deal with the top cover issue aswell.

Like any commercial proposal, these documents aren't supposed to be in the public domain. They're presented to the decision makers and while the government has a less than stellar history of making good sound decisions, you would hope that the best option(s) will be chosen and value for money will have to be considered.

If the AC submission is released, then every operator should be required to publish theirs including full costings.

Media today leading with the state purchasing NVG equipment for CHC back in 2013 and training only commenced in 2018 at a cost of €7.5 million. Good value for money?

SAR isn't rocket science. Can it be learned overnight? No. But with a reasonable lead in time it an approproate level of service can be provided. R116 & R117 both spend much of their time involved in onshore and coastal missions and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but let's be reasonable. Not every tasking is 150nm off the coast in gale force winds at night. It's a discipline that can be learned with proper resourcing and time. It's not some sort of dark art that can only be provided by CHC which ironically is the narrative being pushed all over social media by CHC employees.

Larbre34

If you think their angle is to promote CHC and denigrate the Air Corps, then whats your angle?

Negative_G

Larbre34 wrote: »

If you think their angle is to promote CHC and denigrate the Air Corps, then whats your angle?

I've already said previously that I believe the Air Corps should be striving to send aircraft overseas but regardless of HR and aircraft constraints that is a government decision. The Air Corps dont have any real experience in deploying and sustaining an aircraft overseas for a prolonged period and it's unlikely that'll happen in the short to medium term.

If the AC is to be tasked with purely domestic functions only as seems to be the case, then everything is up for discussion. EAS fell upon the AC as a result of a regional hospital being closed and while it had teething problems, it is now a well established service. There's a lot of people out there who are alive only for this service and while HEMS is a generally a civilian function, I'd argue that its highly rewarding work which aids with retention of skilled personnel and also a good use of tax payers money.

Your post seems a little confrontational and I can't understand why. There is an active campaign of misinformation and denigration ongoing across social media (I suspect a few new accounts will be open here shortly) and it doesn't take a genius to see what the agenda is.

This is being driven by people fearful that they are staring down the barrel of a P45, and that is understandable to a point. However, the contract wont be decided on the input of anonymous social media accounts. It doesn't help that serving members of the DF are precluded from engaging in the discussion.

It also doesnt help when the head of the IRCG is putting out very close to what could be considered slanderous tweets about this whole discussion. The same individual only recently made a tweet and as good as said that the R116 incident was entirely the Air Corps fault. When another twitter user suggested that the lack of NVG equipment *may* have *contributed* to the accident, he was shut down out of "respect for the families". The accident has been weaponised by some for a specific purpose. Cynical commentary might suggest that the delay in publishing the report is tactical as some of the findings may be unfavorable towards certain stakeholders involved. But until it is published, it will remain to be seen.

This behaviour is unbecoming of someone holding the postion of head of the IRCG which is likely why it seems to be open season for other CHC enployees to do similar.

What's my angle? I'd like to see a mature discussion had which results in a contract and service which provides a properly resourced and professional SAR service.

If that means a mix of purely civil or part civil/part military I don't really care but it is tax payers money being used to pay for it and if there is scope for the state to save potentially hundreds of millions of euros then all options must be carefully considered.

roadmaster

The mentioned article about the NVGs

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/government-spend-75million-helicopters-night-20514497.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16201296192468&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

speedbird777

Air corps unlikely to get any role in new contract. Can barely manage what they have yet alone a dedicated sar unit.

Also left it to late to start this campaign. Should of started 10 years ago to begin training crewmen up and get them up to paramedic level. Some of them are emts for the air ambulance based in athlone and that had to be done outside by ESTI because the army wouldn't run an emt course.

No helicopters either capable of sar. Would need to buy 2, train pilots, recruit and train more mechanics etc, which inevitable would leave for chc because conditions are much better.

Maybe when they get laughed out of the tender discussions they'll focus on the the next 10 years to be in a better position to bid.

Psychlops

speedbird777 wrote: »

Air corps unlikely to get any role in new contract. Can barely manage what they have yet alone a dedicated sar unit.

Also if you are in the SAR game its SAR 24/7/365 its not cargo slinging on Monday, PC9 on Tuesday, SAR on Wednesday, Casa on Thursday, this would have to be a 100% dedicated thing which means any asset declared for SAR does exactly that & not one thing else.


I read over on another forum that when SAR was for the IAC that the Army very rarely got any rotary assets due to the AC being so small that they couldnt give any airfrrame over, yet when they lost SAR suddenly all these assets became available even to the FCA/RDF.



https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/forum/defence-forces/air-corps/28274-no-role-for-the-air-corps-says-minister-for-defence-in-sar?p=685105#post685105





It cant be like that pulling resources by robbing Peter to pay Paul for the future, if something is a declared asset as SAR then it stays that way until its time to buy a new Helicopter.





Have a read of this thread below, some are ex IAC I would imagine, either way in my mind just leave the Military to do the Military stuff & leave the Civvies to SAR.


https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/forum/defence-forces/air-corps/28274-no-role-for-the-air-corps-says-minister-for-defence-in-sar

speedbird777

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Ac dont care your sar crew. Your a number, a number needed for gaurd of honors, barrack duties, ranges, fitness test, promotion the list goes on and on as to why you would not be left to be dedicated sar.

Let alone keep there current commitments to eas, gasu, arw ect...

Dohvolle

speedbird777 wrote: »

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Ac dont care your sar crew. Your a number, a number needed for gaurd of honors, barrack duties, ranges, fitness test, promotion the list goes on and on as to why you would not be left to be dedicated sar.

Let alone keep there current commitments to eas, gasu, arw ect...

Anyone who thinks the Air Corps can do SAR need only look at the Dh248 accident report, the recommendations and wonder how many were implemented.

Like the Air Ambulanc operation, the State will utilise the DF and the Air Corps, not because it is the best use of assets, but because the DF will do it on the cheap.
Do you think a civvy operator would be keeping an aircraft in a tent? Even the Charity operation in North Cork keeps their A109 in a hangar.

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the Air Corps can do SAR need only look at the Dh248 accident report, the recommendations and wonder how many were implemented.

Like the Air Ambulanc operation, the State will utilise the DF and the Air Corps, not because it is the best use of assets, but because the DF will do it on the cheap.
Do you think a civvy operator would be keeping an aircraft in a tent? Even the Charity operation in North Cork keeps their A109 in a hangar.

100%.
If they were serious about that gig, it would be a DF ap in the back too.
Just a box ticker for the pilots that's all that is. Flying all day every day no questions asked. Building hours.
If there was no air ambulance theyd still be flying around with no purpose just hard to justify when asked.

Dohvolle

speedbird777 wrote: »

100%.
If they were serious about that gig, it would be a DF ap in the back too.
Just a box ticker for the pilots that's all that is. Flying all day every day no questions asked. Building hours.
If there was no air ambulance theyd still be flying around with no purpose just hard to justify when asked.

They would find ministers to fly about to open parish playgrounds, then blame lack of availability when a heli is required for something that might get the floor dirty.
I remember years back one of the Kingairs developed a fault in Cork Airport. They flew the techies down on the govt jet to fix it.

Psychlops

What sickens me is year on year (dont get me wrong I am a huge fan of the PDF especially IAC) but they (DoD) constantly are the only branch of the Govt to hand money back every year & play it off as a saving to the state when in fact they should never be handing it back, it should be used, Ships laid up, Poor Troop accommodation etc, in fact they should be asking for more money.

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

What sickens me is year on year (dont get me wrong I am a huge fan of the PDF especially IAC) but they (DoD) constantly are the only branch of the Govt to hand money back every year & play it off as a saving to the state when in fact they should never be handing it back, it should be used, Ships laid up, Poor Troop accommodation etc, in fact they should be asking for more money.

For the DOD, as long as they handle themselves, then they don't care about the DF... Short of gutting the Department and starting again I don't see how that mindset is going to change...

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade, these employees, like anyone else, are staring down the barrel of losing a job which is extremely well paid. A CHC captain earns in the region of 200k a year. Rear crew close to 100k.

Fear of losing that sort of an income is what's driving the social media mud slinging. Unfortunately, that's the private sector for you.

Absolutely no decision should be taken until the R116 report is published in full.

But surprise, surprise, it keeps being delayed through legal challenges. Very small pool of stakeholders who are involved.

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

speedbird777

Alkers wrote: »

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

If chc loose it, and another commercial company gets it, it would merely be a change in uniforms and logos.
The latter would never happen. Not in our life times anyway

Alkers

speedbird777 wrote: »

If chc loose it, and another commercial company gets it, it would merely be a change in uniforms and logos.
The latter would never happen. Not in our life times anyway

But that diminishes the argument of all this ac bashing being a result of people being afraid for their jobs

Negative_G

Alkers wrote: »

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Possibly they aren't aware of their rights?

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=208

Commonly known as Tupe regulations, if a government contract is awarded to another entity, the individual employees are legally entitled to remain in their employment with the entity awarded the contract, at the same (or better) terms and conditions (excluding pension iirc).

Negative_G

Alkers wrote: »

Possibly they aren't aware of their rights?

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=208

Commonly known as Tupe regulations, if a government contract is awarded to another entity, the individual employees are legally entitled to remain in their employment with the entity awarded the contract, at the same (or better) terms and conditions (excluding pension iirc).

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

Yes I'm very unsure how it works if a state body assumes a function that it wasn't undertaking previously. The legislation envisages cleaners or lorry drivers but when it comes to specialisms such as pilots which are type rated to certain aircraft this might further complicate things also

speedbird777

Negative_G wrote: »

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

They will have to tender. That's what's happening at the minute. Dept of transport are not goina give ac money to fund there little project of east coast sar and still fund 3 other bases. 3 civilian and one military base on a small island isn't going to work.

speedbird777

Negative_G wrote: »

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Unfortunately theres no cheap way of running sar. I duno how the ac think they can do it cheaper.

Dohvolle

speedbird777 wrote: »

Unfortunately theres no cheap way of running sar. I duno how the ac think they can do it cheaper.

They did before.
I'm sure some desk pilot has his eye on some second hand RAF Sea Kings that can be bought for a song..
And then, just like the Air Ambulance, air corps pilots can fly the sea kings, and they can hire the former CHC AP/Winchmen to work out the back.
And the crew deployed to Shannon can live in the nearby Caravan Park in Lahinch, the Sligo Crew can kip in Finner, and now that Waterford Airport is quiet, the crew there can sleep on Kipmats in the old terminal.
Of course they wouldn't be paid MSA because it's a civvy job they are doing so more money saved...

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

They did before.
I'm sure some desk pilot has his eye on some second hand RAF Sea Kings that can be bought for a song..
And then, just like the Air Ambulance, air corps pilots can fly the sea kings, and they can hire the former CHC AP/Winchmen to work out the back.
And the crew deployed to Shannon can live in the nearby Caravan Park in Lahinch, the Sligo Crew can kip in Finner, and now that Waterford Airport is quiet, the crew there can sleep on Kipmats in the old terminal.
Of course they wouldn't be paid MSA because it's a civvy job they are doing so more money saved...

Yep. Available 24/7
Monday to Friday
Until 5pm

Dohvolle

speedbird777 wrote: »

Yep. Available 24/7
Monday to Friday
Until 5pm

Oh the crew will be available alright, they just won't be paid for weekends or after 5pm (4pm on friday).

Markcheese

speedbird777 wrote: »

Unfortunately theres no cheap way of running sar. I duno how the ac think they can do it cheaper.

Maybe it's not to do with cheaper - retained capability - competition, there could be many reasons other than price ,
And the air corp taking over the east coast , and providing 2 dedicated helicopters is unlikely to save anything anyway ,
2 organisations, more aircraft overall ,
Not to say that it couldn't be a worthwhile excercise , ( might force a more realistic restructuring of the air corp and military in general )

speedbird777

Markcheese wrote: »

Maybe it's not to do with cheaper - retained capability - competition, there could be many reasons other than price ,
And the air corp taking over the east coast , and providing 2 dedicated helicopters is unlikely to save anything anyway ,
2 organisations, more aircraft overall ,
Not to say that it couldn't be a worthwhile excercise , ( might force a more realistic restructuring of the air corp and military in general )

Stick to there primary role - support the army
Leave the coast gaurd to do SAR

If the AC need more money, theres other ways to go about it...not bidding of the sar contract and comming up miles short.

I'm speaking only of helicopter sar btw. Maybe there is a fixed wing element they could take up.

Dohvolle

speedbird777 wrote: »

Stick to there primary role - support the army
Leave the coast gaurd to do SAR

If the AC need more money, theres other ways to go about it...not bidding of the sar contract and comming up miles short.

I'm speaking only of helicopter sar btw. Maybe there is a fixed wing element they could take up.

Taking on SAR will drag the Air Corps further from any military role.
Better off getting some useful asset such as military transport aircraft. Embarrassing seeing Volga-Dnepr collect our emergency aid for India while the rest of Europe have military transport aircraft doing the job.

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

Taking on SAR will drag the Air Corps further from any military role.
Better off getting some useful asset such as military transport aircraft. Embarrassing seeing Volga-Dnepr collect our emergency aid for India while the rest of Europe have military transport aircraft doing the job.

Yeah absolutely that would be ideal.
I was only saying sar because its 24/7 so alot of ppl get a bump in wages. You need the base to be 24/7. Everything from atc, fire, cooks, etc they all need to be on duty pay. Where as atm very little is 24/7 bar the barrack security.

Larbre34

speedbird777 wrote: »

Stick to there primary role - support the army
Leave the coast gaurd to do SAR

If the AC need more money, theres other ways to go about it...not bidding of the sar contract and comming up miles short.

I'm speaking only of helicopter sar btw. Maybe there is a fixed wing element they could take up.

The arrival of the 295s will certainly mean an increase in capacity to provide reserve top cover, but really it should only be limited to relief / reserve. The PC-12s are not suitable aircraft to loiter offshore.