Irish SAR discussion

As to the heated discussions by non- experts, I see that as the modern equivalent of the pub talk I grew up with, when the most complicated issues of the day were grist to the mill over a few scoops, everybody had an opinion on everything, and the most heated arguments changed nothing. Discussions on forums like this form virtual pub-talk, with no greater or lesser value but with a potentially huge audience and no shared cameraderie and no quiet times brought on by waiting for lovely pints to settle and for perspiration bubbles to form on the outside of the glass..

unlike a pub , where generally the protagonists " know of each other " , and a degree of bone-fides are established, on a discussion forum , its not easy to differentiate people that have a background in the subject ( i.e. involved in SAR infrastructure , or knowledge of Helis) etc from those that merely wish to " stir an argument ". Its a depressing fact that on forums, you always get people that arnt actually interested in the facts , but merely in pushing an opinion , often one that is not based on any reality . Equally any one with expert perspectives on the subject are often reluctant to divulge the source of that expertise , as its comprises their anonymity ( and then that restricts their ability to comment then at all)


Hence we , for example , get into discussions on a thread about a fatal accident, delving into why should we be sending these people out in the first place, which is rather like arguing that a road traffic accident , could have been avoided , if the person in the first place didnt need to go out for a bottle of milk.

I would agree that Air Corps should have nothing to do with front line SAR, but as a maritime nation with a huge chunk of the Atlantic on our doorstep it would be nice if we had more than 2 old maritime patrol aircraft and an air arm that now seems to be a 9 to 5 operation.

I agree fully , and we also should have some minimal jet interceptor capability

BoatMad wrote: »

but aside from that , SAR is not a military function and best of class experience , elsewhere suggests it needs dedicated equipment and dedicated personnel that are not expected to have any military role .

Not a military function in your opinion. The roles and functions dictated by government policy list recovery and top cover for SAR. So unless that is changed, it remains a function of our Military. Whether other nations choose to relinquish responsibility of it or not is not relevant. We can only deal with the realities of the matter.

So on the face of it at least, the AC has a responsibility toward the nations SAR capability. What has happened is that they have been allowed, through lack of funding, to become ineffective at this task.

Perhaps "as available" ought to be more clearly understood by all involved.

I dont think the AerCorp know themselves from day to day. this instance was due to the non availability of personell on the day

Top cover requirements in Ireland are very small, only a few ops a year

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Perhaps "as available" ought to be more clearly understood by all involved. For example, if the reality is that the CASA is only available for Top Cover between 08:00 and 17:00, MRCC ought to be clear enough on that fact as to not have to incur a delay of some 15 minutes or so dealing with possible use of the CASA as was the case on the night. Malin asked for the Dublin helo for Top Cover at 21:54. The processes involved in MRCC contacting the AC at 22:03, decision-making within the AC and its response 3 minutes later and MRCC calling R116's Duty Officer at 22:10 meant that that some 25 minutes had elapsed from MRSC Malin's request and MRCC actually tasking R116 at 22:20.

A could of days after the accident, both CASAs became unavailable for a lengthy period of required maintenance. During such a time, I would expect that MRCC would know that no Top Cover services would be available and wouldn't even make contact to request them.

As I explained previously the AC operated a system whereby there was a fixed wing and rotary aircraft on standby 24hrs a day with the crews to go.

Obviously the CASA for example could be tasked with an Air Ambulance as they have an SLA with the HSE for this also. So if a top cover request comes in the aircraft wont be available.

The working hours issue has only come into effect recently and it seems it is only temporary in nature.

vicwatson wrote: »

Looks like SAR 117/8 & 5 were/ are all out at the moment

117 was in Wex Harbour with two lifeboats and are all back at base now

118 is up off Donegal with a lifeboat (maybe it's to do with the loss of SAR116)

115 is out off Cork with a lifeboat

Unusual to have 3 out at the one time???

Rescue 115 was training off the Cork Coast and Rescue 118 was training off Donegal

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I suppose my point is that, with all the sophisticated technology involved in IRCG, AC, HSE etc. command and control systems, it can't be beyond the bounds of technological interconnectness for each recipient organisation to know the current availability of services from supplier organisations, upon which it relies.

If necessary, use a feckin red and green bulb in MRCC that is switched from Baldonnel, with a great big sign on it that says AC service availability!

Then again, mebbe the bulbs system wouldn't work. Someone would need to be on duty to throw the switch.

you really have to have an understanding of how dysfunctional the Aer Corp is to appreciate the issues

Negative_G wrote: »

Have a read of the HIQA report on Maeve McGivern to see the failings and subsequent actions after for all involved.

The reality is that top-cover is not that prevalent and hence by and large the Aer Corp does deploy a CASA as required. on this fateful night that was not the case, but then again , thats not the point

TomOnBoard asked about systems that were in place. The report examines closely the failings by all parties on that particular case and addresses one of TomOnBoards queries specifically.

its not a failing (per se) , that the Aer Corp couldnt provide top cover, it would be a failing if no top cover was attempted at all.

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Moreover the state at times can't even maintain the expensive assets they have case example the Gulfstream executive jet which at one point was in an unsuitable hangar in Baldonnel with its tail exposed to the elements
The corrosion that took hold as a result caused an expensive repair
Roll on to recently to see the same jet sold off at a knockdown price due to its "poor" condition and costly repair yet the US company who has it now has it in active service with all airworthy Cerys from the FAA.

Exactly. Now flying on the N297PJ reg.

For decades the government have Underfunded the Air Corps and the wider Defence Forces.

You are slightly incorrect I think. The issues apparently related to the undercarriage and not the tail. The newest hangar was built circa 2000 so it had been hangared since then.

Negative_G wrote: »

Exactly. Now flying on the N297PJ reg.

For decades the government have Underfunded the Air Corps and the wider Defence Forces.

Well said! Give the Air Corps and the Defence Forces the proper resources, a clear mandate and hold them accountable. As proud as I am of our ICG and SAR capability, I'm embarrassed for the Air Corps more often than not. Now I'm sure change is needed, that they can be more efficient blah blah blah but ffs give them the tools to do their job and I'm sure we'll be very proud of the result.

BoatMad wrote: »

sure I think everyone agrees on that, the issue boils down to the fact that public money spent on defence, hardly gets a single vote

Correct, just like our fisherman have no voice.

There shouldn't be any scrimping or scraping of funding for equipment or assets that are required to have an effective Aer Corp and SAR service available in Ireland

IN fairness, the SAR services are quite well funded in Ireland by a combination of public and private donations and as a result we have a world class setup here

The Defence Forces are completely different, because military policy in a country like Ireland is a huge fudge and resources can be drained from the defense forces, without any notable effect on the country

We have had enough of the hare brain ideas where money was fired at lame duck ideas e.g. The (14 million euro ) Jeanie Johnson as classic case of overexpenditure ( est build cost 4 million ) to see it fail its first sea trial .

IM not sure what relevance this is . we have lots of issues of far greater waste then the JJ, whats criminal about the JJ was the states decision not to use her as a sail training vessel and leave the 14 million to rot on the Liffey.

smurfjed wrote: »

What is the status of the present SAR fleet, are they still one machine down?
Has anyone questioned the minister about the lack of Aer Corp support? And if there are now any plans to provide that level of support?

As it stands:

R118-Sligo-EI-ICG
R117-Waterford-EI-ICU
R116-Dublin-EI-ICD ( Was in SNN for maintenance over the weeknd but now back at Dublin, also did 3 taskings as R115 on Saturday )
R115-Shannon-EI-ICA

Irish Steve wrote: »

This thread has been created by moving significant numbers of posts out of the R116 Crash thread, as they are not directly related to the crash, but are relevant to the wider discussion of the SAR and Air Corps operations in Ireland. Please use it to continue the discussion about SAR and Air Corps related issues, rather than using the R116 crash discussion related thread.

I am aware that the split is not perfect, and there may be some breaks in discussions, but we need to keep the main R116 thread on the specific topic of the crash, and related actions that are directly related to that event, even if it means that there is less activity on the R116 thread.

Waste of time
Tumbleweed thread