Rescue 116 Crash at Blackrock, Co Mayo(Mod note in post 1)

Irish Steve wrote: »

Indeed, but that's the issue that's underlying some of this, a proper Top cover aircraft would have to be a sensible size and have appropriate crewing if it were to be able to carry flares, and other rescue equipment, which means that something like a light piston twin is not going to be suitable, the Aer Corp Casa aircraft is probably the smallest size that would be suitable, which would have been a significant additional cost for the SAR operator to have available in order to ensure that top cover was available without recourse to other service operators.

I agree with you. So what are the options?

Do we invest another 100-150million (rough estimate) on top of a new CHC SAR contract for FW top cover.

Or is it invested to the defence forces and the SLA is changed to ensure top cover is always available as opposed to the current situation?

I suppose the issue is, if the Government invest circa 100 million to cover this cost through a contract, once the contract expires, everything js pulled up and moved out. If you invested the same amount into state assets, at least it could be used for other roles in addition upon contract expiration.

For example, the purchase of another CASA 295 would represent a much greater return of investment for the tax payer than having an additional 60-100 million for someone like CHC only for it to disappear into the ether after 10 years.

In summary, and very simply.

100m (On top of 500m) invested in CHC or equivalent could ensure a FW asset for the period of a contract. Which historically is 10 years in duration.

100m invested in the Air Corps to acquire another Casa 295 would provide the state, subject to SLA arrangements, a full time FW asset (in addition to the two already purchased). However this aircraft could then also participate in Maritime Patrols, Customs & Excise patrols, air ambulance, logistical movements, para ops, etc etc.

I would be interested to know the breakdown of CHC missions over the last 5-10 years which required, by their own SOPS, the presence of a top cover aircraft. I suspect it represents a tiny percentage which was why CHC were happy and ameanable to the "as available" conditionn which formed part of the contract.

Let's not forget that the Government is currently paying a private firm from the UK €7million euro, to perform Air Ambulance duties at night time only. Interestingly, I believe this company only do off island missions. So if a liver becomes available in Kerry and needs to get to Dublin. They don't even get a call.

€7 million is more than enough to acquire a small/medium jet or prop aircraft like KA200.

The DoD would rather pay it to a private firm than attempt to make it work and retain the associated assets and personnel.

Irish Steve wrote: »

Fair enough, I was trying to keep it simple, not forgetting it at all

And you did a great job. Thanks Steve.

Negative_G wrote: »

€7 million is more than enough to acquire a small/medium jet or prop aircraft like KA200.

The DoD would rather pay it to a private firm than attempt to make it work and retain the associated assets and personnel.

But buying the aircraft isn't the issue ...its Flight crew maintenance,air traffic control and everything else ...
Some of that could be solved by basing assets at airports that are operated 24 / 7 .. ie not baldonnal ...

Without trying to have this descend into a right wing vs left wing melee I have to say I was amazed watching a couple of military aviation documentaries recently to see how much the air forces of UK and USA have become dependent on 'private contractors '.It seemed everybody except the pilots were civilians ( and even many instructors are privateers also) Seems following this thread we are the exact same .OK so few want a return to 1970s style UK car manufacturing union /politics but by God it seems we've swung too far in the opposite direction .Our service men and women are expected to work at hourly rates a 14 year old would laugh at yet multi million euro contracts are awarded with nothing to show for it after a few years .Do the bean counters really get their sums right or is this stuff done the same way as planning permission with 'brown envelopes'?

Nijmegen wrote: »

The outsourcing of specialist services by government to the private sector is entirely justifiable and delivers value to taxpayers in a number of areas. The total cost of ownership in the public sector when you layer in bureaucracy, defined benefit pension schemes and union capture is a significant overhead versus a contract with a start and an end date so long as you have strong controls for quality of service delivery.

This accident aside, I don't believe that there have been major complaints for example about the service provision of the Rescue helicopters. Internal gripes I'm sure about how they operate, but then you go into the Gardai or the Defence Forces for example and you'll find plenty of internal gripes about how things are done there too. Same with any complicated operating machine.

The difference being the Defence Forces are exempt from union membership and the working time directive so they in particular are in no way comparable to any other public or private sector body, especially not the Gardai.

But that's for another thread.

Back in the news http://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2020/0908/1163879-r166-review/

smurfjed wrote: »

What exactly is there to review?

The stated reason is that someone feels that the report reflects badly on the reputation of some party referred to in the report.
While it is not the objective of an AAIU investigation to apportion blame to any person involved in an incident, it is often inevitable that the facts reported will point to errors or omissions that would imply the responsibility of some particular individual(s).
The AAIU have a delicate balance to achieve in reporting the facts of an incident without directly laying blame but their number one job is to ensure as far as possible that all the factors which led to the incident are made known so that a similar incident can be prevented from occurring again. Sometimes the sensitivity of individuals must take second place to the greater good.
I would hope that this review is not just a delaying tactic in the hope that it can be strung out interminably to prevent the report ever being published. That would set an unfortunate precedent.

smurfjed wrote: »

What exactly is there to review?

I believe that a family member of the crew was not happy with some of the content, and this is the reason for the delay.

sparrowcar wrote: »

I'm sure we can all understand that if it is the case.

Absolutely.

As pointed out by several others, the report is not there to 'allocate blame', but at the same some findings could clearly be difficult to swallow for those who were close to the families, particularly if actions taken or decisions made are reported to be contributory factors to the accident.

I do see your point.

Perhaps the fact this is a such a 'high-profile' case where some crew were particularly well known to the general public may have extended some extra courtesy to the families. Or perhaps the families always have such a right in the event of an accident, I genuinely do not know the answer to that one, perhaps some of the more knowledgeable folk on here do.

I do see how the families may potentially be at odds with such a report though. E.g. imagine something along the lines of 'X made a decision to do Y, which was then a key ultimate factor in Z happening' etc. Such a statement would not need to be present, but the facts themselves could possibly be aligned to read that way. One could then imagine that the family could possibly argue something along the lines of 'But that implies that X caused the accident (which may be completely correct, or not, of course), and I do not agree with you because doing Y was something that was 'standard practice' according to a lot of other experts who I have spoken to' etc.

I am not trying to speculate here at all by the way, just trying to offer up some reasoning as to why this may be the situation at the moment.