Air Corps SAR

of course they would, because the Air Corps are in country, and if they had the contract, they would be using assets they already have…

Have we lost current SAR coverage and capability even during this messy contract change over?

No….

Will we?

As shown by your link, no we won't…

Problem with the Air Corps was, even when they had partial top cover contracted to them, they failed time and time again to fulfill it…. while they had 2x 235's in country, they were either U/S or unable to staff them…

R116 seems so long ago now, remember who had a partial top cover contract and said they couldn't provide top cover? The Air Corps.

There is an issue with the helicopter not been able to land on the helipad on the roof of hospitals but there is none yet. The 1st will be the NCI than maybe the Maher in a couple of years so that should not stop the service starting.

I've actually heard the opposite, they won't be able to use the existing heliports here. Apparently there are specific standards for hospital-based heliports which are a separate regulatory category to other/GA heliports. When AW applied for certification, the only class of hospital heliports they claimed to meet were elevated, not surface-level. There's no manufacturer safety profile for landing at hospitals except with elevated pads.

As a result, crews are being told that patients can't be transported to hospitals. When the CUH pad goes live they'll be able to use it. The issue there has been the IAA hadn't approved the elevated-heliport standard that the AW189 meets but that's been fixed now.

However, the IAA can't fix the surface-level issue because that's tied to the airframe certificate, AW would have to submit a certification change the aircraft itself.

So for the likes of Wexford or Sligo they'll be returning to base and the patient will be transferred via ground ambulance. They'll have to look for alternate sites which are off hospital grounds for they likes of Limerick or Galway, it's a long trek from Shannon by road. It's not too bad to get to Beaumont from DUB, and if the children's hospital is ever finished they'll be able to use the pad on the roof there.

You have glossed over the point regarding top cover being available on an "As available" basis.

The Coast Guard (Dept of Transport) were obviously satisfied with the terms within the SLA, and the availability of Top Cover.

There was an is obviously significant resourcing and staffing issues within the Defence Forces, and the Air Corps. They cant magic up serviceable aircraft and crews and can only play with the cards they are given.

On the contrary, GASU has been operating under a SLA with Justice since 1997 and EAS with Health since 2012. While the latter has had it's teething problems, both have been a success by all accounts. The difference being the respective SLA's are very specific in their requirements and expectations.

If the Coast Guard wanted guaranteed 24/7 FW Top Cover, that's what they should've demanded. But they didn't, because that would have affected the bottom line for CHC. It's no surprise that it's part of the newly awarded contract.

Are you able to link to the said SLA? I have never read the term "as required" in any discussion other than what you stated there.

Again, I would ask the question, the Dept of Transport (and the Coast Guard and CHC) would have went through any SLA with a fine tooth comb.

Why did they accept a "sub standard" Top Cover agreement?

There is no wondering required, the obvious and best platform for long range top cover is a FW asset. CHC were happy to accept the risk of using a helicopter for that purpose in the absence of a FW asset.

If you could link the SLA or reference a PQ or similar regarding the "as required" bit, that would be great.

Correct, new landing profile required, any site associated with a Hospital needs a PC1 landing profile its the same for a Hospital Helipad & a Helicopter LZ in the eyes of the IAA, AW189 is not certified for Hospital Helipad PC1 in Ireland.

I will take it from the cryptic-ness of your post that you have read the appropriate SLAs in whatever capacity you were/are involved.

All I am saying is that you are stating something as a fact, but unable to provide any public reference to it in any discourse of media/online discussion, whereby the reference to "as available" has been frequently quoted as policy by government officials at various points.

Not much point in making any further discussion about it. People can draw their own conclusions.

Correct, and as I've stated already, that wasn't the original agreement in 2008. The SLA changed and CHC took on top cover responsibilities as the Air Corps time and time again failed to show up to what was originally agreed in 2008.

Which you have taken no notice of on the back of getting your "see, SLA says this" argument…

So the point still stands, there was a gaping huge hole in the swiss cheese which stems back to 2008, where the Air Corps didn't fulfill their side of an SLA.

It shows you lack basic contract management if you think "well if they really needed it, they should have just tendered for it"… The Air Corps didn't show up from 2010 onwards, when the CHC contract was already agreed. The 2008 SLA had the Casa's as the required top cover, and to add in a new top cover element could have triggered a full re-tender or CHC contesting the original contract. It was easier to change operating style, liaise with HMCG (as CHC had contracts there too) and send an east coast helicopter as top cover for long range ops.

And is it true that this is tied to the airworthiness cert itself, that it can't just be signed off at the IAA level?

My understanding is that AW didn't go to the expense of testing and extra paperwork and therefore won't be able to stand over it no matter what the IAA say. They would have to make changes for the airworthiness cert itself which could take years even if they wanted to.

I'd guess there are less surface Helipads than there used to be, in fact.

There used to be ones at St Vincents in D4 and the NRH in Cabinteely and both are gone now.

Beaumont Woods & Dublin Airport.

Im told AW/Leo need to design a profile with a variable landing decision point (LDP), In the UK the AW189 dont have to be a PC1 but in ireland you do. Im told to design a profile costs money & years in some cases, & this brings us right back to why the AW189 is the wrong aircraft for the job, in the UK its SAR only for the AW189 not SAR/HEMS which is what we have the S92 in Ireland for where they use the S92, simply put for SAR/HEMS you need a bigger aircraft & no matter what way you cut it the AW189 is simply smaller.

They are not according to posts, S92 lives on as it rightly should, a proper SAR & HEMS aircraft all in 1.

there's overlap in the contract, with options to 2025

But it kinda is, im hearing in the UK they have named it the "dinky" & "shiny but tiny", proven SAR helicopter thats fine but its not combined SAR/HEMS which is the set up in Ireland, they all know it’s smaller with all the gear in the tail behind seats the survivors sit on.

Also, the AW189 already has a PC1 helipad profile but the problem is that to fly the profile accurately (legal requirement) means it conflicts with the obstacles around most of the pads. Therefore a new profile has to be certified & test flown & approved & that will take a long time as it will have to be developed it and EASA will have to approve it. If you can’t fly the authorised profile, you’re not in PC1.

PC1 is required by the IAA for SAR & HEMS for hospitals. In the UK, it’s not a requirement for SAR. The S92 PC1 profile is different & doesn’t have the same problem, this is 1 of the many reasons CHC didnt go with the AW189.