Air Corps SAR

Stovepipe · 24-03-2021 4:35pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

It's not the same. Mech isn't a trade, but it is an appointment. A mech at sea is the below deck version of a seaman a mech is not an artificer. Seamen clean decks up top, mechs clean decks down below. Making a spark a mech was the Navy's way of paying less people the tech pay they were entitled to. He was still doing the sparks job. To put it in Air Corps terms, the guy who drives the minibus isn't expected to fly the casa, but the guy who flies the casa could probably drive a minibus. ( I don't know what skills the ground crew have in the Air Corps, but in civvy street, you don't leave the luggage handlers marshal airliners, though the guy driving the aircraft tug has the skills to assist the luggage handlers).
He did go down the route open to him, and got appointed, knowing he would face the retribution from on high for the forseeable. He got the last laugh though, upskilled and changed branch. Carried both his new skill and his old trade into civvy st.

All of the above is exactly why people are leaving; keeping people as mechs instead of artificers is what the airlines do now. Pay a few B1s and keep the rest as mechs. These days, tug drivers and loaders are trained to marshal in aircraft and they are not training engineers to do it any more. It's happened in my airline and it's basically the Ryanairisation of airlines and the deliberate driving down of skill sets. As for the retribution, that's what the civvies don't get. You force an Officer to make a decision that will get his judgement called into question from on high and that Officer will make it his unofficial business to **** on you from above. Nothing official,nothing on paper but that mech's career was going nowhere after that.

donvito99 · 07-04-2021 6:13pm

The AC say they can do SAR from Baldonnel for €7.5m per annum, excl. capital cost of new aircraft.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/air-corps-could-provide-maritime-search-and-rescue-service-for-east-coast-1.4531109?mode=amp

However, the document is understood to have made it clear that extra resources and finance would be required, in addition to the current defence budget. Two new medium-lift helicopters would be required to augment the current fleet, at a cost of some €17.5 million each, and possibility a third, costing €14 mllion.

Still, the submission said the no provision was required for the Defence Forces to make a commercial profit from search-and-rescue and noted that spending on airfield services and accommodation would be nominal.

Saying the cost of buying helicopters was non-recurring, the submission set out €3.3 million in annual maintenance costs, €2.4 million per year salary costs for aircrew, €1.5 million in salary costs for headquarters staff and a further €300,000 per year for training and other costs.

Any new aircraft would retain residual value as they would likely remain in service beyond their ordinary 20-year lifespan, it said.

roadmaster · 07-04-2021 6:23pm

Would a PC12 be suitable for top cover?

Heraldoffreeent · 07-04-2021 6:26pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The AC say they can do SAR from Baldonnel for €7.5m per annum, excl. capital cost of new aircraft.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/air-corps-could-provide-maritime-search-and-rescue-service-for-east-coast-1.4531109?mode=amp

For the East coast.

donvito99 · 07-04-2021 6:28pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Would a PC12 be suitable for top cover?

Isn't top cover basically a radio relay? in which case I'm sure it's suitable.

MAULBROOK · 07-04-2021 6:48pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Would a PC12 be suitable for top cover?

The 3 PC12 Spector's we have are more than perfect for that roll and then some.

MAULBROOK · 07-04-2021 7:11pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The AC say they can do SAR from Baldonnel for €7.5m per annum, excl. capital cost of new aircraft.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/air-corps-could-provide-maritime-search-and-rescue-service-for-east-coast-1.4531109?mode=amp

medium-lift helicopters would be required to augment the current fleet, at a cost of some €17.5 million each.

What medium-lift helicopter would you get for 17.5 mill. AW101 are kicking of at $28 million.

jonnybigwallet · 07-04-2021 7:20pm

Second hand? Russian?

roadmaster · 07-04-2021 8:13pm

MAULBROOK wrote: »

medium-lift helicopters would be required to augment the current fleet, at a cost of some €17.5 million each.

What medium-lift helicopter would you get for 17.5 mill. AW101 are kicking of at $28 million.

AW139 IS Classified as a medium lift and is around €17 million and also in use as a SAR helicopter

Fritzbox · 07-04-2021 8:20pm

roadmaster wrote: »

AW139 IS Classified as a medium lift and is around €17 million and also in use as a SAR helicopter

AW139 would be fine for providing SAR on the east coast, it wouldn't be so good for the west coast, the north Atlantic.

Dohvolle · 07-04-2021 8:33pm

roadmaster wrote: »

AW139 IS Classified as a medium lift and is around €17 million and also in use as a SAR helicopter

Is it?
Last time round MLH was S92/EH101/Super Puma.
The AW139 is a Medium Utility though.(EC135 is Light Utility).

roadmaster · 07-04-2021 8:46pm

In the article it says east coast only. Is it Medium-lift? Technically maybe.

If you where the air corps trying to sale this to government its a good fit. As you can say we have the trained pilots ,crew and Mechanics as we already have them working on the existing fleet . All we need is more money so we can train extra personal and buy new aircraft and that's it. The only problem is APs. But I am sure existing paramedics could be trained up to be APs and sent out to NAS & DFB to keep current. If they have also said they need 2 years to get ready. Can it be done? It's only matter of money!

sparky42 · 07-04-2021 11:19pm

roadmaster wrote: »

In the article it says east coast only. Is it Medium-lift? Technically maybe.

If you where the air corps trying to sale this to government its a good fit. As you can say we have the trained pilots ,crew and Mechanics as we already have them working on the existing fleet . All we need is more money so we can train extra personal and buy new aircraft and that's it. The only problem is APs. But I am sure existing paramedics could be trained up to be APs and sent out to NAS & DFB to keep current. If they have also said they need 2 years to get ready. Can it be done? It's only matter of money!

We had the DOD turn down another PC12 as "there wasn't enough space on the ramp", you think DOD is going to support 2-3 new medium lift helo's and the upswing in the AC needed to support 24/7 operations even for just the East coast?

We are struggling still to support the Air Ambulance even without 24/7, 2 years isn't enough time to expand the AC to be able to do this.

Negative_G · 08-04-2021 12:53am

sparky42 wrote: »

We had the DOD turn down another PC12 as "there wasn't enough space on the ramp", you think DOD is going to support 2-3 new medium lift helo's and the upswing in the AC needed to support 24/7 operations even for just the East coast?

We are struggling still to support the Air Ambulance even without 24/7, 2 years isn't enough time to expand the AC to be able to do this.

The difference here is the Dept of Transport hold the purse strings. Not the Dept of Defence.

You can accomplish anything if you throw enough money at it.

Dohvolle · 08-04-2021 9:07am

Negative_G wrote: »

The difference here is the Dept of Transport hold the purse strings. Not the Dept of Defence.

You can accomplish anything if you throw enough money at it.

Thing is, Minister for transport is the Green Party leader. They don't even have a defence policy. Do you think the current Green party leader could see himself approving a huge increase in defence spending to save money in Transport, when they have managed not to mention the word defence in the history of the party?

Larbre34 · 08-04-2021 4:35pm

It makes absolutely zero sense for integration and redundancy reasons to have two entities, one military and one civilian contract, providing SAR in a small Country like Ireland.

I can understand the ACs desire to expand its roles to retain investment, profile, capacity etc etc, but in any sort of realistic assessment, this proposal should be drowned at birth.

roadmaster · 09-04-2021 12:09pm

@ Negative_G is there an actual push within in the Air Corps to get back in SAR or is it just media talk?

roadmaster · 02-05-2021 2:25pm

I wonder CHC employes actually getting worried the air corps may get the east coast which would result in the closure of there dublin base and job losses hence why unions are getting involved

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/tensions-rise-over-air-corps-bid-for-search-and-rescue-contract-3f63b460

Larbre34 · 02-05-2021 4:06pm

That may be their underlying motivation, but they are correct in the substantive point they are making.

punchdrunk · 02-05-2021 8:29pm

Would love to know how many remaining Air Corps crew have any SAR experience? Can’t be many left since they haven’t done it in seventeen years?
How many advanced paramedics have they got?

Dohvolle · 02-05-2021 8:40pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

Would love to know how many remaining Air Corps crew have any SAR experience? Can’t be many left since they haven’t done it in seventeen years?
How many advanced paramedics have they got?

Anyone who was P1 or P2 in a Dauphin deployed on SAR should be at least 50 by now, and if they were not promoted above a grade that kept them pilot (Lt/Capt/Commandant) would have had to retire on age grounds.
You may still have a few old Sgts and Cpls who once worked in a Dauphin door, but very few, and less of them still actively flying.
Look at the age profile of the Air Ambulance crew. The Aircrew were still in nappies last time the Air Corps did SAR.
If the DF has any APs, they would have been reassigned to Medical Corps long ago. Definitely wouldn't be left loiter in the Don in the off chance they would be needed on the ramp.

punchdrunk · 02-05-2021 8:44pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Anyone who was P1 or P2 in a Dauphin deployed on SAR should be at least 50 by now, and if they were not promoted above a grade that kept them pilot (Lt/Capt/Commandant) would have had to retire on age grounds.
You may still have a few old Sgts and Cpls who once worked in a Dauphin door, but very few, and less of them still actively flying.
Look at the age profile of the Air Ambulance crew. The Aircrew were still in nappies last time the Air Corps did SAR.
If the DF has any APs, they would have been reassigned to Medical Corps long ago. Definitely wouldn't be left loiter in the Don in the off chance they would be needed on the ramp.

My apologies, I was being slightly facetious here as I knew that was the answer already! Just trying to make those advocating for the change to think!
my Dad would have trained the vast majority of those Dauphin aircrew before he “defected”!

wotswattage · 02-05-2021 10:58pm

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

Larbre34 · 02-05-2021 11:19pm

wotswattage wrote: »

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

It is a talking down of the Air Corps. Or more correctly, a talking down of those that make policy for and resource the Air Corps, or rather don't resource them.

Let me illustrate. Last Monday evening, an Air Corps Captain (man, I forget his name) was interviewed on RTÉ Radio Drivetime, about the emergency services response to the various wildfires on the island over the preceding few days.

The Captain explained that on Monday, there were 3 Air Corps helos engaged in dampening down operations at Killarney. The interview also covered the fact that an AC helo was tasked to assist with the fire on the Cooley Peninsula over the weekend, but was diverted to Killarney when that event was getting out of control.

When asked by the interviewer, Cormac Ó hEadhra, why other units were not tasked to go North, or to bolster the operation at the devastating Killarney fire, the Captain replied something along the lines of 'well, we had the Athlone EAS and Garda ASUs to crew as well, so there wasn't the manpower available for another aircraft'

Now, I could start a whole bloody thread about the nonsensical situation illustrated by that response alone, but suffice to say in this case, thats all the evidence you need for why the Air Corps cannot take over some or all of the 24/7 SAR tasks currently performed under contract by CHC.

Now, I don't care if CHC do it, or if they get Fozzie Bear Air in from Timbuktu to do it, all I want is to see a top class and integrated service remain in place and I know that without serious systemic and operational investment, the Air Corps CANNOT do it.

punchdrunk · 02-05-2021 11:34pm

wotswattage wrote: »

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

Is it spin or cold hard facts?
The reality is the east coast has quite a lot of Ferry traffic, in the event of another Zeebrugge disaster would a couple of 139s be up to the job?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise

If I recall correctly the Belgians burned out the winches on the choppers from over use, hence the development of the dual hoist, such as on the S-92, is there a dual hoist available for the 139?

EDIT: there is a dual hoist available for the 139 ðŸ‘ðŸ»

Negative_G · 02-05-2021 11:52pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

Is it spin or cold hard facts?
The reality is the east coast has quite a lot of Ferry traffic, in the event of another Zeebrugge disaster would a couple of 139s be up to the job?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise

If I recall correctly the Belgians burned out the winches on the choppers from over use, hence the development of the dual hoist, such as on the S-92, is there a dual hoist available for the 139?

This is a complete straw man argument.

Mass casualty maritime emergencies are (thankfully) an extremely rate occurance. You've referred to an accident that happened over thirty years ago. The incident you refer to is vastly different to the "mass casualty" event which CHC were lauding over on social media. I guess people will cling to anything if their job is on the line.

A mass casualty event calls on every resource available. Every single asset, including those of our neighbours are called in. The carrying capacity between a 139 and s92 in this instance is really clutching at straws.

Their is a concerted effort on social media to try and discredit the Air Corps in this debate. These "sockpuppet" accounts, the vast majority of whom are former enlisted personnel know full well that their "assertions" and opinions can't be debated by serving DF members. So in effect, its like an echo chamber.

When I saw someone try and use "service to the state" and "saving lives" as the primary consideration for continuing the CHC contract I knew that CHC personnel were rattled.

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.

punchdrunk · 03-05-2021 12:08am

Negative_G wrote: »

This is a complete straw man argument.

Mass casualty maritime emergencies are (thankfully) an extremely rate occurance. You've referred to an accident that happened over thirty years ago. The incident you refer to is vastly different to the "mass casualty" event which CHC were lauding over on social media. I guess people will cling to anything if their job is on the line.

A mass casualty event calls on every resource available. Every single asset, including those of our neighbours are called in. The carrying capacity between a 139 and s92 in this instance is really clutching at straws.

Their is a concerted effort on social media to try and discredit the Air Corps in this debate. These "sockpuppet" accounts, the vast majority of whom are former enlisted personnel know full well that their "assertions" and opinions can't be debated by serving DF members. So in effect, its like an echo chamber.

When I saw someone try and use "service to the state" and "saving lives" as the primary consideration for continuing the CHC contract I knew that CHC personnel were rattled.

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.

I never compared those posts to the Zeebrugge incident the like of which yes, are thankfully very rare- but my point stands; they can happen and should be planned for. The cost of waiting on two west coast S-92s to arrive on scene or the UK coastguard to pitch in could make all the difference in a mass casualty event, should it be the only consideration in any contract? Of course not but it does highlight the capability difference and a potential pitfall of trying to cut corners.

Negative_G · 03-05-2021 12:24am

punchdrunk wrote: »

I never compared those posts to the Zeebrugge incident the like of which yes, are thankfully very rare- but my point stands; they can happen and should be planned for. The cost of waiting on two west coast S-92s to arrive on scene or the UK coastguard to pitch in could make all the difference in a mass casualty event, should it be the only consideration in any contract? Of course not but it does highlight the capability difference and a potential pitfall of trying to cut corners.

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.

Dohvolle · 03-05-2021 9:04am

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.

Presumably when they return to flying for the DF, where representation (Other than RACO) is illegal, they Leave IALPA?

Negative_G · 03-05-2021 11:15am

Dohvolle wrote: »

Presumably when they return to flying for the DF, where representation (Other than RACO) is illegal, they Leave IALPA?

Doubt it.

Air Corps SAR

Comments