Replacment for Cessna 172

sparky42 · 05-05-2020 5:28pm

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Bit like the extra P60, the PC12 was an opportune buy of the same type of equipment that the DF was already buying, S92's would probably be wandering off piste.

Along with the fact that it would require a new logs chain, type rating for Pilots and retraining for Mechs and Techs.

True enough, though if some 139s were to come up, or someone cancelled their 295 order it might be worth it...

Heraldoffreeent · 05-05-2020 5:39pm

sparky42 wrote: »

True enough, though if some 139s were to come up, or someone cancelled their 295 order it might be worth it...

Yeah, a bare bones 295 would be a great fit.

roadmaster · 05-05-2020 8:40pm

sparky42 wrote: »

True enough, though if some 139s were to come up, or someone cancelled their 295 order it might be worth it...

If a fleet of 139s came available and some how the government decided to buy them we could have a good troop lift capability .

When CHCs tender for SAR is up for renewal I wonder would there be any appetite in the air corps to get back in the SAR game using 139s

Heraldoffreeent · 05-05-2020 9:32pm

roadmaster wrote: »

If a fleet of 139s came available and some how the government decided to buy them we could have a good troop lift capability .

When CHCs tender for SAR is up for renewal I wonder would there be any appetite in the air corps to get back in the SAR game using 139s

Not sure the 139's have the legs or sustainability for SAR, I think I read somewhere that CHC were phasing them out in the UKCG SAR role.

Also, I'm not sure there's any willingness in the DF or AC to revisit that debacle and it would require a shed load of Pilots and techs to map the CHC footprint.

Also, if they did become available and the DF were to revisit SAR, there would probably be no nett gain to troop lift.

Psychlops · 05-05-2020 10:11pm

roadmaster wrote: »

If a fleet of 139s came available and some how the government decided to buy them we could have a good troop lift capability .

When CHCs tender for SAR is up for renewal I wonder would there be any appetite in the air corps to get back in the SAR game using 139s

Not a hope, as it stands they do provide an extremely limited SAR for the likes of Reek sunday & SAR is not mentioned as one of the AW139's roles over on military.ie like the rest of the worlds Militaries, SAR is being contracted out to civvy organisations that can do it better, we cant even man Bal 24/7 & manpower let alone morale is on the floor so SAR 24/7 or any type of SAR wont go ahead.

In an ideal world they should have at least gotten 10 AW139's not 6, im just wondering as it stands how thats working as it wasnt that long ago, a few months infact that they could not even provide EAS for a few days every month.

You have 1 AW139 on EAS duty & that airframe is rotated every 4-5 days back to Bal & I believe they still have a duty 139 for Hospital transfers on at Bal also so thats 2 of the fleet down & perhaps 1-2 in maintenance so its bare really. Also at a guess I would say EAS is fairly eating up the AW139's airframe hours but well done to them as it is a highly busy unit.

donvito99 · 05-05-2020 10:53pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Not a hope, as it stands they do provide an extremely limited SAR for the likes of Reek sunday & SAR is not mentioned as one of the AW139's roles over on military.ie like the rest of the worlds Militaries, SAR is being contracted out to civvy organisations that can do it better, we cant even man Bal 24/7 & manpower let alone morale is on the floor so SAR 24/7 or any type of SAR wont go ahead.

"Civvy organisations" can "do it better" because they're being paid an absolute stinking fortune.

I believe the AC's "flying budget" is something like €3m per annum. We're paying 20 times that to CHC annually.

The AC could take on SAR and likely still have money left over to offer much, much more to the State overall (they won't be turning a proft, they're not paying private sector wages, they're not leasing aircraft or facilities).

How many more hours of MPA could they fly? How much larger would cadet/airman classes be each year? Would they think to finally increase pay for crucial roles and stand a better chance of retaining crucial personnel? What new equipment could be procured, what equipment could be upgraded?

So even if the helicopter is slightly smaller and even if there was teething problems to begin with, the State gets so much more out of this arrangement than SAR. And at the end of the day, the only asset that the State can rely upon in times of crisis is much better prepared and has much more to offer than it does at the moment.

And all for a net zero effect on the Exchequer...

Heraldoffreeent · 05-05-2020 10:58pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Not a hope, as it stands they do provide an extremely limited SAR for the likes of Reek sunday & SAR is not mentioned as one of the AW139's roles over on military.ie like the rest of the worlds Militaries, SAR is being contracted out to civvy organisations that can do it better, we cant even man Bal 24/7 & manpower let alone morale is on the floor so SAR 24/7 or any type of SAR wont go ahead.

In an ideal world they should have at least gotten 10 AW139's not 6, im just wondering as it stands how thats working as it wasnt that long ago, a few months infact that they could not even provide EAS for a few days every month.

You have 1 AW139 on EAS duty & that airframe is rotated every 4-5 days back to Bal & I believe they still have a duty 139 for Hospital transfers on at Bal also so thats 2 of the fleet down & perhaps 1-2 in maintenance so its bare really. Also at a guess I would say EAS is fairly eating up the AW139's airframe hours but well done to them as it is a highly busy unit.

You'd also have to think there's some sort of SLA in place with the Wingers for any air lift needs they might have.

sparky42 · 05-05-2020 11:41pm

donvito99 wrote: »

"Civvy organisations" can "do it better" because they're being paid an absolute stinking fortune.

I believe the AC's "flying budget" is something like €3m per annum. We're paying 20 times that to CHC annually.

The AC could take on SAR and likely still have money left over to offer much, much more to the State overall (they won't be turning a proft, they're not paying private sector wages, they're not leasing aircraft or facilities).

How many more hours of MPA could they fly? How much larger would cadet/airman classes be each year? Would they think to finally increase pay for crucial roles and stand a better chance of retaining crucial personnel? What new equipment could be procured, what equipment could be upgraded?

So even if the helicopter is slightly smaller and even if there was teething problems to begin with, the State gets so much more out of this arrangement than SAR. And at the end of the day, the only asset that the State can rely upon in times of crisis is much better prepared and has much more to offer than it does at the moment.

And all for a net zero effect on the Exchequer...

The 139's and the S92's are completely different animals particularly our civy green ones. They wouldn't be interchangable in what they could offer in terms of SAR, nor would we have enough in the current fleet to support everything else and the SAR birds. We'd have to at least double the airfleet to be able to have the numbers (with the increase manpower), then you get into the larger question of whether it would be the 139 at all or something different given the potential NS requirement at some point as well...

Given you'd have to expand the AC, get air crews and ground crews in multiple stations and the logistical tail having to be significant increased I would seriously question the idea that it would be "net zero" for the Exchequer, not to mention of course any loss of aircraft, R116 had a replacement from CHC's global stock without significant disruption to the service, how long did it take to replace the PC9 we lost?

Stovepipe · 05-05-2020 11:53pm

If you had any idea how the Irish military bureaucracy works, you wouldnt touch the Air Corps with a bargepole. A CHC operation, on any given day, has two pilots, two backseaters, a couple of mechs (usually both B1s or a B1 License engineer and a B2 avionics engineer) and a storeman and maybe one other on station. When the aircraft is flying, the lads on the ground will service other equipment such as winches, flying clothing, harnesses and survival equipment, manage stores, update manuals and take part in all sorts of tasks around the station. When the aircraft returns, they will help unload it, clean it, service it with fuel and oil, tug it into the hangar and get it ready for the next flight or conduct scheduled maintenance. When the shift ends, they handover to the incoming crew. All vehicles, such as the tug, service vans and tanker will be driven by the mechs or the storeman. Pilots and aircrew will get stuck in and help with the survival kit and will deal with weather forecasts and flight planning. In the Military, the system requires that you have a duty driver and mechs are not allowed to drive vans and only allowed to drive the tug.There would also have to be a survival kit specialist,an administrator,a duty cook, one or two storemen and the official rank hierarchy and Union rules, bud, means that the duty driver wont drive the tug and will not assist the storemen and the Officer aircrew wont assist the backseaters. The pilots would be all Officers, the backseaters sergeants, the driver at least a corporal and the stormen would have at least one corporal and their would be one gull, the airman, doing all the bull**** tasks. the mechs would be bound by a slower, rank driven technical trade system, that is worse than the B1/B2 system by a long shot. Military hierarchies are slow, unwilling to cross task, unwilling to change, rank bound and overmanned. SAR works best when you cut the bull**** to a minimum.

Negative_G · 06-05-2020 1:02am

Stovepipe wrote: »

If you had any idea how the Irish military bureaucracy works, you wouldnt touch the Air Corps with a bargepole. A CHC operation, on any given day, has two pilots, two backseaters, a couple of mechs (usually both B1s or a B1 License engineer and a B2 avionics engineer) and a storeman and maybe one other on station. When the aircraft is flying, the lads on the ground will service other equipment such as winches, flying clothing, harnesses and survival equipment, manage stores, update manuals and take part in all sorts of tasks around the station. When the aircraft returns, they will help unload it, clean it, service it with fuel and oil, tug it into the hangar and get it ready for the next flight or conduct scheduled maintenance. When the shift ends, they handover to the incoming crew. All vehicles, such as the tug, service vans and tanker will be driven by the mechs or the storeman. Pilots and aircrew will get stuck in and help with the survival kit and will deal with weather forecasts and flight planning. In the Military, the system requires that you have a duty driver and mechs are not allowed to drive vans and only allowed to drive the tug.There would also have to be a survival kit specialist,an administrator,a duty cook, one or two storemen and the official rank hierarchy and Union rules, bud, means that the duty driver wont drive the tug and will not assist the storemen and the Officer aircrew wont assist the backseaters. The pilots would be all Officers, the backseaters sergeants, the driver at least a corporal and the stormen would have at least one corporal and their would be one gull, the airman, doing all the bull**** tasks. the mechs would be bound by a slower, rank driven technical trade system, that is worse than the B1/B2 system by a long shot. Military hierarchies are slow, unwilling to cross task, unwilling to change, rank bound and overmanned. SAR works best when you cut the bull**** to a minimum.

Would you mind breaking your posts into paragraphs of some description. Reading walls of text with no discernable beginning or end is offputting to say the least.

Much of what you critique about the Air Corps can be debunked if you understood how EAS operates and has done for some time now. While it isn't "SAR", many of the principles are the same and could be applied to both ops.

SAR is now civil function in my opinion. The AC hasnt the capacity to provide any meaningful SAR service given its currently strength unless it withdrew from GASU and EAS, which won't happen because they are easy wins for civil servants and politicians.

The only thing you could see is a single East Coast base removing thr CHC infrastructure from Dublin and launching from Casement for Irish Sea operations which would suit the 139's Range and Endurance. Long Range SAR & Top cover would still need to be provided by aircraft with more endurance on the West Coast.

Anyway, this thread is about the Cessna replacement - not SAR.

donvito99 · 06-05-2020 11:03am

sparky42 wrote: »

The 139's and the S92's are completely different animals particularly our civy green ones. They wouldn't be interchangable in what they could offer in terms of SAR, nor would we have enough in the current fleet to support everything else and the SAR birds. We'd have to at least double the airfleet to be able to have the numbers (with the increase manpower), then you get into the larger question of whether it would be the 139 at all or something different given the potential NS requirement at some point as well...

But if we had the same numbers of pilots and techs, why would we require twice as many aircraft when CHC can make do with one less aircraft? Why couldn't they have the same numbers of crews, or more, with an extra €60m per annum?

Again, the 139 was selected by CHC in the UK, the HH version is used by the Italians in the military SAR role and the 139 is otherwise found all over the world in the SAR role.

The S92 might be a larger aircraft (they are hardly "completely different animals", the 139 outperforms the 92 in speed and range and how often is the 92 maxed out for pax?), but my point is that you would have a greater overall capability if these funds were directed to the AC.

Given you'd have to expand the AC, get air crews and ground crews in multiple stations and the logistical tail having to be significant increased I would seriously question the idea that it would be "net zero" for the Exchequer, not to mention of course any loss of aircraft, R116 had a replacement from CHC's global stock without significant disruption to the service, how long did it take to replace the PC9 we lost?

Well I think you wouldn't be far off zero. We're talking 60 million quid here, I'd be amazed if the AC were still short of crews after increasing their budget 20 times over.

The PC9 wasn't providing an essential service, there wasn't the same impetus to replace as there would be for something like SAR.

sparky42 · 06-05-2020 2:43pm

donvito99 wrote: »

But if we had the same numbers of pilots and techs, why would we require twice as many aircraft when CHC can make do with one less aircraft? Why couldn't they have the same numbers of crews, or more, with an extra €60m per annum?

Again, the 139 was selected by CHC in the UK, the HH version is used by the Italians in the military SAR role and the 139 is otherwise found all over the world in the SAR role.

The S92 might be a larger aircraft (they are hardly "completely different animals", the 139 outperforms the 92 in speed and range and how often is the 92 maxed out for pax?), but my point is that you would have a greater overall capability if these funds were directed to the AC.

Well I think you wouldn't be far off zero. We're talking 60 million quid here, I'd be amazed if the AC were still short of crews after increasing their budget 20 times over.

The PC9 wasn't providing an essential service, there wasn't the same impetus to replace as there would be for something like SAR.

Wait are you talking about just using the current 139 fleet for SAR? What do we do for all other duties when at least 4 of the helicopters have to be available 24/7? We'd need at least 5 new ones if not more. And since you are talking about moving to 24/7 (something we don't have for even the EAS currently) in 4 sites that's what 4 or 5 total crews to provide coverage and time off, so straight away that budget increase you are talking about is getting eaten into with increased manpower demands. Also you increase the AC's helicopter personnel that much then the training system needs to be increased as well to provide those aircrews, again eating into the budget.

donvito99 · 06-05-2020 3:02pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Wait are you talking about just using the current 139 fleet for SAR? What do we do for all other duties when at least 4 of the helicopters have to be available 24/7? We'd need at least 5 new ones if not more. And since you are talking about moving to 24/7 (something we don't have for even the EAS currently) in 4 sites that's what 4 or 5 total crews to provide coverage and time off, so straight away that budget increase you are talking about is getting eaten into with increased manpower demands. Also you increase the AC's helicopter personnel that much then the training system needs to be increased as well to provide those aircrews, again eating into the budget.

Well we have 6 non-military, SAR helicopters that are not deployable and inadequate for most military taskings. They are designed for SAR - not for troop transport or CASEVAC etc - so why not actually do that?

As a stopgap, you could drop GASU (let them contract CHC?) and buy the two EC135s from the DoJ and you'd have 4 light utility a/c for training as well as aerial firefighting and whatever other non-military sundry tasks the a/c undertakes at the moment.

And again, you may well be "eating in" to the €60m, but it's a huge pile of money relative to what the AC already spend for operational purposes and ultimately it is €60m worth of people or flying that it would not otherwise have.

It would also be excellent for the AC as an organisation to be able to maintain and fly aircraft from multiple satellite locations. That's lining them up for future deployments, is it not?

At the end of the day, there's nothing coming down the line for the AC by way of massive increases in funding. Why shouldn't they offer to do what they used to do and build from there? Once you have a big AW139 operation from 5 locations, it seems to me to be easier to expand that and do proper military taskings, at home and abroad, in future.

zone 1 · 07-05-2020 12:44am

scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,

California Dreamer · 07-05-2020 8:18am

zone 1 wrote: »

scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,

Never going to happen but I am more perplexed as to why you would want to troll in a military forum making a statement like that. Is your life that boring at the moment?

Larbre34 · 09-05-2020 12:34am

zone 1 wrote: »

scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,

Look what happened when you scrapped your english class.

Leonidas BL · 09-05-2020 11:40am

I see the C295 can be equipped with a water bombing kit. I think they should consider it.

roadmaster · 09-05-2020 1:01pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I see the C295 can be equipped with a water bombing kit. I think they should consider it.

Only if it is used on Gemma o Doherty and her crew

sparky42 · 09-05-2020 2:24pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Only if it is used on Gemma o Doherty and her crew

Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?

Larbre34 · 09-05-2020 3:05pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?

I like your thinking, but more precise weapons are probably needed. I'm thinking javelin missiles, they have that lovely cartoon whistle as they approach.

Heraldoffreeent · 09-05-2020 4:29pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?

Do Pilatus have anything nuclear in the way of missiles for the PC 9?:)

sparky42 · 09-05-2020 5:16pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

I like your thinking, but more precise weapons are probably needed. I'm thinking javelin missiles, they have that lovely cartoon whistle as they approach.

With the added bonus of being American so all the PANA types can get their knickers in a twist over it as well...

Psychlops · 14-05-2020 7:51pm

Another interesting development !

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 14-05-2020 8:04pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Another interesting development !

The C-390 embrear was test flown by the aer corp in 2017 and 3 test flights in 2018.

Most likely option I think, here footage of it leaving baldonnel in in 2017
https://youtu.be/QGCBAzjAfa8

sparky42 · 14-05-2020 8:45pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

The C-390 embrear was test flown by the aer corp in 2017 and 3 test flights in 2018.

Most likely option I think, here footage of it leaving baldonnel in in 2017
https://youtu.be/QGCBAzjAfa8

He's talking about the current glut of civvie airliners due to Covid I think, something like a A320 reconfigured for a transport/cargo would do the job nicely, we've been talking about it over in the other thread. I can't see any attraction to the Embraer, it's still only a few airframes and we don't want to be a launch customer.

roadmaster · 14-05-2020 11:01pm

sparky42 wrote: »

He's talking about the current glut of civvie airliners due to Covid I think, something like a A320 reconfigured for a transport/cargo would do the job nicely, we've been talking about it over in the other thread. I can't see any attraction to the Embraer, it's still only a few airframes and we don't want to be a launch customer.

I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps

sparky42 · 14-05-2020 11:40pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps

Pretty much, and would give us a significant increase in capability to sustain UN operations without using CASA MPA aircraft to make the difference. Meanwhile the DF want the Government to authorise the use of the Lear Jet to remove two DF troops in the Congo.

California Dreamer · 15-05-2020 7:18am

roadmaster wrote: »

I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps

I don't want to start an argument BUT could the same not be said of a Ryanair 737? Same-ish range and ex aer corps pilots.

Then again if it was cheap, how about one of CityJets CRJ's? Sure its a shorter range but why not explore all options?

jonnybigwallet · 15-05-2020 7:59am

Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?

California Dreamer · 15-05-2020 8:05am

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?

Or fly them across the US - Canada - Greenland - Iceland - Ireland.

Its all very doable!

jonnybigwallet · 15-05-2020 8:40am

Could set a new distance flown record for the Air Corps.

NewSigGuy · 15-05-2020 10:31am

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Could set a new distance flown record for the Air Corps.

No it won't.

Larbre34 · 15-05-2020 4:34pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?

The reverse of the route they took from Switzerland I would imagine.

Colorado is just a fit-out, the aircraft were built and flown over from Europe.

Larbre34 · 15-05-2020 4:39pm

California Dreamer wrote: »

I don't want to start an argument BUT could the same not be said of a Ryanair 737? Same-ish range and ex aer corps pilots.

Then again if it was cheap, how about one of CityJets CRJ's? Sure its a shorter range but why not explore all options?

CRJ would be too small. Any plane considered would need to carry ~100 troops with personal gear, or be stripped out for a cargo supply run and also have transcontinental range.

Personally I see greater benefit from a modular fit out of a suitable twin jet rather than a prop driven tactical lifter like a Herc. I mean we transport heavy equipment very rarely, whereas a long-range troop transport available at short notice would be of most usefulness.

sparky42 · 15-05-2020 8:42pm

Looks like the Learjet isn't going to the Congo:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-planning-to-rent-aircraft-to-evacuate-irish-troops-from-congo-1.4253227?mode=amp

donvito99 · 15-05-2020 8:48pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Looks like the Learjet isn't going to the Congo:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-planning-to-rent-aircraft-to-evacuate-irish-troops-from-congo-1.4253227?mode=amp

7 refueling stops including 2 overnights... good grief. I imagine the Gulfstream would have made life much easier for the DoD?

sparky42 · 17-05-2020 1:43pm

**** me, predictable as hell:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/purchase-of-military-jet-could-cost-country-10m-999986.html

donvito99 · 17-05-2020 1:58pm

sparky42 wrote: »

**** me, predictable as hell:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/purchase-of-military-jet-could-cost-country-10m-999986.html

The Mirage... famously a cargo aircraft.

Ireland is the only country within the European Union that does not own a military cargo plane and relies on deals with other countries when one is needed.

Well that's not true at all.

sparky42 · 17-05-2020 2:01pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The Mirage... famously a cargo aircraft.

Suppose they could argue weapons are cargo, but yeah...
Also the Sunday Business Post has the same article but with a picture of a C130 and the caption is the government is considering one of them. Unless someone has dropped a zero, you aren't buying a flyable C130 for 10 million of any currency...

donvito99 · 17-05-2020 2:08pm

If we don't count the CASAs as military cargo aircraft, is it true that we are the only EU country without such an aircraft? The likes of Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia etc haven't got anything en par with or more capable than a CASA. I wonder who fed them that line.

jonnybigwallet · 17-05-2020 2:13pm

Ya could buy three Basler T67 planes for the same money and they are also useful for parachuting

sparky42 · 17-05-2020 2:28pm

Reading the business post article it’s clear Berry has no clue about the costs of equipment if he actually thinks you can get a flyable C130 for 10 million...

roundymac · 17-05-2020 6:31pm

Most of these guys write stuff and don't give a damn if it is correct or not, once the Editor acceptsit for print is all that matters. Thats modern reporting for you.:mad:

sparky42 · 17-05-2020 7:02pm

roundymac wrote: »

Most of these guys write stuff and don't give a damn if it is correct or not, once the Editor acceptsit for print is all that matters. Thats modern reporting for you.:mad:

True enough, I see that breaking news at least replaced the image of the mirage with a commercial jet at least:rolleyes:

jonnybigwallet · 17-05-2020 7:52pm

Ha Ha...the penny dropped!

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 17-05-2020 8:15pm

I said this last week, they explored this option of getting a transport aircraft two years ago the tender was ready and DF HQ was told it was not necessary by Kehoe. But Paying omni and back in the 00s Iberia a stupid amount to ferry them over and back and the embarrassment of the most recent soldiers hitching a lift back to RAF lakenheath in other countries aircraft had now come to.a boil. There are troops due home Tuesday from Leb and the contingent in Mali are still there except those lucky officer who got accepted on the RAF aircraft.

California Dreamer · 18-05-2020 7:30am

In the grand scale of things I think the usual moaners maybe a bit more quieter when they see the work the PC-12's will do in the long run.

There is something arrogant about using a GIV for an Air Ambulance then when you have a dedicated aircraft like the PC-12 that can convert to Air Ambulance role very quickly and is the most widely used aircraft by the Flying Doctors in Australia.

I could be completely wrong and the moaners will moan regardless.

I for one would like to see something 737/320 QC in operation.

Silly question but if they got an aircraft could they contract Aer Lingus/Ryanair for maintenance?

roundymac · 18-05-2020 12:42pm

I thought the guys in the Leb were transported by UN organised charter.

roadmaster · 18-05-2020 12:48pm

California Dreamer wrote: »

In the grand scale of things I think the usual moaners maybe a bit more quieter when they see the work the PC-12's will do in the long run.

There is something arrogant about using a GIV for an Air Ambulance then when you have a dedicated aircraft like the PC-12 that can convert to Air Ambulance role very quickly and is the most widely used aircraft by the Flying Doctors in Australia.

I could be completely wrong and the moaners will moan regardless.

I for one would like to see something 737/320 QC in operation.

Silly question but if they got an aircraft could they contract Aer Lingus/Ryanair for maintenance?

Id say they could do what ever they want to be honest. Isn't the GASU serviced by an outside company?

If the Air Corps got a large transport aircraft such as 737 would they have to station in Shannon to get of the ground fully loaded or would they be able to get of the ground fully loaded in casement ?

donvito99 · 18-05-2020 12:59pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Id say they could do what ever they want to be honest. Isn't the GASU serviced by an outside company?

The Dept of Justice contract the Air Corps to maintain and fly their two helos.

Replacment for Cessna 172

Comments