Replacment for Cessna 172

Peregrine wrote: »

There was no additional major capital expenditure for defence discussed in the PfG negotiations. Even if it is a pet project for the new minister, there's no money for it.

Given that even under the WP it was something to be considered post 2025 it's not surprising it's not in the PfG.

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Still not going away

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2020/07/13/irelands-air-force-badly-needs-fighter-jets/

It's basically the same as the rest of the "articles" that have floated since that paper was released. People are beyond making a mountain out of molehill. Guessing that reporter doesn't even know the budget or other commitments.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Where are the rest of these PC-12s?

Still stuck in the US.

sparky42 wrote: »

Still stuck in the US.

Yes good point, I suppose 'stuck' is the operative word in these times.

They'll need Keith Duffy to give him his ozone blow..umm..job?

Someone seems to have stuck a propeller on that new government jet ...

Nice to see that Ken Foxe, the freelance hack changed the word JET for AIRCRAFT on his twitter.

A few other people pointed it out. He was probably expecting the faux outrage.

But you will still have those complaining about the spending, could help the homeless etc etc. I feel the the Air Corps missed a chance there is pretty much publicise the trips they took with tests and PPE. The f**king Aer Lingus crew can get on the late late show but not much mention for those that actually serve their country.

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Aer Lingus crews have done a fantastic job and are now flying sectors over and back to South Korea for the same reason, its not their fault at all that there is an ill-informed knee jerk debate on just about everything in this Country, especially Defence.

Although, the way this Government have performed in their first couple of weeks makes me doubt their ability to get ahead of any of these debates and lead.

Ah here, that is a load of sh1te!!!

The EI flights were nothing different that going to LA or San Fran. Prescribed route, risk assessment, flight plan. 2nd crew sat in business ready to operate back with no issues and before anyone goes off on one they all got paid. Each of those flights was worth €300k to Aer Lingus.

California Dreamer wrote: »

Little jolly down to Malaga and on to the Canaries for 280. Can’t see the purpose for that.

Since you can't be bothered to scratch the surface whatsoever, go and take a look at where the DF currently have personnel overseas. Particularly in Africa. And then look at a map and join the dots.

In all seriousness though, do you expect the DF to get your (or the general public) permission prior to using their assets?

Your post offers absolutely nothing other than your inference that the aircraft is on a "jolly".

i seen in the indo during the week there was some issue with a Irish Trawler and the British navy which led to a casa being dispatched . Is this potentially a good sign that crew numbers are improving in the air corps that they where able to send a casa so quick?

Since the canaries were mentioned above ,as you leave Las Palmas airport (on motorway heading north ) ,you can see concrete hangers I assume for military jets. Ive seen military areas at regional airports in France ...
I'm just wondering what's the logic of having baldonel / casement aerodromes,as the main hub for the air Corp ? Any airport that already has a 24 hour tower and firecrew would surely be a lot more sustainable to base out of ,and probably easier to access commercial services from ?

Negative_G wrote: »

Since you can't be bothered to scratch the surface whatsoever, go and take a look at where the DF currently have personnel overseas. Particularly in Africa. And then look at a map and join the dots.

In all seriousness though, do you expect the DF to get your (or the general public) permission prior to using their assets?

Your post offers absolutely nothing other than your inference that the aircraft is on a "jolly".

Well who pissed on your chips? :D:D

Thanks for that very informative post that added to my query!

Perhaps I should have put a :rolleyes::) in it as well to show that it was in jest.

Maybe they all went for a swim and some lovely seafood platters on a bit of R&R. In fact I hope thats precisely what they did.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are there many? I can't imagine a PC-12 carrying a heck of a lot of personnel and the supplies they need.

Just 3 according to the website:
https://www.military.ie/en/overseas-deployments/current-missions/

California Dreamer wrote: »

Well who pissed on your chips? :D:D

Thanks for that very informative post that added to my query!

Perhaps I should have put a :rolleyes::) in it as well to show that it was in jest.

Nobody. Thankfully. I just take issue with your post as it is more akin to what you would expect in the comments on the journal.

You suggested that the aircraft was on a jolly without including all of the pertinent information.

Your post was deliberately misleading and instead of trying to make an effort to find out why, you just decided to jump to a conclusion.

California Dreamer wrote: »

You sound like you have a serious problem so might I suggest that before you go on the attack you report the post.

Maybe it was on a jolly, I still don't see the need to go to the Canaries, could they not have routed back to Malaga which was the intended destination? Hence why, with an interest in aviation I came to this forum, this thread in particular to ask the question so seriously either answer it, report it or just move on but stop taking it so seriously!

I have no problem, I can assure you. I just have a problem with people trying to push an agenda based on no facts.

You had no intention of finding out why it was down there. You stated it was off on a jolly and said you saw no reason for it, these were your own words. You didn't ask a question.

You were told why it was down there which was subsequently confirmed by social media posts. When this was confirmed beyond any doubt you claimed your original post was in jest and them continued to claim that it could've/should've been done differently.

Malaga was quite obviously never the intended destination and was a fuel stop judging by how long it spent there on FR24.

The long and short of it is that you seem intent on pushing your agenda based off your initial "jolly" reference so short of contacting the Air Corps directly and asking one of the crew you are unlikely to get the answer you desire on here.

As for why they didnt stop in Morocco, perhaps this was a short notice flight and diplomatic clearance to land couldn't be secured in time. Perhaps the authorities wouldnt allow the aircraft to land with weapons or DG on board (if there was any). Perhaps there was a lack of ground support. Fuel concerns. Handling/airport charges. There are a plenty of reasons why it might not have landed in Morocco. Who knows.

I see no need to report a post if it can be addressed and debunked with facts and evidence which is happily the case in this instance.