Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Replacment for Cessna 172

1468910

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    donvito99 wrote: »
    The Dept of Justice contract the Air Corps to maintain and fly their two helos.

    Civilians maintain the two helicopters. FW aircraft maintained by the Air Corps.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Heraldoffreeent


    roadmaster wrote: »
    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 ?

    737s can, and have, landed at the Bal before, in the event it needed a longer runway because of a max load, why would you use Shannon when you could rotate out of DUB?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    737s can, and have, landed at the Bal before, in the event it needed a longer runway because of a max load, why would you use Shannon when you could rotate out of DUB?


    Why not Shannon? not everything should have to be out of Dublin


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Sgt. Bilko 09


    New heli fleet needed also lol


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    New heli fleet needed also lol

    Always thought that silver lettering was ugly and it doesn't help at all in this situation.

    Also, this is not the first time this has happened to this type...

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0302/114650-cullenm/


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Lucky it didn’t hit anyone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,357 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    For Christ's sake.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    For Christ's sake.

    Not the first time it’s happened.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Not the first time it’s happened.


    What caused the 2009 incident?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    According to former air corps pilot on rte one this morning in the 09 incident they near enough just repainted the door and put back on!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Live and learn!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Sgt. Bilko 09


    Live and learn!

    Not if you’re on the receiving end of it...lol


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    donvito99 wrote: »
    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.

    I think it's a matter of primary role. If the Slovenians happened to have a need to go somewhere and pick up two tons of bulk cargo, they'll send the Turbolet right away. If the Irish have a need to go pick up two tons of cargo, they need to take a CASA out of maritime service, maybe do some converting (I'm not sure how much interior room is left with all the MP stations in the back), and then send it off. It's true that the Slovenians can't carry a 4-ton load no matter how much time you give them, and a CASA can, but what's more important on a routine basis? I note even Luxembourg has a single A400 (As opposed to all the big NATO aircraft given Luxembourg registration). The obvious solution is to add an extra 295 to the order, except take it in the cargo configuration, not maritime patrol. That way it's not a new type being added. But is there really a need for it? For long-haul UN stuff, may not be suitable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I think it's a matter of primary role. If the Slovenians happened to have a need to go somewhere and pick up two tons of bulk cargo, they'll send the Turbolet right away. If the Irish have a need to go pick up two tons of cargo, they need to take a CASA out of maritime service, maybe do some converting (I'm not sure how much interior room is left with all the MP stations in the back), and then send it off. It's true that the Slovenians can't carry a 4-ton load no matter how much time you give them, and a CASA can, but what's more important on a routine basis? I note even Luxembourg has a single A400 (As opposed to all the big NATO aircraft given Luxembourg registration). The obvious solution is to add an extra 295 to the order, except take it in the cargo configuration, not maritime patrol. That way it's not a new type being added. But is there really a need for it? For long-haul UN stuff, may not be suitable.

    When you look at some of the tail photos when they are doing a medical flight there doesn’t seem to much space with the MP stations, as for the usefulness, it’s not even just the UN stuff, I mean remember having to use the government jet to evacuate Irish people from Malta after Libya.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42




    No, no they aren't. Christ I'm actually impressed at how this has grown legs. The Equipment paper makes it clear as day that it's just something that's there because it's in the White Paper so they would be asked if it wasn't mentioned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    sparky42 wrote: »
    No, no they aren't. Christ I'm actually impressed at how this has grown legs. The Equipment paper makes it clear as day that it's just something that's there because it's in the White Paper so they would be asked if it wasn't mentioned.

    You d never know it could become a new minister pet project. We could end up with Belgian or dutch f16s that are replaced. The only problem is we probably have the jets but no pilots or technicians or hangers or money for fuel


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    roadmaster wrote: »
    You d never know it could become a new minister pet project. We could end up with Belgian or dutch f16s that are replaced. The only problem is we probably have the jets but no pilots or technicians or hangers or money for fuel


    And no radar systems and no training systems...
    In reality I'd bet the decision was "what's in the WP? Well lets just say we read it." That's about the level of interest in the DOD towards doing anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    roadmaster wrote: »
    You d never know it could become a new minister pet project. We could end up with Belgian or dutch f16s that are replaced. The only problem is we probably have the jets but no pilots or technicians or hangers or money for fuel

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Sgt. Bilko 09




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42




    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,357 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Where are the rest of these PC-12s?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Where are the rest of these PC-12s?


    Still stuck in the US.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Very slow workers them yanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,357 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I see today from a foi, that we actually had the option of two emergency purchases but the DOD ended up with only 1.
    https://twitter.com/kenfoxe/status/1284826493777059841


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,567 ✭✭✭Markcheese


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

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    It sure ain't Air Force One!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,357 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    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".


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


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


    To swap out the Irish troops that are on the UN mission to the Western Sahara I would expect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    roadmaster wrote: »
    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?


    I think we still need more info on that, I mean if it was a sub training exercise how long were they in that position, so how long did the Casa have to respond? But yeah it would be good news if they were able to react within a quick window.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,567 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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 ?

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    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:D

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    sparky42 wrote: »
    To swap out the Irish troops that are on the UN mission to the Western Sahara I would expect.

    Thanks for the informative answer.

    I suppose my query was that if the aircraft went to Malaga and then El Aaiun on Saturday, why wouldnt it route back to Malaga instead of going to Fuerteventura where it spent Sunday before routing back to Malaga this morning.

    (about to land at Malaga)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,357 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    sparky42 wrote: »
    To swap out the Irish troops that are on the UN mission to the Western Sahara I would expect.

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42


    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/


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,990 ✭✭✭sparky42




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Well who pissed on your chips? :D:D:D

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

    Perhaps I should have put a :D: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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    Negative_G wrote: »
    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.

    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! :confused::confused::confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    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! :confused::confused::confused:

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,609 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    Agenda? Jeez take off the tinfoil hat there boomer!!


Advertisement