Air Corps SAR

Stovepipe · 30-12-2020 5:22am

Psychlops wrote: »

C130 Has been pushed/suggested/talked/wished by IAC flying Crews for years, but they only fly on a daily basis what would they know & why would or should they be consulted on what to fly.:rolleyes:

The C130 was rejected a long time ago by the Dept of Defence on the basis that (a)there wasn't enough work for a 130,(b) commercial hire-ins were able to cope with trooping to Lebanon and other places (c) a huge amount of time would be spent on training in the actual aircraft (wearing it out prematurely) because of the shortage and cost of existing C-130 simulators (d)you'd need more than 1 and there was no political appetite to pay for more than 1 (e)any maintenance greater than normal servicing would have to be done in the UK or America, driving up maintenance costs as Ireland has no overhaul experience on the C130 and no infrastructure for same, ie,no Irish MROs deal with them.

roadmaster · 30-12-2020 12:36pm

Psychlops wrote: »

I would hope so, time & worldwide experience has shown how more efficient civilian organizations are at this type of thing, they are able to pool from all areas, no pilots in Ireland? Fine look elsewhere etc Look, I am a huge fan of our IAC & champion them whenever possible but SAR is just not for them.

The IAC are the Military Air Arm of the Irish Defence Forces, their main role on Military.ie is support of the Army, not even air defence of the state none of the above is currently being provided to a great level, numbers are leaving at a quick rate, too few airframes to be effective, EAS is provided but on a daylight service only.

With search & rescue to be a truly 24/7/365 system you need to concentrate on SAR & nothing else so you can not be SAR mon-wed & flying the PC9 or PC12 thu-fri, this is what SAR demands, over on IMO ex IAC personel say when the IAC has SAR the helicopter fleet concentrated on this & this alone which meant no aircraft for actual Military Operations.

https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?27802-No-Role-for-the-Air-Corps-says-Minister-for-Defence-in-SAR&p=481266&viewfull=1#post481266

https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?27802-No-Role-for-the-Air-Corps-says-Minister-for-Defence-in-SAR&p=481599&viewfull=1#post481599

https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?27802-No-Role-for-the-Air-Corps-says-Minister-for-Defence-in-SAR&p=481912&viewfull=1#post481912

We ill have to agree to disagree. A nation as small as ours should be able to keep all in house. If the pay and conditions where correct there is no reason we could not get enough man power to keep a major fleet in the air. Surely a person joining the air corps joins to fly or be a misson crew member . If you keep that job varied between potential overseas missions, Sar,gatsu etc and they are happy with there working conditions they will not want to leave especially with what has happened in the private sector.

Its true many nations have privatisation of SAR but it is also true many have not such as the Belgians and the Canadians. Imagine if we had a fleet of EH 101s, it could be split between SAR and troop transport with no extra training.

But at the end of the day as was mentioned above we will be having this argument again as the government will probably still have done nothing

punchdrunk · 30-12-2020 5:48pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Problem is, most of the Air Arms that do SAR also have a large rotary wing fleet. They then have a large pool of Pilots and aircrew to draw from.
We dont. Instead we expect to be able to train military pilots and aircrew for their primary role which will be SAR. It's doomed to failure. As it stands we barely have enough helis to keep pilots current on type. This has been an issue for some time. A recent Fatal accident found the person expected to sign off pilots was himself not current. The only reason we could do it up to the early 2000s, was because the aircrew were expected to work hours which are illegal and unsafe in the SAR world, but they were flying under military rules, which were able to bypass civil rules. To hell with safety. It's not like SAR crew need to be at their most alert while on duty or anything...
To keep one aircraft available 24 Hrs, you need at least 5 crews, fully trained. 10 pilots, and 10 winchmen/paramedics. The days of winchmen being just first aid trained are gone. Pre-Hospital emergency care has changed. Doing so has saved lives. Winchman is first on scene and needs to be able to stabilise casualty before transport.
If you can't retain pilots, how do you expect to retain Flying Paramedics?
At the end of the day the solution is simple.
Increase Defence Budget. Increase pay across the Defence Forces. Increase size of Air Corps. More Utility helicopters, before you go buying dedicated SAR types. Something useful to build up flying hours for pilots and aircrew before they do SAR, and something worthwhile for them to rotate back to when they decide to leave SAR work, something that keeps their skills within the force.

100% agree with everything said here!

also to add to this that most countries with military doing SAR use it to keep training up to date for combat SAR, so they incur the cost and resource burden as every rescue at home improves the skills that can be used in combat recovering downed pilots etc- something which will never be an issue for us

roadmaster · 31-12-2020 9:46am

Dohvolle wrote: »

Problem is, most of the Air Arms that do SAR also have a large rotary wing fleet. They then have a large pool of Pilots and aircrew to draw from.
We dont. Instead we expect to be able to train military pilots and aircrew for their primary role which will be SAR. It's doomed to failure. As it stands we barely have enough helis to keep pilots current on type. This has been an issue for some time. A recent Fatal accident found the person expected to sign off pilots was himself not current. The only reason we could do it up to the early 2000s, was because the aircrew were expected to work hours which are illegal and unsafe in the SAR world, but they were flying under military rules, which were able to bypass civil rules. To hell with safety. It's not like SAR crew need to be at their most alert while on duty or anything...
To keep one aircraft available 24 Hrs, you need at least 5 crews, fully trained. 10 pilots, and 10 winchmen/paramedics. The days of winchmen being just first aid trained are gone. Pre-Hospital emergency care has changed. Doing so has saved lives. Winchman is first on scene and needs to be able to stabilise casualty before transport.
If you can't retain pilots, how do you expect to retain Flying Paramedics?
At the end of the day the solution is simple.
Increase Defence Budget. Increase pay across the Defence Forces. Increase size of Air Corps. More Utility helicopters, before you go buying dedicated SAR types. Something useful to build up flying hours for pilots and aircrew before they do SAR, and something worthwhile for them to rotate back to when they decide to leave SAR work, something that keeps their skills within the force.

I fully agree it can't be done overnight but put a plan in place for a 5/10 year transion period in place. Like you say its all about budget Could the air corps do it on the current budget hell no. Put whatever equipment and cash in that is needed then anything can be done

punchdrunk · 31-12-2020 12:46pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I fully agree it can't be done overnight but put a plan in place for a 5/10 year transion period in place. Like you say its all about budget Could the air corps do it on the current budget hell no. Put whatever equipment and cash in that is needed then anything can be done

But why? That’s the real question, why give it back to the IAC? I really think that it’s delusional to believe they can do it cheaper and provide the current level of service so what’s the benefit?
Half arse it and save money?
spend a huge amount of money to provide new helis and crew to provide SAR but add no caplibility to the wider military, or do you want them to double or triple or quadruple job? (SAR,mil transport, VIP, ARW etc) it’s been proven by the past that this is a disaster and is incompatible with a proper 365/24/7 SAR ops.

I’m not hearing a good arguement for a switch so far

roadmaster · 31-12-2020 2:02pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

But why? That’s the real question, why give it back to the IAC? I really think that it’s delusional to believe they can do it cheaper and provide the current level of service so what’s the benefit?
Half arse it and save money?
spend a huge amount of money to provide new helis and crew to provide SAR but add no caplibility to the wider military, or do you want them to double or triple or quadruple job? (SAR,mil transport, VIP, ARW etc) it’s been proven by the past that this is a disaster and is incompatible with a proper 365/24/7 SAR ops.

I’m not hearing a good arguement for a switch so far

Who said about half arseed,you expand the air corps in crew and equipment so it doesn't effect military ops.

If you want to expand your argument why stop with SAR. Why not take NAS of the hse and give to privateers

punchdrunk · 01-01-2021 4:57pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Who said about half arseed,you expand the air corps in crew and equipment so it doesn't effect military ops.

If you want to expand your argument why stop with SAR. Why not take NAS of the hse and give to privateers

The entire DF is half arsed- poorly paid, under funded, poorly equipped, poorly structured,

How many of our naval vessels are tied up as we speak? what’s needed is top to bottom reform, it’s not the fault of the lads on the ground, they do great work with one hand tied behind their back.

The difference is that the NAS is fit for purpose.
(Still room for improvement though)

Larbre34 · 01-01-2021 10:18pm

roadmaster wrote: »

If you want to expand your argument why stop with SAR. Why not take NAS of the hse and give to privateers

Why not indeed?

The difference is, of course, we are where we are. The NAS is equipped and manned (more or less) to fulfill the ambulance requirement for the State. The same cannot be said of the Air Corps and SAR.

I'm in favour of a full cost benefit analysis for really all State services, except policing and national defence. If a CBA determines the highest quality and most efficient service for SAR can be provided by a properly equipped Air Corps, then go ahead.

Likewise, if a CBA found privatising the National Ambulance Service was in the best interests of the patients and the wider health system, I'd opt to privatise it. Many nations have.

But back to what I've always said about the Air Corps and SAR - private providers can take on and let go crew and aircraft as the contract requires. The Air Corps are required to train and employ pilots, crewmen, technicians, controllers etc as full time State pensionable employees which is both time consuming and inflexible. The current retention crisis in that regard indicates that we cannot take that risk with SAR provision, which must be manned and available to full capacity at all times.

So, for the foreseeable future, I think SAR should be a private contractor and so should any air ambulance service in the State.

roadmaster · 01-01-2021 11:11pm

On a side note I know pilots have being recommissioned recently, I wonder have they gone on a major headhunt exercise to get pilots and technicans to re enlist with the current issues in civil aviation

roadmaster · 02-01-2021 12:41am

Dohvolle wrote: »

They don't need to, Pilots are jumping at the chance to get back to a secure job. All the Airports in Ireland are full of parked up aircraft, with engine intakes covered. The Airline industry is in a worse state now than post 2011, or during the Icelandic Volcano.
Cousin was travelling through Schipol on Dec 31st. Empty. Usually that time of year the place is nuts, people who travelled for Christmas day trying to travel back before the new year.

So that mean they will be back to full strength shortly?

Larbre34 · 02-01-2021 4:40pm

roadmaster wrote: »

So that mean they will be back to full strength shortly?

Don't think anyone of us here can say that. We have no idea what retirements, promotions, rotations, overseas duty etc are coming down the tracks to effect capacity.

punchdrunk · 05-01-2021 12:27am

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/not-enough-military-pilots-to-maintain-airborne-security-pp0rlkk0q

The Department of Defence has been told that the number of pilots available in the Air Corps is below the “critical mass” needed for airborne security, new records show.

Eight Irish pilots are being trained with the US military in Alabama, as the Defence Forces warned that premature retirements from the Air Corps had reached a “critical level”.

A record released under a freedom of information request revealed that a business case prepared for the Department of Defence said the number of pilots available in the Air Corps had fallen below “the critical mass required to sustain the provision of airborne defence and security operations”.

The record — which was released with redactions for security reasons — warns that “immediate remedial action” was required to rebuild available manpower.

It said that outsourced training would be crucial “to restore the provision of adequate airborne defence and security services”.

The defence forces and the Department of Defence declined to confirm how much the training was going to cost the taxpayer.

However, internal records from the department give an estimate of €650,000 to €850,000 for the training of four pilots.

The business case said that the Air Corps had been hit by a wave of “premature voluntary retirements”, including the short-notice departure of one senior pilot.

It said that there was a global shortage of pilots, and that these were being felt particularly “acutely” in military air forces.

“The consequence of this is that there is very limited, if any, military pilot training capacity in external air terms,” it said.

It added that the Air Corps had looked at alternative training options in UK joint military and civilian flight schools, but that there was no availability due to “national shortages” there.

The business case said that training for specific military skills such as formation flying, low-level flight operations, tactical flying, and air firing, meant that market options were limited.

The Air Corps had engaged with the military in the UK and the US “at a very senior level” to discuss training options.

“Only the US has indicated that they have the capacity to deal with a military pilot training request,” the document read.

The business case provided further background on just how short-handed the Air Corps had become, with retirements leaving them at a “culmination point”.

Staffing levels of experienced pilots, especially helicopter commanders, were below critical mass, which had a knock-on effect on training.

It added: “Following a research visit to the US Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama to assess the viability of helicopter training, the US have offered military pilot training capacity.

“The training aircraft being offered are similar to [our] aircraft in terms of size, performance, and training output; necessitating minimal ‘differences’ on return … while maintaining training standards and timelines.”

The defence forces also prepared a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on the move. It said that it would alleviate pressures on the Air Corps, and increase available resources.

However, it added that the Air Corps would no longer have “direct and exclusive supervision” of trainees and that the costs involved were “unavoidable”.

Separately, Department of Defence records also warned of “organisational risk” if steps were not taken to manage the loss of experienced pilots.

A strategic review marked “confidential” stated: “Such a training surge, which is envisaged will last four years, would reduce the overall training pressures on the flying training school; shorten Air Corps cadetships to two years, qualify more pilot officers sooner, and mitigate training pressures risk.”

Asked for comment on the records, the defence forces said that they had nothing to add.

punchdrunk · 05-01-2021 2:24pm

no issue with the airframe used, more the fact that they need to send cadets in the first place. I'm sure they'll receive great training in the US but it's alarming that the situation has deteriorated to this point, it further illustrates that the air corps don't have the man-power and training capacity to expand their roles currently.

sparky42 · 06-01-2021 2:36pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

It throws away any notion of neutrality, when the Corps is no longer self sufficient. Bad enough when you can't train your own in-house, but you can't even train them locally.
Upshot is those pilots will have ideal flying conditions most of the year (except late Autumn, during Hurricane season), and will come home as not just heli pilots, but Combat heli pilots.

It doesn't really, I mean the Washington Journal has an article in the last couple of days where Sweden has openly admitted that they have a US Green Beret Unit operating with them for training, Switzerland just went back to 24/7 QRA after working extensively with the RAF to bring them up to strength to do so, are they throwing away neutrality?

Us making use of US training capacity isn't anything close to that (and surely ignores joint training in the past like Special Forces anyway.

06-01-2021 3:22pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Fort Rucker use the EC145, Known in US service as the UH-72 which sits slightly bigger than our EC135, and smaller than the AW139.

Nice, looks like it'd be capable of a lot more than the EC135, surely could have gone for a few of these.

Dohvolle wrote: »

It throws away any notion of neutrality, when the Corps is no longer self sufficient. Bad enough when you can't train your own in-house, but you can't even train them locally.
Upshot is those pilots will have ideal flying conditions most of the year (except late Autumn, during Hurricane season), and will come home as not just heli pilots, but Combat heli pilots.

I still think we could have maintained some form of Neutrality and availed of support, as it is, we still are not Neutral, the Defense forces aren't self sufficient, at least up to the late 90's there was some form of SAR and the people to do it. The fact is, the Defense forces (mainly how they were operated/run) would have required a massive organisational overhaul and that didnt suit a lot of people, it could have made for a more modern, more capable Air Corps (and other defense forces components).
The over eager attachment to Neutrality is like some throwback to De-Valera style self sufficiency, it wasn't realistic or practical back then and it certainly isn't now, by no means do I think we should be in NATO, but like it or not, we are aligned with a certain bloc and we could have benefited greatly from admitting to that.

06-01-2021 4:50pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

The EC145 was too small for the UH tender, and too big for the LUH. The Cabin is only slightly bigger than that of the EC135, and aimed at those who had used the MBB Bo105 and BK117, with it's high tail rotor, and cabin clamshell doors. Very popular in the Air Ambulance world.

So can we agree that the best practice, moving forward is abandon the notion of Neutrality completely, if we are unable to do the job ourselves? It's a pipe dream.

It looks to be a reasonable proportion larger than an EC135, for the extra utility, I think they'd have been better going for that if its aimed use is for replacing Bo105

In my opinion, I think we could have availed of the benefits ofbeing aligned and also state we are Neutral/Non aligned (until/unless we were called out on it, which if we are a good partner nation for anything, we shouldn't), in reality Neutrality is a pipe dream unless you can be independant, have the means to supply your armed forces/even have industry that can. Sweden does that best IMO and even they cant do so alone, but they state and claim they are Neutral (but also operate in alignment with western European norms).
We don't need to join NATO to do that, (see Sweden) bu it wouldn't mean we shouldn't stand up for a certain position, ie our current one.

I dont know who it is really that pushes our ardent Neutrality in the face of reality, we could have both

That doesnt mean we couldnt have availed of support from Nations that might have been willing and able to support/organise/train us for our needs.
We already allow them to land and use our runways anyway, our politicians are too yellow to say anything about it in case it upsets the fragile balance of our relations with them.
This could have improved our position in the world as much as being ardently Neutral.
IMO we should be on par with Denmark in terms of strength and organisational ability, but we are not even close.

California Dreamer · 23-02-2021 9:26am

Nice piece on Nationwide on Monday night.

I have to say the teddy bear is a nice touch, someone buy Craig Cullen a pint!!!

roadmaster · 10-03-2021 8:02pm

How much of the 139 fleet is tided up on aeromedical duty?

roadmaster · 10-03-2021 9:37pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

One aircraft dedicated to it 24/7/365.

But I presume its not same aircraft an its 2 or 3 being on rotation

Psychlops · 10-03-2021 9:53pm

roadmaster wrote: »

How much of the 139 fleet is tided up on aeromedical duty?

1 AW139 for EAS (Daylight Service Only) they rotate airframes to EAS roughly every 5-7 days.

I wonder how much airframe hours EAS is eating up, it is a very busy service & well done to them.

sparky42 · 10-03-2021 10:04pm

Psychlops wrote: »

1 AW139 for EAS (Daylight Service Only) they rotate airframes to EAS roughly every 5-7 days.

I wonder how much airframe hours EAS is eating up, it is a very busy service & well done to them.

Given what hours were called for in the purchases I would think we are still within "normal" usage given their usage over the years.

roadmaster · 11-03-2021 9:32am

So do the hours on the aircraft fleet that would have have allocated for Normal Military ops are basically being taken up by the air ambulance role

Psychlops · 11-03-2021 6:44pm

roadmaster wrote: »

So do the hours on the aircraft fleet that would have have allocated for Normal Military ops are basically being taken up by the air ambulance role

Thats what I think, Id say the hours are being eaten up fairly rapid, alot of the time I see them they now have a battery pack plugged into the 139 to start it, its like a mobile GPU that they carry, Started seeing this in the past few years, this is a picture of it, it wasnt seen really before.

https://www.facebook.com/Air-Corps-112-499155760107215/photos/2803571969665571

https://www.facebook.com/Air-Corps-112-499155760107215/photos/2553437968012307

andrewfaulk · 12-03-2021 4:14pm

There was talk of options for an extra 2 AW139s, to bring the total to 8, at the time they were ordered.. Would it still be an option to exercise this to provide for EAS or has it lapsed at this stage

Heraldoffreeent · 12-03-2021 5:25pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

There was talk of options for an extra 2 AW139s, to bring the total to 8, at the time they were ordered.. Would it still be an option to exercise this to provide for EAS or has it lapsed at this stage

As they were supplied 15 years ago, it is extremely doubtful.

roadmaster · 12-03-2021 5:59pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

That contract was with Agusta Westland. They are no more. Whether Leonardo would honour a historic contract to provide us with a different aircraft to the AW139 of 15 years ago is unlikely. Normally options are exercised soon after initial delivery.
This did not happen, I don't know why.

Thats easy the DOD said there was no where to park them

sparky42 · 12-03-2021 6:35pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Thats easy the DOD said there was no where to park them

And of course that the AC didn't have the pilots for them...

Larbre34 · 14-03-2021 12:45am

Why do you think the AC needs two further 139s?

Larbre34 · 14-03-2021 5:51pm

We haven't got the pilots for the rotary craft we have currently.

The AC had no business being involved in SAR or air ambulance services in my opinion.

Only the private sector can respond to crewing and equipment needs rapidly enough. The Govt should issue a new extended contract with a suitable provider for comprehensive air-sea-mountain rescue services to include a 24/7 emergency and patient transfer air ambulance component AND its own top cover facility

Edit: it would be remiss not to acknowledge, in this discussion, the anniversary today of the loss of ICG Rescue 116. May they rest in peace and may their families find comfort in their legacy of service.

Psychlops · 14-03-2021 8:51pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

I think they would be better off with 4 or more of a larger type. Not Quite EH101 or S92, but more along the lines of NH90 (just not NH90).

Defo not the NH90.

Air Corps SAR

Comments