Air Corps SAR

Dohvolle wrote: »

And you think it's better not to give the Defence forces that €600m instead, just in case it actually fixes the current staff shortage and retention problem, while also providing a cost effective SAR service?
Because that's what you seem to be saying.
Because from 1963 to 2001 the Air Corps struggled to provide a minimum of Heli SAR, using unsuitable aircraft, while our neighbours covered our backs with suitable ones.
Then suddenly a different department is happy to give multiples of what the Air Corps got and we have the aircraft the Air Corps always wanted providing SAR, but at the end of the contract we have neither the aircraft nor the experienced people?

If you just give €600m to the DF, how much do you think will make it to the AC and where it is needed?
You can't just hand over 1 million or 600 more of them, because the AC or DF has no plan or idea what to do with it, it isn't organised on the lines to provide a SAR service, it was always undermined by the management style/structure/mentality of the AC, even how they procure spare parts.
You assume that hadning over that money to be spent will go towards the retention problems? or that it even matters if the State owns the Aircraft, providing an effective service is what is needed, can the AC do that as a dedicated role anymore, I don't think so.
I doubt they have any experience of dealing with finances because they don't care where the money comes from and it isn't likely to be utilised efficiently.
The only concern the DF, The DoD and Dept of Finance care is how they can reduce costs by infliciting cuts on those who then end up deciding to walk.


CHC runs one service, it is dedicated to that, the AC is at the beck and call of the State and if works anything like it did when I was there, the officer mentality (management style) doesn't work.
At one time the State had in it's capacity to have the AC run the service of SAR, they did, but they lost the people skills because they wanted to run it on a shoestring and those doing the unrecognised work were not rewarded for it, far from it they were fcuked over, thats SAR crew and Techs.
What's needed is a dedicated Coast Guard service, not for it to be one of the jobs the AC does.

Psychlops wrote: »

Here in lies the problem, it is not the IAC that get the money to use, it is the DoD, & we all know what they do, they hand it back.



And if we owned the aircraft we would be stuck with the mounting costs of ageing aircraft after years looking for spare parts etc that will get retired & then sold at the lowest possible price by the DoD as they have shown this is what they do.


The helis might be retired from the IAC but brought back to life like the Dauphins in other Militaries/Civvy US outfits & still fly to this day & then we have the time honoured tradition of saying "why didnt we do that".


IIRC the IAC wanted Blackhawks but got the AW139. Infact they wanted 6 to replace 15.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/air-corps-eyes-up-blackhawk-copters-26008311.html

To be honest, I think they should have always had Pumas, Super Pumas and upgraded versions of those alongside smaller utility helis. I think the Pumas and versions are capable aircraft types and we shouldn't have to go outside the EU to buy either.
Other than one of the very latest versions of the Puma which I read had a different main rotor head assy and was potentially the cause of a crash due to some fault/crack there or in associated components, but that was of a newer version of the Puma, ie imo untested fully.

The IAC, The DoD have a different/incorrect mindset for SAR imo, they are not structured for change and they would need a complete overhaul to be organised, I dont think it's cut out for change.
I don't think the DF operates efficiently or effectively, thats not to say the people on the ground aren't capable or doing a good job with what they have, its the management and direction which is outside the control and remit of the people on the ground. There is no intent or comprehension to even treat people right, a lot of things they cant get right.

Its the FFG way, farm all work out to private contractors, I dont agree it should be so, but its necessary when an organ of the State cant,wont, doesn't have the qualifications or experience, or isnt able to do the job.

Dohvolle wrote: »

You are.
He has drawn attention to serious questions about the operation of th ecurrent SAR contract. One which based on the interim R119 report, has already cost the lives of 4 people, and who should not be given a subsequent contract until the full accident report is released.
He has caused such a fuss that Coast Guard boss, on secondment in Somalia, has seen fit to engage in a war of words on twitter with the senator. You don't see DF CoS engaging with everyone on twitter who doesn't think the NS are amazing (and they had identical career paths, they were even in the same class).

The fact that numerous anti-air corps trolls started registering on twitter around april of this year just to troll the Senator speaks bucketloads in my opinion.

I have no interest either way. I want a proper SAR service. I don't care who does it.
But it does strike me that if the Air Corps had got the money that CHC got in the last ten years they could have equipped themselves to the same standard, if not better, and at the end of it, the state would still own the helis.

He’s made a fool of himself and dragged the mountain rescue community through the mud, and damaged working relationships,
not in their interest but in his interest as part of his little crusade and against their wishes- classy stuff!

What valid questions has he asked? All I see is ill informed bluff!

In some ways it would be no harm to have more than 1 contract in the state - say the air-corp tendering for an east coast service - from a competition point of view - and from a " if you expect a decent air corp service then expect to pay for it "

happywednesday wrote: »

Air corps crew is on call with 45 min response time out of hours

Complete and utter bull. How about the duty tech crew? How about ATC between 2300 and 0700L? Any comment (idle speculation) on their availability? What about Mon-Fri Vs Weekend hours?

EAS service is daylight VFR only. Given the length of the duty day currently, they are not active at 0545 in the morning as there is daylight until 2200L currently.

There's enough BS in this thread, including plenty from Ex AC/DF/serving CHCI accounts so please let's not add to it.

EAS carries AC Crewman and HSE AP. Whos going to operate the winch and who's going to be going down on the line if they can be called in for a maritime SAR event as you seem to infer?

Not a chance.

Any SAR assistance role will be part of the operational role of the two current and forthcoming replacement MPAs and presumably the PC-12 fleet, within the limits of their capability.

Which takes me back to my long contention that the Air Corps should have no role in civilian SAR.

Forget the jeeps and the rhibs, what the CG do have, is a current and prospective future contract worth a Billion quid to manage.

Two things the Navy don't do are, 1) manage large commercial contracts and 2) Fly.

I shall very much enjoy the attempted landing of a Sikorsky 72 on a Lake Class FPC.

(incidentally the Examiner had a confirmation yesterday that negotiations are happening between Ireland and New Zealand on acquiring the two Lake Class boats.)