Thanks Thanks:  301
Likes Likes:  668
Dislikes Dislikes:  29
Page 55 of 58 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,375 of 1427
  1. #1351
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,840
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    ...AC...has the spare capacity
    really?

    does it?

    so the AC is only doing this Facebook bait after every 105mm LG Bty, every 120mm Mortar Bty, and every RBS70 AD Bty has spent a couple of days every month practicing Shoot'n Scoot fire missions and helicopter redeplyments?

    every Inf Coy has spent a couple of days every month practicing helicopter insertions and creating patrol bases through air mobility?

    every NS vessel has spent a few days every month practicing VertReps?

    the AC spending a couple of days every month basing a helicopter flight at a remote, austere location: fueling, arming, maintaining the helicopters, planning the missions in the field and forming a close, seemless partnership with the other units that would operate in support of them in the field - the Combat Engineers who readied the site and built the fuel dumps and magazines, the Inf force providing the security, and the Logs Spt providing everything from fuel to bacon butties and toilets?

    blimey, you've either got a lot more hours in the day than everyone else, or a lot more helicopters than the DoD website says you have...

  2. Thanks apod, CTU thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy, sofa, CTU liked this post
  3. #1352
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    really?

    does it?

    so the AC is only doing this Facebook bait after every 105mm LG Bty, every 120mm Mortar Bty, and every RBS70 AD Bty has spent a couple of days every month practicing Shoot'n Scoot fire missions and helicopter redeplyments?

    every Inf Coy has spent a couple of days every month practicing helicopter insertions and creating patrol bases through air mobility?

    every NS vessel has spent a few days every month practicing VertReps?

    the AC spending a couple of days every month basing a helicopter flight at a remote, austere location: fueling, arming, maintaining the helicopters, planning the missions in the field and forming a close, seemless partnership with the other units that would operate in support of them in the field - the Combat Engineers who readied the site and built the fuel dumps and magazines, the Inf force providing the security, and the Logs Spt providing everything from fuel to bacon butties and toilets?

    blimey, you've either got a lot more hours in the day than everyone else, or a lot more helicopters than the DoD website says you have...
    It has the aircraft that are capable of the hours but:
    - the hours aren’t funded
    - there aren’t enough pilots
    - there aren’t enough techs
    - some work practices require reform

  4. #1353
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    It has the aircraft that are capable of the hours but:
    - the hours aren’t funded
    - there aren’t enough pilots
    - there aren’t enough techs
    - some work practices require reform

    But all of these would not be issues if they were carrying out military function as opposed to NAS work!
    Time for another break I think......

  5. Likes apod liked this post
  6. #1354
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Three words.

    NOT THEIR JOB!!!!.

    A secondary function that has been allowed to supplant their primary role IOT keep the pilots hours up.
    Privatise.Just like everyone else does and let the AC get back to doing what they should be doing.Military flying.
    Apod, you have a superior understanding of Army operations than I but you're understanding of the AC and more importantly the political strings that are being pulled behind the scenes are severely lacking.

    Firstly, there is no requirement to maintain "pilot hours" in the AC. Have a read of the ARM and let me know how you get on. The maintenance schedule of the aircraft and the availabile hours are what drives the tempo of flight ops. Pilots are required to maintain currency in different disciplines which are laid out in Wing/Sqn SOPs or Part A supplementals. There is absolutely nothing to be ticked by doing EAS ops except the odd confined area landing as it is essentially VFR flying. Crews (not just pilots) will still need to complete various sorties in slinging, bambi bucket, fast roping, winching etc to maintain currency. EAS due to the high tempo of ops consumes a large amount of aircraft hours, and obviously you need crews to fly them so lets not put the cart before the donkey to suit your narrative. So your point is complete BS to be honest. EAS has absolutely nothing to do with "pilot hours".

    I understand that as a soldier you want every asset and piece of equipment that is available, made available to you for training/ops which I completely understand.

    The AC has become a guinea pig for the government in this instance and has carried out the EAS experiment very successfully, barring one accident, for 6 years.

    The politicians and the DOD run the AC. Not the COS, not GOCAC. They are the ones who direct the allocation of resources. Shit rolls downhill as you well know, and unless you have a very valid reason for not doing something, you have no option but to do it. So perhaps you should ask Maurice Quinn why he values EAS more than slinging around 105's or doing troop drills.

    To be honest, given the choice of having a 139 carrying out life saving work, actually saving people's lives or spending a day sitting down in Kilworth doing troop drills or slinging guns around, I know which I'd rather as a taxpayer and citizen.

    You might not like that point of view but in the day of optics, strict budgets and PR, EAS is an easy win for the DoD.

    Unless there are definitive plans to deploy the AC overseas with troops, to wherever that may be, then finite resources shouldnt be wasted training toward pie in the sky stuff "just cause".

    I've read on here numerous times that helicopters were needed in Chad. And that may well have been the case. Chad was 10 years ago, how many times have they been needed since? Are people still going to be beating the same drum in 20 years time? The current overseas missions, of the DF do not require organic air assets as they are either not required or are provided by other contingents. That's the reality as I see it. Organic air assets are currently very much a nice to have, not a need to have.

    This notion that the AC should be deploying AC to "austere" environments for days at a time is laughable as well. How "austere" is what the Italians are doing in UNIFIL? They are doing the exact same VFR flying as AC crews albeit in an region where the weather is significantly better for VFR flight overall.

    There was no restriction on deploying aircraft overseas in the 2015WP as was the case in the previous one. But there was no statement of intent to do it either. The status quo really.

    Next time you happen to talk to AC helicopter crews, ask them would they rather be doing EAS or doing an overseas mission where they could do actual "military flying" as you put it. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority would rather the latter.

    "Privatise it" is the usual Irish solution to any problem. Rarely results in a better deal for the taxpayer.

    What about GASU? Should be privatise that aswell or does that get a pass because it falls under a different heading on the military.ie website?

    Youu should read the 2015WP mission statement. This is the policy guidance document which drives everything the DF does, whether you agree with it or not.

    "To provide a range of other supports to government departments and agencies in line with MOUs and SLAs agreed by the Department of Defence e.g. search and rescue and air ambulance services".

    I mean no malice in my post but you appear at times to have a very blinkered, singular view of how things should be done in the DF. We are all entitled to our opinion but you have to consider the broader picture.

    I appreciate I have gone slightly off topic but it is required at times to correct misinformation.
    Last edited by Chuck; 13th June 2018 at 12:47.

  7. Likes na grohmití, Tempest, Rhodes liked this post
    Dislikes apod disliked this post
  8. #1355
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    But all of these would not be issues if they were carrying out military function as opposed to NAS work!
    EAS - 1 aircraft, 2 pilots and 1 crewman, probably 3/4 techs on a daylight only op

    Any air ambulance is daylight only and depends on aircraft that is available

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Apod, you have a superior understanding of Army operations than I but you're understanding of the AC and more importantly the political strings that are being pulled behind the scenes are severely lacking.

    Firstly, there is no requirement to maintain "pilot hours" in the AC. Have a read of the ARM and let me know how you get on. The maintenance schedule of the aircraft and the availabile hours are what drives the tempo of flight ops. Pilots are required to maintain currency in different disciplines which are laid out in Wing/Sqn SOPs or Part A supplementals. There is absolutely nothing to be ticked by doing EAS ops except the odd confined area landing as it is essentially VFR flying. Crews (not just pilots) will still need to complete various sorties in slinging, bambi bucket, fast roping, winching etc to maintain currency. EAS due to the high tempo of ops consumes a large amount of aircraft hours, and obviously you need crews to fly them so lets not put the cart before the donkey to suit your narrative. So your point is complete BS to be honest. EAS has absolutely nothing to do with "pilot hours".

    I understand that as a soldier you want every asset and piece of equipment that is available, made available to you for training/ops which I completely understand.

    The AC has become a guinea pig for the government in this instance and has carried out the EAS experiment very successfully, barring one accident, for 6 years.

    The politicians and the DOD run the AC. Not the COS, not GOCAC. They are the ones who direct the allocation of resources. Shit rolls downhill as you well know, and unless you have a very valid reason for not doing something, you have no option but to do it. So perhaps you should ask Maurice Quinn why he values EAS more than slinging around 105's or doing troop drills.

    To be honest, given the choice of having a 139 carrying out life saving work, actually saving people's lives or spending a day sitting down in Kilworth doing troop drills or slinging guns around, I know which I'd rather as a taxpayer and citizen.

    You might not like that point of view but in the day of optics, strict budgets and PR, EAS is an easy win for the DoD.

    Unless there are definitive plans to deploy the AC overseas with troops, to wherever that may be, then finite resources shouldnt be wasted training toward pie in the sky stuff "just cause".

    I've read on here numerous times that helicopters were needed in Chad. And that may well have been the case. Chad was 10 years ago, how many times have they been needed since? Are people still going to be beating the same drum in 20 years time? The current overseas missions, of the DF do not require organic air assets as they are either not required or are provided by other contingents. That's the reality as I see it. Organic air assets are currently very much a nice to have, not a need to have.

    This notion that the AC should be deploying AC to "austere" environments for days at a time is laughable as well. How "austere" is what the Italians are doing in UNIFIL? They are doing the exact same VFR flying as AC crews albeit in an region where the weather is significantly better for VFR flight overall.

    There was no restriction on deploying aircraft overseas in the 2015WP as was the case in the previous one. But there was no statement of intent to do it either. The status quo really.

    Next time you happen to talk to AC helicopter crews, ask them would they rather be doing EAS or doing an overseas mission where they could do actual "military flying" as you put it. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority would rather the latter.

    "Privatise it" is the usual Irish solution to any problem. Rarely results in a better deal for the taxpayer.

    What about GASU? Should be privatise that aswell or does that get a pass because it falls under a different heading on the military.ie website?

    Youu should read the 2015WP mission statement. This is the policy guidance document which drives everything the DF does, whether you agree with it or not.

    "To provide a range of other supports to government departments and agencies in line with MOUs and SLAs agreed by the Department of Defence e.g. search and rescue and air ambulance services".

    I mean no malice in my post but you appear at times to have a very blinkered, singular view of how things should be done in the DF. We are all entitled to our opinion but you have to consider the broader picture.

    I appreciate I have gone slightly off topic but it is required at times to correct misinformation.
    No doubt hours on EAS or any other op feed into currency

    GOCAC has command (unlike COS) but he has to follow the orders within the resources provided

  9. #1356
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,506
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    And how about the aircraft ?.. they have to be funded, albeit the initial capitalistation is at the tax payers expense, its not free and has to be built into the cost.

    Looking for roles for state assets that are already in place is a fallacy , when situations change and the non primary role cannot be met there is a blackhole and everyone wonder why?

    We need to take air ambulance out of state hands and privatize it. To many fifedoms state service to ensure a fully functioning service. I blip on the service and it ends up in a tribunal costing more that it did to establish a proper service.

    Outsource it and get over it!
    It's already funded, the Air Corps gets an allocation out of the Defence budget to operate and maintain its aircraft. The Lear or a Casa flying a child overseas for a heart transplant will not cost extra cent to the taxpayer.

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  11. #1357
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    EAS - 1 aircraft, 2 pilots and 1 crewman, probably 3/4 techs on a daylight only op

    Any air ambulance is daylight only and depends on aircraft that is available



    No doubt hours on EAS or any other op feed into currency

    GOCAC has command (unlike COS) but he has to follow the orders within the resources provided
    GOC Air Corps has command, yes. That is kind of given away in the title.

    He does not have the authority to decide "let's redirect our resources from EAS to have a few lads sleep in tents down the back of kilworth with the troops because someone thinks this would be a great idea."

    The job of the GOCAC is to implement government policy. The DoD and the HSE (dept of health) draft up an SLA. The secretary general then fires it onto GOCAC with a note saying "Make it work".

    He does what he is told to do. Like everyone else in the DF, he also has a boss. And unfortunately, like the majority of seniors officers who may hold aspirations for promotion, he isn't going to rock the boat if he disagrees with what the DoD want.

    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

  12. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  13. #1358
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    It's already funded, the Air Corps gets an allocation out of the Defence budget to operate and maintain its aircraft. The Lear or a Casa flying a child overseas for a heart transplant will not cost extra cent to the taxpayer.
    The aircraft had to be purchased and will have to be replaced at the tax payers expense no matter what it does or never does.

    Any air ambulance is daylight only and depends on aircraft that is available
    I think your understanding of Air Ambulance is a little confused. Any flight were an aircraft is used to transfer a patient internally or to the UK is classified as an Air Ambulance , Air Ambulance with transplants etc is 24/7

    The job of the GOCAC is to implement government policy
    There within lies the problem, political policy shouldn't be allowed interfer with the operation of aircraft, because in reality thats all it is.. politcos doing the job on the cheap.
    Time for another break I think......

  14. #1359
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Apod, you have a superior understanding of Army operations than I but you're understanding of the AC and more importantly the political strings that are being pulled behind the scenes are severely lacking.

    Firstly, there is no requirement to maintain "pilot hours" in the AC. Have a read of the ARM and let me know how you get on. The maintenance schedule of the aircraft and the availabile hours are what drives the tempo of flight ops. Pilots are required to maintain currency in different disciplines which are laid out in Wing/Sqn SOPs or Part A supplementals. There is absolutely nothing to be ticked by doing EAS ops except the odd confined area landing as it is essentially VFR flying. Crews (not just pilots) will still need to complete various sorties in slinging, bambi bucket, fast roping, winching etc to maintain currency. EAS due to the high tempo of ops consumes a large amount of aircraft hours, and obviously you need crews to fly them so lets not put the cart before the donkey to suit your narrative. So your point is complete BS to be honest. EAS has absolutely nothing to do with "pilot hours".

    I understand that as a soldier you want every asset and piece of equipment that is available, made available to you for training/ops which I completely understand.

    The AC has become a guinea pig for the government in this instance and has carried out the EAS experiment very successfully, barring one accident, for 6 years.

    The politicians and the DOD run the AC. Not the COS, not GOCAC. They are the ones who direct the allocation of resources. Shit rolls downhill as you well know, and unless you have a very valid reason for not doing something, you have no option but to do it. So perhaps you should ask Maurice Quinn why he values EAS more than slinging around 105's or doing troop drills.

    To be honest, given the choice of having a 139 carrying out life saving work, actually saving people's lives or spending a day sitting down in Kilworth doing troop drills or slinging guns around, I know which I'd rather as a taxpayer and citizen.

    You might not like that point of view but in the day of optics, strict budgets and PR, EAS is an easy win for the DoD.

    Unless there are definitive plans to deploy the AC overseas with troops, to wherever that may be, then finite resources shouldnt be wasted training toward pie in the sky stuff "just cause".

    I've read on here numerous times that helicopters were needed in Chad. And that may well have been the case. Chad was 10 years ago, how many times have they been needed since? Are people still going to be beating the same drum in 20 years time? The current overseas missions, of the DF do not require organic air assets as they are either not required or are provided by other contingents. That's the reality as I see it. Organic air assets are currently very much a nice to have, not a need to have.

    This notion that the AC should be deploying AC to "austere" environments for days at a time is laughable as well. How "austere" is what the Italians are doing in UNIFIL? They are doing the exact same VFR flying as AC crews albeit in an region where the weather is significantly better for VFR flight overall.

    There was no restriction on deploying aircraft overseas in the 2015WP as was the case in the previous one. But there was no statement of intent to do it either. The status quo really.

    Next time you happen to talk to AC helicopter crews, ask them would they rather be doing EAS or doing an overseas mission where they could do actual "military flying" as you put it. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority would rather the latter.

    "Privatise it" is the usual Irish solution to any problem. Rarely results in a better deal for the taxpayer.

    What about GASU? Should be privatise that aswell or does that get a pass because it falls under a different heading on the military.ie website?

    Youu should read the 2015WP mission statement. This is the policy guidance document which drives everything the DF does, whether you agree with it or not.

    "To provide a range of other supports to government departments and agencies in line with MOUs and SLAs agreed by the Department of Defence e.g. search and rescue and air ambulance services".

    I mean no malice in my post but you appear at times to have a very blinkered, singular view of how things should be done in the DF. We are all entitled to our opinion but you have to consider the broader picture.

    I appreciate I have gone slightly off topic but it is required at times to correct misinformation.
    Less of the patronising if you don't mind.Play the ball not the man etc. You may disagree with me but for you to confuse my "Blinkered ,singular view" for stupidity would be a mistake.
    I am neither. I am a straight shooter and I don't believe in BS.Despite your opinion.
    The simple fact is the 139's and 135's were purchased and lauded as Army Support Helis and that was going to be their bread and butter. I was on the very first Infantry exercises that they were used on. The crews were all about the "new era" of Army co-op that was being ushered in.

    That lasted all of 5 minutes.

    The "SAR is the AC" brigade were not one bit impressed and hankered back to the halcyon days of dope on a rope and blue flight suits.
    The Military Co-op was doomed from the start.
    Go back to the later part of the first ten years of the noughties. We were in an out of Helis more than times than four tonners. Now,unless you are on a specialist course you can forget it.

    The problem is the mindset.But hey WTF would I know.I am just an Ignorant grunt.
    Last edited by apod; 14th June 2018 at 17:05.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  15. #1360
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    GOC Air Corps has command, yes. That is kind of given away in the title.

    He does not have the authority to decide "let's redirect our resources from EAS to have a few lads sleep in tents down the back of kilworth with the troops because someone thinks this would be a great idea."

    The job of the GOCAC is to implement government policy. The DoD and the HSE (dept of health) draft up an SLA. The secretary general then fires it onto GOCAC with a note saying "Make it work".

    He does what he is told to do. Like everyone else in the DF, he also has a boss. And unfortunately, like the majority of seniors officers who may hold aspirations for promotion, he isn't going to rock the boat if he disagrees with what the DoD want.

    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
    GOCAC has command and he (not DoD or the Minister) is responsible for running of the AC.

    He is in a nutshell - responsible for everything the AC does and fails to do.

    He has of course to do so within the policies set by DoD, the resources provided by Government (and DoD). And undertake the missions assigned to him by Government.

    What the DF suffers from that due to indoctrination, group think and the can do attitude (plus experience), they will rarely say no or say yes but we need more resources.... and gain them.

    Having said that it is part of the inherent nature of a military organisation and some examples do come to mind where it has been done.


    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The aircraft had to be purchased and will have to be replaced at the tax payers expense no matter what it does or never does.

    I think your understanding of Air Ambulance is a little confused. Any flight were an aircraft is used to transfer a patient internally or to the UK is classified as an Air Ambulance , Air Ambulance with transplants etc is 24/7

    There within lies the problem, political policy shouldn't be allowed interfer with the operation of aircraft, because in reality thats all it is.. politcos doing the job on the cheap.
    The only extras are fuel, additional maintenance due to associated extra flying hours (some of that maintenance would be performed anyway) and maybe some additional allowances.

    Correct but there are a number of aspects to that:
    (a) the incident scene to the hospital (local/regional/specialist)
    (b) the local/regional hospital to a regional/specialist hospital
    (c) the likes of transplant patients who will generally be flown from a location near their home (could be a pitch or an airport to an airport (which is generally in the UK). There can be a number of legs to this type of op (it could be for example a IRCG pick up from a local pitch in west Clare to Dublin and the fixed wing to Northolt) or it could be fixed wing direct from Shannon to Northolt.

    You are absolutely correct they are all defined as air ambulance or HEMS (where a heli is involved) but they are extremely different tastings, with different demands and some require additional skill sets.

    Last time I checked this is a democracy and Government tell the military what to do not the other way around.
    Last edited by DeV; 13th June 2018 at 21:18.

  16. #1361
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,506
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The aircraft had to be purchased and will have to be replaced at the tax payers expense no matter what it does or never does.
    The aircraft are already there, the Air Corps doesn't go out and by an aircraft to compleat a transfer, they use existing aircraft. It does not cost an extra cent to the taxpayer.

  17. Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #1362
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    The GOC Aer Corp in the past stated in the magazine "Flying in Ireland" that the stated aim was to have Pilots when leaving to have at least so many hours up on their log books.
    This may be the Brillcream boys priority. Flight hours from where ever they can get them.
    Last edited by sofa; 13th June 2018 at 23:04.

  19. Thanks apod thanked for this post
  20. #1363
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    The GOC Aer Corp in the past stated in the magazine "Flying in Ireland" that the stated aim was to have Pilots when leaving to have at least so many hours up on their log books.
    This may be the Brillcream boys priority. Flight hours from where ever they can get them.
    If it was 500 hours that a major problem , if it was 5000 hours then they have stayed a fair well and put their time in

  21. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  22. #1364
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The aircraft are already there, the Air Corps doesn't go out and by an aircraft to compleat a transfer, they use existing aircraft. It does not cost an extra cent to the taxpayer.
    Again your missing the point. the aircraft are being used because they are there...if they become the sole supplier of the service, when the aircraft are no longer available they will have to be replaced at the state expense.

    Any contracted service provider cannot include the cost of aircraft purchase in the tender ( mots will probably just lease them anyway)

    The aircraft in use were not intended for what they are used for and a such their life time and availability is been eaten into to provide a service to meet a political agenda. Going back to when the Allouettes were purchased it has been the same.....

    We buy them under the guise of advancing our military wing and they spend 90% of their working lives doing civilian roles..their purchase and replacement is from a defence capital budget but the DF get relatively little practical use because of their management.
    Time for another break I think......

  23. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest, apod liked this post
  24. #1365
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only extras are fuel, additional maintenance due to associated extra flying hours (some of that maintenance would be performed anyway) and maybe some additional allowances.

    Correct but there are a number of aspects to that:
    (a) the incident scene to the hospital (local/regional/specialist)
    (b) the local/regional hospital to a regional/specialist hospital
    (c) the likes of transplant patients who will generally be flown from a location near their home (could be a pitch or an airport to an airport (which is generally in the UK). There can be a number of legs to this type of op (it could be for example a IRCG pick up from a local pitch in west Clare to Dublin and the fixed wing to Northolt) or it could be fixed wing direct from Shannon to Northolt.

    You are absolutely correct they are all defined as air ambulance or HEMS (where a heli is involved) but they are extremely different tastings, with different demands and some require additional skill sets.
    Working in acute hospital I'm well aware of what the types of transfer are...and from an aviation back round what it takes to get machines to go where.

    But its not really relevent to the point what were are doing is actually decreasing the availability of machines to those who should be using them as Ropebag and Apod have pointed out.

    Government policy should be about providing the service from the optimal supplier. The Air corps is not an optimal supplier, yes it does an admirable job, but at a cost to the DF.

    The military should be a back up to civilian services....not the primary supplier of service !

    This is where successive governments have abused power for so long , doing things on the cheap using the DF when there should be specialist companies out there... we no longer have the DF covering bus strikes, bin strikes, and firefighters strikes, but we have the AC running around doing the NAS job... and again no offence to the AC but its not what a military air wing is for.
    Time for another break I think......

  25. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  26. #1366
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like
    What about GASU? Should be privatise that aswell or does that get a pass because it falls under a different heading on the military.ie website?
    Helicopters owned by the Dept for Justice
    Gardai supply the observers and control its operations
    Dept of Justice Tenders the maintaince
    Air Corps supply pilots, a place to land and for some reason register the aircraft on the military register.
    Sounds part privatised to me.
    And if the air corps current "issues" start to effect GASU ops what do you think Dept of Justice will do then.
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed! I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  27. #1367
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Again your missing the point. the aircraft are being used because they are there...if they become the sole supplier of the service, when the aircraft are no longer available they will have to be replaced at the state expense.

    Any contracted service provider cannot include the cost of aircraft purchase in the tender ( mots will probably just lease them anyway)

    The aircraft in use were not intended for what they are used for and a such their life time and availability is been eaten into to provide a service to meet a political agenda. Going back to when the Allouettes were purchased it has been the same.....

    We buy them under the guise of advancing our military wing and they spend 90% of their working lives doing civilian roles..their purchase and replacement is from a defence capital budget but the DF get relatively little practical use because of their management.


    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Working in acute hospital I'm well aware of what the types of transfer are...and from an aviation back round what it takes to get machines to go where.

    But its not really relevent to the point what were are doing is actually decreasing the availability of machines to those who should be using them as Ropebag and Apod have pointed out.

    Government policy should be about providing the service from the optimal supplier. The Air corps is not an optimal supplier, yes it does an admirable job, but at a cost to the DF.

    The military should be a back up to civilian services....not the primary supplier of service !

    This is where successive governments have abused power for so long , doing things on the cheap using the DF when there should be specialist companies out there... we no longer have the DF covering bus strikes, bin strikes, and firefighters strikes, but we have the AC running around doing the NAS job... and again no offence to the AC but its not what a military air wing is for.
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    Helicopters owned by the Dept for Justice
    Gardai supply the observers and control its operations
    Dept of Justice Tenders the maintaince
    Air Corps supply pilots, a place to land and for some reason register the aircraft on the military register.
    Sounds part privatised to me.
    And if the air corps current "issues" start to effect GASU ops what do you think Dept of Justice will do then.
    EAS and GASU won’t (be allowed to) suffer the issues because they are ops (as opposed to training/Ex). Ops are prioritised. If there was an operational deployment of 2 x heli to Cork for Charles’s visit that would be prioritised too. If providing a heli for parachute training has to be cancelled to save a number of lives..... that is what is done.

    Does that effect availability of other aircraft, pilots, techs etc - absolutely - but we aren’t talking about huge numbers here. The major problem is lack of personnel.

    What makes you think that if EAS was moved to a contractor that it would hugely benefit the AC? I would say the crews morale, espirit de Corps and raison d’ete benefits knowing they are saving lives every day and making a difference. It won’t be bad for retention either as a result. Oh not forgetting that the HSE pay DoD for the service.

    The reason the GASU aircraft are on the Military register is it is AFAIK of benefit to their ops.



    For EAS look at the costs in the report:
    https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/upl...-watermark.pdf


    Now this €7 million contract for night air ambulance flights to the UK. €7 m over 2 years for approx 5 flights annually (5 flights time critical at night that is), let’s say a return flight to the UK is approx 4 hours. So that is € 3.5m for approx 20 flying hours. Which means the contractor is getting € 175,000 per flight hour.

    According to DoD 2015 figures MATS using the Learjet cost € 3,780 per flight hour.
    http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Do...4?OpenDocument



    Since the economic fell, the MATS is comparatively rarely used, that means the Learjet has more availability (now obviously if it is away it can’t be used but there are still other options.
    Last edited by DeV; 14th June 2018 at 10:51.

  28. #1368
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    GASU at this point should be manned 100% from within the ranks of the Gardai. A completely separate entity with its own cadre of pilots and observers drawn from within the force.

    Likewise the once temparory Air Ambulance proving experiment should now be shuffled off to a civilian operator as is SOP just about everywhere.

    The UH tender program was heralded as primarily a tool for use in support of other branches of the DF. The selection of the AW139 in itself was a cop out militarily. The defence of the acquired HEMS role by serving members of the Air Corps is a cop out militarily. No serving member of the DF is simply a "taxpayer and a citizen."
    Last edited by Jetjock; 15th June 2018 at 05:11.

  29. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, CTU, hptmurphy, apod liked this post
  30. #1369
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does that effect availability of other aircraft, pilots, techs etc - absolutely - but we aren’t talking about huge numbers here. The major problem is lack of personnel.
    and if you tie them up doing HEMS or EAS work they ain't doing what they are supposed to be doing.

    would say the crews morale, espirit de Corps and raison d’ete benefits knowing they are saving lives every day and making a difference
    ya think... and they could be pissed off waiting around to be called to doing this type of work when they could be doing exercises along with the rest of the DF.

    Now this €7 million contract for night air ambulance flights to the UK. €7 m over 2 years for approx 5 flights annually (5 flights time critical at night that is), let’s say a return flight to the UK is approx 4 hours. So that is € 3.5m for approx 20 flying hours. Which means the contractor is getting € 175,000 per flight hour
    So instead we have a multi million euro jet sitting in a hanger waiting to be used along with trained crews and support people..... doing an occasional MATS flight..... and the first time that aircraft goes tech we have to pay for someone else to do it!!!!
    Time for another break I think......

  31. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  32. #1370
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Less of the patronising if you don't mind.Play the ball not the man etc. You may disagree with me but for you to confuse my "Blinkered ,singular view" for stupidity would be a mistake.
    I am neither. I am a straight shooter and I don't believe in BS.Despite your opinion.
    The simple fact is the 139's and 135's were purchased and lauded as Army Support Helis and that was going to be their bread and butter. I was on the very first Infantry exercises that they were used on the crews were all about the "new era" of Army co-op that was being ushered in.

    That lasted all of 5 minutes. The "SAR is the AC" brigade were not one bit impressed and hankered back to the halcyon days of dope on a rope and blue flight suits.
    The Military Co-op was doomed from the start.
    Go back to the later part of the first ten years of the noughties. We were in an out of Helis more than times than four tonners. Now,unless you are on a specialist course you can forget it.

    The problem is the mindset.But hey WTF would I know.I am just an Ignorant grunt.
    Apod, I'm not quite sure where you feel like I inferred that you were stupid because that word was not used nor inferred toward you in my post. There is a defined difference between having an opinion based on stupidity and one based on a lack of overall understanding of the topic at hand. Your posts on this matter still fall firmly into the latter for me.

    I outlined at length several different things to you, including correcting your incorrect statement about pilot hours and you addressed practically nothing.

    Your argument is essentially "when they were purchased over a decade ago they were meant to be all about supporting the army, now they are doing something else and I dont like it". I understand the sentiment, as I said in my previous post to you but you have to at least appreciate the bigger picture.

    I'm not going to repeat the points that I raised previously. If you don't want to discuss the contents of government policy, the 2015WP, PR etc well then I'll assume you either dont want to discuss them because you realise they clash with your agenda or that you don't understand them and their implications.

    The current reality is that there is no political will to deploy AC assets overseas to support the army and there is no current requirement to do so. Of course that doesn't mean that there won't be in the future but it isnt rocket science either. As I said, the Italians are currently doing much simpler stuff than the current EAS operation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to them but it is essentially VFR flying. If you consider this "military flying" well then you may want to think again.

    The other bigger issue currently is retention, for both aircrew and ground crew. The AC has suffered a significant brain drain over the last few years with many going to the ME to take advantage of a lucrative market.

    Neither the government stance or the retention issue is going to be changed/solved in the next five year period at a minimum in my opinion.

    I have seen it mentioned here and you mentioned it again about the SAR glory days etc. Again, chat to Helicopter crews and see just how many are longing for a return of SAR. The AC have been out of the SAR role completely for almost fifteen years. Meaning that anyone who joined after 2000/01 has pretty much no experience of SAR. In fact the GOC and perhaps less than a half a dozen others are the last ones who were directly involved. The only people I can see longing for the return of SAR is the likes of yourself speaking on behalf of others.

    You say you are a straight shooter so please humour me. Do you accept that the 2015WP explicitly states that the government can use DF assets however it sees fit under the guise of SLA and MOU's etc? Do you accept that the DoD are the people who sanction such agreements and them turn to the AC and direct them to do it.

    My main gripe (if you could call it that) is that you have a perception that EAS is AC driven, and that from the GOC down to the crew themselves are choosing to do that instead of "real work" slinging around guns and carrying troops. Sure in your eyes, the whole operation was created just to allow pilots to log hours. It seems really plausible that two government depts, the COS, GOCAC, the HSE, the NAS, the NACC, dozens of aircrew, technicians, ops staff etc etc were all tasked with participating in EAS purely (in your own words) to allow the pilots to log hours. Do you really believe this?

    How many P1's have you submitted recently? How many times have you asked the AC to come to your location to brief personnel on something? Pretty sure if I asked most officers or NCOs what a P1 request was, they would look at me with ten heads.

    Again, if you want to discuss the bigger picture and suggest possible ways to address them other than "NOT THEIR JOB" (despite the fact that it is according to the WP and DF roles & responsibilies) I am all ears.

    For the record, I would much rather see AC assets routinely supporting the DF overseas whether it be ISTAR, strategic lift, heli lift, medevac etc but it isn't on the table unfortunately. You can only play the hand you are dealt.

    As for the comment from JetJock. Regardless of whether someone is in the DF or not, they are entitled to have an opinion regarding the ROI from state assets.

    I dont agree with the NS having a vessel and crew in the med for various different reasons but I can also appreciate that it is a great opportunity for the personnel on board to gain new skills and everything else that goes along with participating in such an operation. But as a taxpayer I would much rather see the NS retention issues addressed and have the vessel patrolling our own national interests rather than acting as, as some would call it, a glorified taxi service. Again its all about optics, good for PR and doesn't cost the government a whole lot extra.

    As it currently stands, given the public perception of the DF in general, I would much rather explain to someone that given the tiny amount that is invested in the defence budget every year, that some of it is going to provide a service that can and does make tangible and at times life saving difference to ordinary peoples daily lives rather than trying to justify why aircraft are burning holes in the sky carrying around 105 guns that have never been deployed in anger at home or overseas or doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas.

    As for sofas claim regarding flight hours. I'm quite sure that the context of the article (of which I'd love to read) has shifted to suit the "brillcream boys" narrative. If the GOC did say that in a published article I would be fairly sure it referred to a minimum amount of hours per year to maintain a certain level of currency resulting in X amount of hours by the time their 12 year contract elapsed. Pretty simple maths being construed as something else once again. If you have the link to the article please post it so people can read it for themselves, otherwise its nothing but hot air.
    Last edited by Chuck; 14th June 2018 at 12:49.

  33. #1371
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    and if you tie them up doing HEMS or EAS work they ain't doing what they are supposed to be doing.
    because .... DoD don’t provide the resources to provide the hours not because

    The EAS hours being funded by HSE

    ya think... and they could be pissed off waiting around to be called to doing this type of work when they could be doing exercises along with the rest of the DF.
    or both if DoD provided the hours



    So instead we have a multi million euro jet sitting in a hanger waiting to be used along with trained crews and support people..... doing an occasional MATS flight..... and the first time that aircraft goes tech we have to pay for someone else to do it!!!!
    no because there is also 2 CASAs (and subsequent replacements) and soon enough to be 3 x PC12s that can also do the job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    The current reality is that there is no political will to deploy AC assets overseas to support the army and there is no current requirement to do so. Of course that doesn't mean that there won't be in the future but it isnt rocket science either. As I said, the Italians are currently doing much simpler stuff than the current EAS operation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to them but it is essentially VFR flying. If you consider this "military flying" well then you may want to think again.
    there would be nothing to stop the AC conducting a standalone deployment on a PSO with a flight of 2 x AW139s. Helis are a critical UN/EU force enabler (for CASEVAC) and multiplier (for transport). They are always looking for

    I dont agree with the NS having a vessel and crew in the med for various different reasons but I can also appreciate that it is a great opportunity for the personnel on board to gain new skills and everything else that goes along with participating in such an operation. But as a taxpayer I would much rather see the NS retention issues addressed and have the vessel patrolling our own national interests rather than acting as, as some would call it, a glorified taxi service. Again its all about optics, good for PR and doesn't cost the government a whole lot extra.
    although they are long hard deployments to the Med... I’d say the allowances help pay the bills that may otherwise have to go unpaid.

    doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas.
    it doesn’t matter they still have to capable of it for interoperability and CASEVAC reasons.

    As for sofas claim regarding flight hours. I'm quite sure that the context of the article (of which I'd love to read) has shifted to suit the "brillcream boys" narrative. If the GOC did say that in a published article I would be fairly sure it referred to a minimum amount of hours per year to maintain a certain level of currency resulting in X amount of hours by the time their 12 year contract elapsed. Pretty simple maths being construed as something else once again. If you have the link to the article please post it so people can read it for themselves, otherwise its nothing but hot air.
    Come to think of it if I remember rightly the quote was more to do with how many hours flying time was the target or average annually (nothing to do with get the hours so they leave).

  34. #1372
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    there would be nothing to stop the AC conducting a standalone deployment on a PSO with a flight of 2 x AW139s. Helis are a critical UN/EU force enabler (for CASEVAC) and multiplier (for transport). They are always looking for

    although they are long hard deployments to the Med... I’d say the allowances help pay the bills that may otherwise have to go unpaid.

    it doesn’t matter they still have to capable of it for interoperability and CASEVAC reasons.


    Come to think of it if I remember rightly the quote was more to do with how many hours flying time was the target or average annually (nothing to do with get the hours so they leave).
    Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


    It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".

    The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.

    Yes the NS mission is hard on the crew I have no doubt and they deserve the financial renumeration and their medal for it. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I simply said that as a taxpayer I don't see it as an effective use of an expensive state asset considering the size of our own EEZ and the current retention issues. I can also see the benefit that it offers to the NS and to its personnel. I can have an opinion on it but also see and understand both sides of the discussion.

    Again, yes, thank you for stating the obvious. They are of course required to train for it, just like they train for every other discipline that they participate in. Training for various disciplines doesnt require hundreds of hours per year. Training schedules are orientated around anticipated ops. For example, gorse fires generally occur in summer, so you won't find the bambi bucket out in the middle of december. Training currency could be one sortie of underslung loads to become current once again. Aircraft hours are precious and shouldnt be wasted unless absolutely required.

    Also, conducting a CASEVAC doesn't mean you have to practice it multiple times a year. It isn't rocket science. Wait for a signal or escort and approach the aircraft slowly from between 10 and 2 o clock. Avoid the large blade which is spinning at very high RPM at the back. I reckon 99% of soldiers could tell you that. You can apply that advice to almost every helicopter out there. The EAS guys seem to have no issue working with ambulance service or fire brigade or other agencies at the scene who might have never seen a helicopter before, let alone helped load a patient onto one.
    Last edited by Chuck; 14th June 2018 at 14:21.

  35. Dislikes CTU disliked this post
  36. #1373
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    As an aside it is worth mentioning crews on HMS QE trained in aircraft handling on deck in the absence of aircraft, instead using full scale models.
    Training does not always require an aircraft. I'm sure anyone here who has parachuted will agree that you can learn to jump out of a plane on the ground, without an actual aircraft.. You only need the plane to do the actual jump.
    I remember doing APC debus drills from a minibus. (M3 days).
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  37. Likes DeV liked this post
  38. #1374
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    As an aside it is worth mentioning crews on HMS QE trained in aircraft handling on deck in the absence of aircraft, instead using full scale models.
    Training does not always require an aircraft. I'm sure anyone here who has parachuted will agree that you can learn to jump out of a plane on the ground, without an actual aircraft.. You only need the plane to do the actual jump.
    I remember doing APC debus drills from a minibus. (M3 days).
    Fully agree with you.

    I'd just like to point out that I am not abdicating completely substituting live drills and training for PowerPoint's and dry drills but when there is a finite allocation of resources, there has to be a priority and unfortunately things get cut.

    As an aside, it is my understanding that every new entrant to the DF undergoes heli drills at some point during their induction. Is this still the case?

    Is there training doctrine that state how often a soldier must conduct CASEVAC drills to be "current"? Is there unit training where CASEVAC drills are required and what is the frequency? Are CASEVAC by air carried out as part of every MRE? Is it included in the TI?

    Perhaps if units are finding it hard to acquire aircraft for training they should begin to adjust their syllabi to include it. Make their participation a "need to have" versus a "nice to have". Very simple solution that would require a very valid reason for non participation.

  39. #1375
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


    It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".

    The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.

    Yes the NS mission is hard on the crew I have no doubt and they deserve the financial renumeration and their medal for it. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I simply said that as a taxpayer I don't see it as an effective use of an expensive state asset considering the size of our own EEZ and the current retention issues. I can also see the benefit that it offers to the NS and to its personnel. I can have an opinion on it but also see and understand both sides of the discussion.

    Again, yes, thank you for stating the obvious. They are of course required to train for it, just like they train for every other discipline that they participate in. Training for various disciplines doesnt require hundreds of hours per year. Training schedules are orientated around anticipated ops. For example, gorse fires generally occur in summer, so you won't find the bambi bucket out in the middle of december. Training currency could be one sortie of underslung loads to become current once again. Aircraft hours are precious and shouldnt be wasted unless absolutely required.

    Also, conducting a CASEVAC doesn't mean you have to practice it multiple times a year. It isn't rocket science. Wait for a signal or escort and approach the aircraft slowly from between 10 and 2 o clock. Avoid the large blade which is spinning at very high RPM at the back. I reckon 99% of soldiers could tell you that. You can apply that advice to almost every helicopter out there. The EAS guys seem to have no issue working with ambulance service or fire brigade or other agencies at the scene who might have never seen a helicopter before, let alone helped load a patient onto one.

    I’m not suggesting that GOCAC launches an invasion of Mali

    Have a look at some UN reports on individual missions they often call on the member states to deploy more Helis. The point I’m making is that if it was decided by Government, received Dail approval to deploy 2 x AW139’s on a UN Mandated mission, there would be nothing to stop it. The other point I’m making is that such a deployment doesn’t necessarily have to be on a mission where there are already significant numbers of Irish troops. It could be to Congo, CAR or Sudan for example.



    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Fully agree with you.

    I'd just like to point out that I am not abdicating completely substituting live drills and training for PowerPoint's and dry drills but when there is a finite allocation of resources, there has to be a priority and unfortunately things get cut.

    As an aside, it is my understanding that every new entrant to the DF undergoes heli drills at some point during their induction. Is this still the case?

    Is there training doctrine that state how often a soldier must conduct CASEVAC drills to be "current"? Is there unit training where CASEVAC drills are required and what is the frequency? Are CASEVAC by air carried out as part of every MRE? Is it included in the TI?

    Perhaps if units are finding it hard to acquire aircraft for training they should begin to adjust their syllabi to include it. Make their participation a "need to have" versus a "nice to have". Very simple solution that would require a very valid reason for non participation.
    Absolutely
    I know they are definitely included on the MREs and as far as I know the YE Cses.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •