Thanks Thanks:  236
Likes Likes:  538
Dislikes Dislikes:  19
Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 1310
  1. #76
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    all open for discussion i think!! RAF still do SAR for example!

    HEMS more complex hence my opinion on regulation.

    Point taken on the MATS role but i wouldnt call the current HSE paramedics crew!!

  2. #77
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the Dauphin crash was the first accident that the AAIU were involved in (invited by Min DoD) but as far is I know it was many years later before the AAIU were given the remit to actually investigate AC accidents. For example, I dont think they investigated the Cessna crash. At least if they did I dont remember seeing a report.

  3. #78
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tadpole;360896]Dan,
    Jetjock is 100% correct. While HEMS is regulated for civilian operations the military are not and this will not change with EASA. EASA cannot and will not regulate the following: Military, Coastguard, Police, SAR or Fire fighting operations.

    EASA WILL regulate CHC and the civilian Fire Fighting AOC's!!!!

  4. #79
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    all open for discussion i think!! RAF still do SAR for example!
    Not for too much longer

    HEMS more complex hence my opinion on regulation.
    As already stated it depends on the operator (in this case military) not the operation.

    but i wouldnt call the current HSE paramedics crew!!
    Dont know what you are talking about. There currently are NO HSE Paramedics acting as crew however when the AC operation starts the HSE Paramedics will be in the back and part of the operation permanently. If you want to debate who should or shouldn't be referred to as crew check out JAR OPS 3 Subpart O. I think you will find you are, in civilian terms at least, wrong.

    EASA WILL regulate CHC and the civilian Fire Fighting AOC's!!!!
    EASA will regulate CHC but not their SAR operation, this will remain the remit of the National Aviation Authority or are they going to pull a European SAR operators manual out of their A**e by April?

    As for Fire fighting et al: http://www.easa.eu.int/frequently-as...#no-competency
    And I quote "Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, excludes from the Agency’s scope aircraft involved in the execution of military, customs, police, search and rescue, fire fighting, coastguard or similar activities or services."

    Next!

  5. #80
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    AAIU applicable to State aircraft since mid 1997.

  6. #81
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cool, didnt know that. Thanks.

  7. #82
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    c.1998
    Not even then. Cessna 243 crashed in 2004 and no public report exists.

  8. #83
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    at least 3 AAIU probes into AC units in 1999 incl Tramore.
    Last time the Cessna was posted about a lockdown was imposed.

  9. Thanks Jetjock thanked for this post
  10. #84
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    The AC definitely didn't have the expertise to deal with Tramore on their own. There was also a probe into an incident with the GASU Squirrel but maybe that wasnt 1999.

    Selective publishing of reports helps no one.RIP to young Lt Heery, but no civilian pilot was ever afforded a behind closed doors investigation. In fact it's fairly unique in wordwide military aviation too. Helps no one.

  11. #85
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was an obvious conflict with the concept of the AC investigating AC prangs.
    The GASU was one of the matters in 1999,it got disorientated and a faulty compass was adverted to.
    The CG SARs have also got paraded before the AAIU on a few events.

    You will have to draw your own conclusions re the Cessna and leave it at that and avoid speculation.

    Have you any info on the heli incident in Kerry 2 years ago re the door falling off (was it for real),the door falling off the Merlin in Gly was reportedon.

  12. #86
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    As already stated it depends on the operator (in this case military) not the operation.
    Military???Under the current Irish Aviation Authority regulations, air ambulance and HEMS is considered as commercial air transport and as such requires an operator carrying out such operations to hold an Air Operators Certificate and transport licence. Under Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 which is due to come into effect in april 2012, air ambulance and HEMS is classed as a commercial operation and requires an operator to hold an AOC and transport licence.


    Dont know what you are talking about. There currently are NO HSE Paramedics acting as crew however when the AC operation starts the HSE Paramedics will be in the back and part of the operation permanently. If you want to debate who should or shouldn't be referred to as crew check out JAR OPS 3 Subpart O. I think you will find you are, in civilian terms at least, wrong.
    IAC current Air Ambulance flights carry patient = civilian and most cases HSE team = civilians!!!

  13. #87
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dan,
    Your clutching at straws:
    Operators Certificate and transport licence. Under Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 which is due to come into effect in april 2012, air ambulance and HEMS is classed as a commercial operation and requires an operator to hold an AOC and transport licence
    Correct but as already stated the military do not require an AOC and can do whatever their military authorities and Government handlers allow them to do. That means if they want to do HEMS they can do it. Once more, in this case it is about the operator, not the operation.

    IAC current Air Ambulance flights carry patient = civilian and most cases HSE team = civilians!!
    Hows about reading my post properly:
    HSE Paramedics will be in the back and part of the operation permanently
    This will be the first civil staff that are permanently part of the AC operation. The other passengers flew one leg and got off.
    Besides, by your rational, with the AC already carrying civil passengers they need to have an AOC, do they?? Exactly, they don't need one, QED.

    PS, what happened to your ascertain that fire fighting would also be regulated by EASA? I like how you dropped that when actual regs are quoted to you.

  14. #88
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,067
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why not get the medical corps to finally get someone trained to Paramedic Instructor level and start instructing medics to paramedic level instead of getting the likes of dublin fire brigade instructors to come out and teach them? Then once this is done replace the permie civvie staff with these guys. .. .. damn it sorry, i forgot, im possibly talking sense here.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  15. #89
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Morpheus,
    You certainly are verging on making sense! I think the primary issues with this are the cost of training instructors and keeping them 'current'. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of protectionism built into the PHECC system to number the amount of training establishments in the country.

  16. Likes Liachta Cultaca liked this post
  17. #90
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,067
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm friends with one of the most highly trained paramedic instructors in Ireland - this has lead him to cross paths with the DF once or twice in a related manner. I can assure you that we've spoken about this numerous times and he has seen nor heard no good reason why the DF don't have paramedic instructors. Its closer to either cost reasons or that the DF doesn't officially recognise civvie qualifications, yet hires civvies to train its own as it has no instructors. This has nothing to do with protectionism or PHECC, its more to do with the institution itself.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  18. #91
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    TBH, Im not surprised.

  19. #92
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
    Dan,
    Your clutching at straws:

    Correct but as already stated the military do not require an AOC and can do whatever their military authorities and Government handlers allow them to do. That means if they want to do HEMS they can do it. Once more, in this case it is about the operator, not the operation.
    Tad, easy there...my understanding of this is HEMS will require an AOC no matter what the military authorities think!! It also falls into Public Transport.
    The regulation around EASA protects public safety and duty of care.

    Hows about reading my post properly:
    This will be the first civil staff that are permanently part of the AC operation. The other passengers flew one leg and got off.
    Besides, by your rational, with the AC already carrying civil passengers they need to have an AOC, do they?? Exactly, they don't need one, QED.
    How about reading mine properly....i am talking about the present not the future. Its a public service as is SAR...why do CHC require to have an AOC then?

    PS, what happened to your ascertain that fire fighting would also be regulated by EASA? I like how you dropped that when actual regs are quoted to you.
    2 Irish AOC operators operate the fire fighting role on contract. The IAC operate a back up role based on Local Authority call

  20. #93
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tad, easy there...my understanding of this is HEMS will require an AOC no matter what the military authorities think!! It also falls into Public Transport.
    The regulation around EASA protects public safety and duty of care
    Well Dan, Im afraid your just wrong. The military can and will do whatever they want.

    How about reading mine properly....i am talking about the present not the future. Its a public service as is SAR...why do CHC require to have an AOC then?
    Im sorry but the AC HEMS operation is what is being debated here, that hasnt happened yet hence its in the future. What the IAC do now is carry passengers as I have already stated. The future HEMS operation will have fulltime civil crew members, thats the issue.
    As for CHC they have an AOC so that they can carry out commercial operations such as Oil and Gas and passenger transportation. The SAR operation is carried out under an aerial work cerificate which is regulated by the IAA, not the JAA or EASA.

    2 Irish AOC operators operate the fire fighting role on contract. The IAC operate a back up role based on Local Authority cal
    Whats that got to do with anything? They hold AOCs which are regulated under JAA and soon to be EASA for commercial type operations yet the fire fighting portion of their operation is carried out under an Aerial Work certificate that is currently and will continue to be regulated by the NAA, in this case the IAA, NOT EASA or JAA.
    Last edited by Tadpole; 20th January 2012 at 13:45. Reason: Didnt see all of Dan's post as its mixed up in the quotes

  21. #94
    BQMS Liachta Cultaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    Why not get the medical corps to finally get someone trained to Paramedic Instructor level and start instructing medics to paramedic level instead of getting the likes of dublin fire brigade instructors to come out and teach them? Then once this is done replace the permie civvie staff with these guys. .. .. damn it sorry, i forgot, im possibly talking sense here.
    +1
    I went into an Italian restaurant and ordered dessert and they gave me tiramisu and a blindfolded horse and I said No, I said mask a pony (mascarpone)

  22. #95
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dan,

    Tadpole is quite correct.

    An AOC holder may carry out operations covered by an Aerial Works Certificate. An Aerial Works certificate holder cannot carry out works requiring an AOC. As Fire Fighting and SAR are covered by Aerial Works, I don't see your point.

    Talking about AOC and EASA/JAR requirements is moot in any case. This HEMS activity will be carried out by the Air Corps who self regulate and have nothing to do with JAR.

    They can do HEMS,SAR and Fire Fighting and Spaceflight if they please without any JAR input.

    If this role had gone to a civilian operator, JAR OPS would of course apply.

  23. #96
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the papers are to be believed it would appear Minister O'Reilly will make an announcement next week re Air Ambulance and Hems

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...310310715.html

    It would seem the commercial helicopter operators may as well close up shop as the AC seem to want to do their work.

    Air Ambulance is regarded by EASA and JAA as CAT the same as public transport. For someone to do that they need an AOC. Oh yea its Ireland so that does'nt count here. I wonder why then are Air Ambulance operations carried out by companies with AOC's in the rest of europe not the military. I think the reason they left SAR out of the new EASA regs was to allow SAR to be done by the military like the UK currently have the RAF. If the militry can do what they want they wouldnt have had to leave it out of the new EASA regs!
    The coast guard made their opinion on the AC doing SAR here pretty clear when someone ( an ex AC person i believe ) raised why the AC werent asked to do the service or part of it during the tender for the new contract.


    It would appear the Air corp can do whatever they fancy doing. Since they dont have any real military role to do with the 5 139's they have sitting in Bal, they do air ambulance in order to make it look like there is a reason for having them now that they are not kept busy flying ministers around anymore. Of course they have done it for years but they seem to be more interested in doing it now hence the 4 sets of crews on standby. When that leitrim girl needed to go to the uk for a liver transplant it was a pity the 139's they have couldnt fly to the UK at night, - must have been cheap knock offs that were made in china cos the ones Agusta make dont seem to have a problem doing it when operated by the civilian community.
    They also take them out for a bit of fire fighting now and again. Next they will want to do the Light house contract, powerline inspections and sure why not the gas pipeline patrol as well. They wouldnt need an AOC or oversight from the IAA for any of those jobs either would they?

    Sure maybe they could do scheduled flights between Ireland and europe and go into competition with Ryanair, they wouldnt need an AOC for that either cause their military and EASA/JAA rules dont apply to them. I wonder how much they would charge?


    Better let anyone thinking of becoming a helicopter pilot in ireland know that their only future is in the AC.

  24. Dislikes Turkey disliked this post
  25. #97
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fenestron,welcome aboard.
    Whilst you feel it is not right that the AC have a God Given right to all things here aeronautical can you make some suggestions for a workable/effective and vfm air ambo service outside of the AC.eg do you reckon the SAR helis can take up the slack or should the volutary proposal linked to Bond be availed of.

  26. #98
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    59
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well said Danno

  27. #99
    Lt General Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    4,932
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by fenestron View Post
    When that leitrim girl needed to go to the uk for a liver transplant it was a pity the 139's they have couldnt fly to the UK at night, - must have been cheap knock offs that were made in china cos the ones Agusta make dont seem to have a problem doing it when operated by the civilian community.
    The 139s were grounded as part of a world wide grounding of 139s (apparantly the tail roter fell off a few in Brazil), so in fairness I don't think you can't really blame the Aer Corps for that.

  28. Likes DeV liked this post
  29. #100
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the reason they left SAR out of the new EASA regs was to allow SAR to be done by the military like the UK currently have the RAF. If the militry can do what they want they wouldnt have had to leave it out of the new EASA regs!
    No, it was left out because it is impossible to write rules for an operation that effectively places an aircraft and crew in danger, even if it is to save lives. How do you regulate that? Answer you cant, so leave it out of EASA and let operators negotiate the operation through the local NAA as has always been the case. Nothing to do with the military.

    I wonder why then are Air Ambulance operations carried out by companies with AOC's in the rest of europe not the military
    Because:
    a. The countries have the population density to support a charity operation or;
    b. Drivers pay for the service through their insurance (Do you want more taxes) or;
    c. The country inst broke and can support an operation.

    Im no fan of military ops in the civil puddle, particularly when then there are enough mil ops to be done (Leb etc), but in this case their are only two operators capable of providing a service within existing infrastructure with minimal expenditure and that's the IAC or the CG.

    The 139s were grounded as part of a world wide grounding of 139s
    AFAIK the duty one was on an Air Amb flight from Tralee.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •