PH, great to see some reasoned debate. It must be a new 'ology' or something.
As am I with the Air Corps cost figure. While this may be the 'additional' cost to the State it isnt a true reflection of the cost of the service. Bear in mind that this spare capacity in terms of personnel and equipment could quite as easily be reduced to save the State money so to say its free just because its there isnt true.
The terms used in the tender were for the provision of assistance to the HSE in the retrival of casualties in remote (not hostile, thats SAR) areas. The only method to provide this under civil legislation is full HEMS which is in place with CHC as an operator and in place in Shannon on the S92 with 3 more bases to follow.
Surely you mean....will go with the dedicated service whenever most suitable to the casualty? Anything else would be negligent. As I already stated, in many parts of the country a HEMS helicopter and crew will be able to respond and have the casualty en-route to hospital before the EAS machine even arrives. Are you really saying the HSE will leave casualties lying around just to use the EAS?
Except the spend never was just for SAR. Anybody who read the tender in any detail would have seen that. PS it was also in all the PR after the contract signing but that was probably just dismissed as spin. Well HEMS ops are no live in the country and here to stay.
Tell me again what happened to the cheaper helicopter maintenance provided by the Don? Cost isnt everything, is it?
But thats the point, I dont know. From my past experience the IAC had a lot to learn in terms of safety. Perhaps they have but without external auditing to provide that assurance we only have the word of individuals within an organisation that stands to lose from finding failure with itself. Besides, if the IAC now operate so closely to JAR-Ops then what exactly is the issue with allowing external regulation and oversight of this part of the operation? If anything a reluctance to do so would beg more questions then it answers.
Sorry but thats not oversight. Oversight is a continual assessment of standards within an organisation. What currently happens is no more then closing the door after the horse has bolted...and then leaving without locking the door!!
So, have the IAA been approached and asked if the operation (Not the operator) falls under civil or military regulations and they have said that it is a military operation or have the IAA even been approached. Big difference between asking the question / getting an answer and not asking the question in case the wrong answer comes back.
Either way this is very likely to change with EASA when aviation regulations become European law and the IAA have no leeway at a National level. In this case the operation, not the operator, will determine the regulations to be followed. In this case the EAS operation can only be considered HEMS (A rose by any other name etc) and will require the following:
Military OPERATIONS are of course exempt but it does not exempt military OPERATORS to do civil OPERATIONS. There is absolutely no way that it could be argued that a dedicated EAS/HEMS/AA operation (Also interesting in terms of current FW AA ops), even if provided by the military, is a military operation and a very short court case by any civil operator would soon sort that one out. All this of course doesn't preclude the IAC from the operation but they will require an AOC and all of the cost, oversight and regulation that an AOC brings.
Sorry PH but if the AC/DF/DoD havent woken up to the internal issues that have led to the loss of every civil based contract it ever held (to a supposedly more expensive competitor due to service issues) then pointing the finger outside isn't going to be very productive. I hope the IAC have turned a corner and hold this operation but blaming others for the IACs problems is futile. After all, even if the IRCG had expansionist agendas they couldn't have got very far without the IAC/DF/DoD giving them the room to do so.
Danno:
Have a read through this thread, its been done to death. CHC also have a full AOC for commercial air transport operations and as AA is a function of CAT operations the service is provided under this approval. HEMS is completely separate and requires a separate approval which CHC now also holds and operates. In short CHC can and do provide Commercial Air Transport, HEMS and SAR operations.
Glad to hear there won't be any additional costs but forgive me for being a little sceptical.
are you refering to an AA or HEMS provision in the contract?
I think both services can probably compliment each other into the future but I think that the HSE/NAS will go with the dedicated service whenever available.
Your point supports my original contention though that without EAS/HEMS activity it's hard to justify the massive spend on SAR.
The success of the GASU is a testament to this where there's a mutual benefit to both Dept's.
I think you might be getting a bit hung up on the audit thing. As yoy know the military do not have to conform to JAR-Ops but effectively do for all civil type ops particularly this op and do it every bit as well as any civil operator but probably for a lot less pay!
The incident with the EAS is subject to an AAIU investigation as the previous PC9 accident was so you're wrong to say it's not subject to "any external oversight of any kind".
Similarly the IAA are not interested in that they don't see it as a civil operation
Either way this is very likely to change with EASA when aviation regulations become European law and the IAA have no leeway at a National level. In this case the operation, not the operator, will determine the regulations to be followed. In this case the EAS operation can only be considered HEMS (A rose by any other name etc) and will require the following:
Helicopters shall only be operated for the purpose of HEMS operations if the operator has been approved by the competent authority.
(b) To obtain such approval by the competent authority, the operator shall:
(1) operate in commercial air transport (CAT) and hold a CAT air operator certificate (AOC) in accordance with Part-OR; and
(2) demonstrate to the competent authority compliance with the requirements contained in this Subpart.
(b) To obtain such approval by the competent authority, the operator shall:
(1) operate in commercial air transport (CAT) and hold a CAT air operator certificate (AOC) in accordance with Part-OR; and
(2) demonstrate to the competent authority compliance with the requirements contained in this Subpart.
Noble sentiments SARMAN and shared by many but made increasingly difficult by an expanionist IRCG agenda. I'd say the AC/DF and maybe even the DoD only beginning to wake up to that fact.
Danno:
How was AA work done by CHC labelled as SAR when HEMS/AA is specifically excluded from the SAR framework unless connected to a marine/aviation incident?
Comment