Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps and Mountain Rescue Joint Exercise

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by danno View Post
    Semper p,please note the fire brigades and ambulances and 999 call centres are a fulltime 24/7 integral part of the emergency services,the AC is not an emergency service,it has capability for that purpose but is neither geared nor expected to have its entire strenght on 24/7 availability.....for what purpose.Maybe if everybody in the AC in the heli sgns was on 92k pa as in CHC then you would be entitled to expect a similiar service,such expenditure would not be justified.
    Danno, I am well aware that the Fire Brigades & Ambulance service are 24/7/365 and are the main call (along with the Garda which are an emergency service also) but when's the last time you seen a fire tender or ambulance on top of a mountain or off shore!! With the exeption or MERT or MER team's, who have to get there somehow. I am talki

    Are the air corp's not all members of the defence forces 24/7/365 is that not what they sign up to? Or is it Mon-Fri. 9.00 to 16.30 with two coffee breaks and and hour and a half for lunch..

    As for you figures on what CHC are paid I think you should get a new contact in the real world to tell you what CHC are paying, maybe one of the pilots that jumped to the enemy in the last few months.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
      it doesn't need nearly 800 staff to maintain and operate 25 aircraft
      The personnel level is consistent with not alone operating 25 aircraft but also an entire airfield with all the associated roles including ATC, Fire Service, Security, Maintenance, Air Crew, Administration, Cadet and Apprentice training. So to compare that to CHC who operate from airports without the need to contribute to airport personnel is not comparing like with like.

      Comment


      • #63
        The personnel level is consistent with not alone operating 25 aircraft but also an entire airfield with all the associated roles including ATC, Fire Service, Security, Maintenance, Air Crew, Administration, Cadet and Apprentice training. So to compare that to CHC who operate from airports without the need to contribute to airport personnel is not comparing like with like.
        Jetjock, you just made my point. 90% of this cost could be got rid of by moving the AC to a civil facility or by selling / leasing Baldonnel to a third party operator and let them absorb the costs. The AC don't need a dedicated airfield, ATC, fire services etc with all the operational cost and maintenance they entail. Once you look down that path then next is farming out basic training and all aircraft maintenance. Lots of savings to be made in Baldonnel without any degradation of service if not an actual improvement.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
          1*PC9 (Galway) - Fixed Wing - does not carry civilians
          1*SA365Fi (Waterford) - That horrific accident in 1999
          1*SA316B (Donegal) - Written off after a heavy landing in shallow water in 1995 (23 years of service)
          1*SA342L (Baldonnel) - A Gazelle, written off, a crash landing following an engine failure in 2002 no injuries, after 23 years of service
          4*C172 (Clonbullogue, Finner, Shannon River, Gormanston Beach) - These are Cessnas, I can only find 2 crashes on 1978 and the other in 2004
          3*SF260WE (Maynooth, Cavan, Dublin) - These are Marchetti's - Crashes in 1978, 1990 & 1992

          .
          I just wanted to point out from the above list which ones related to aircraft that would be involved in mountain rescue and likely to carry civlians and also wanted to explain to the uninitiated what Tadpole means as being recent i.e. in the last 30 years.
          Last edited by Bravo20; 8 February 2012, 17:12.

          Comment


          • #65
            I just wanted to point out from the above list which ones related to aircraft that would be involved in mountain rescue and likely to carry civlians and also wanted to explain to the uninitiated what Tadpole means as being recent i.e. in the last 30 years
            Bravo,
            Please stop trying to deflect from the fact that your were wrong. Lets just remind the readers:
            You have on this thread and on other threads consistently slandered the Air Corps safety reputation without any imperical evidence (except inuendo and opinions)
            YOU asked for imperical data and you got it, it just doesnt suit you so you try to slag me off, again. Yes these are over 30 years, as already stated in the imperical data that YOU requested:
            Lets look at per flight hr, based on approx 6000hrs per year in the last 30years the AC will have flown approx 180,000 hrs. In the same time they have written off 11 aircraft, that's 1 aircraft written off per 16,300hrs. Including the 7 seriously damaged that's 1 serious accident very 10,000hrs. Is that imperical enough for you
            WRT MRT operations this post, as you quite rightly know was to give an overall perspective, imperically, of IAC accidents and incidents which you stated I based on nothing more then
            inuendo and opinions
            .
            Now with this imperical data do you think it reflects the accident levels you would expect within a commercial operation?
            and with that in mind for the third time:
            Do YOU believe that members of the public, after all thats what MRT members are, should be afforded the same levels of safety while carrying out their jobs regardless of which aircraft they happen to be in? Its a simple yes or no question

            Comment


            • #66
              You provided misleading data, omitting vital details such as the timeline and the aircraft involved thereby misleading the casual reader. For example if you looked at the Air Accident reports for the past 10 years you would see that the ICG helis have been involved in 3 incidents, now if you decided not to reveal the details of the incidents you could infer that the ICG helis were unsafe, but that would be wrong and misleading. A serious statement that the Air Corp is unfit to carry civilians has been made and you have attempted to back that up with misleading information. I am simply adding the relevent data that you omitted so that the casual reader can make up their own minds as to whether the accusation is true.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
                You provided misleading data, omitting vital details such as the timeline and the aircraft involved thereby misleading the casual reader. For example if you looked at the Air Accident reports for the past 10 years you would see that the ICG helis have been involved in 3 incidents, now if you decided not to reveal the details of the incidents you could infer that the ICG helis were unsafe, but that would be wrong and misleading. A serious statement that the Air Corp is unfit to carry civilians has been made and you have attempted to back that up with misleading information. I am simply adding the relevent data that you omitted so that the casual reader can make up their own minds as to whether the accusation is true.
                Three incidents in ten years is a good thing considering the Sar environment is not an airport to airport job.

                So how many incidents have the air corps had in ten years. With 500plus rescues per year and massive training hours. Oh wait for the old opsec crap to come out. It is impossible to come up with a accurate figure of air corps incidents as it's self regulating..

                Comment


                • #68
                  You provided misleading data, omitting vital details such as the timeline and the aircraft involved thereby misleading the casual reader. For example if you looked at the Air Accident reports for the past 10 years you would see that the ICG helis have been involved in 3 incidents, now if you decided not to reveal the details of the incidents you could infer that the ICG helis were unsafe, but that would be wrong and misleading. A serious statement that the Air Corp is unfit to carry civilians has been made and you have attempted to back that up with misleading information. I am simply adding the relevent data that you omitted so that the casual reader can make up their own minds as to whether the accusation is true.
                  What misleading info, please clarify. The timeline has now been CLEARLY stated TWICE, would you like me to quote them for you AGAIN. In addition these are not accidents, there are aircraft WRITE OFFs, if you want please feel free to add in the additional 7 accidents that badly damaged aircraft and the unknown number that only caused minor damage.
                  Nor have I stated that the Air Corps is unfit to carry civilians, those are your words. I am merely proposing that WHEN carrying civilians the Air Corps should work to civil regulations with civilian oversight affording civilians the same safety barriers as with commercial operators. Nothing more. This folly into stats was brought on by you calling me a slanderer and me having to add 2+2 for you to show that the Air Corps simply does not have a safety record the same as commercial carriers.

                  Considering you still haven't answered the question I can only presume there is only one answer and you wont say it because of the ramifications of that answer. Ill let everybody decide for themselves which the correct answer is.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Semper Paratus View Post
                    Three incidents in ten years is a good thing considering the Sar environment is not an airport to airport job.

                    So how many incidents have the air corps had in ten years. With 500plus rescues per year and massive training hours. Oh wait for the old opsec crap to come out. It is impossible to come up with a accurate figure of air corps incidents as it's self regulating..
                    Semper P,
                    The 3 incidents the CG had were all in training,one involved the landing of a S61 flown by two pilots who had about 20000 hours between them with no undercart down badly damoaging the craft,another involved a winchman shagging his line onthe Coningbeg Lightship which snapped and damaged a rotor and the third involved a stunt in Dublin whereby the CG hospitalised an entire NS diving team.These were all in training in benign stressless conditions and 2 were completely avoidable.
                    WRT 550+ rescues,the latest CG stats referred to it saving c.125 lives,not every op is a rescue.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      [QUOTE=Semper Paratus;362839]Danno, I am well aware that the Fire Brigades & Ambulance service are 24/7/365 and are the main call (along with the Garda which are an emergency service also) but when's the last time you seen a fire tender or ambulance on top of a mountain or off shore!! With the exeption or MERT or MER team's, who have to get there somehow. I am talki

                      Are the air corp's not all members of the defence forces 24/7/365 is that not what they sign up to? Or is it Mon-Fri. 9.00 to 16.30 with two coffee breaks and and hour and a half for lunch..

                      Semper P
                      Irish hills and mountains misted/clouded over in most cases when punters get lost and a heli cannot penetrate in those conditions and it is the MRTs who will still be the main stay for SAR.I agree the helis are invaluable for lifting off casuaties when conditions permit.The MRTs will always exist and do valualbe work regardless of the existance of CGor helis.
                      The emergency ended in 1945,no need to have the ramparts manned 24/7 everywhere by everybody in DF.
                      The figure I quoted originated from data within CHC (I)ltd.
                      As I stated in other post the CHC people are top of their game and getting market rate.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                        Nor have I stated that the Air Corps is unfit to carry civilians, those are your words. I am merely proposing that WHEN carrying civilians the Air Corps should work to civil regulations with civilian oversight affording civilians the same safety barriers as with commercial operators.
                        Sorry to intrude guys but why should the Air Corps work to civilian regulations when carrying civilians as if to imply that they're at inherently greater risk under military regs. and implying that civil regs are the be all and end all. The civil helicopter world in Ireland and its practices during the Tiger years wasn't exactly the model of regulation. You don't see people clambering for the RAF & RN to be regulated by the CAA, and they have their fair share of accidents. The Governement probably could if it wanted to get the IAA to oversee certain operations but it has chosen not to do so although joint co-operation with the AAIU is generally seen as a good thing.

                        Civilians don't have to travel with the Air Corps if they don't want too but yet a whole stream of civ agencies and personnel regularly do. As plenty previous posters have said the AC operate as close to JAR & EASA regs as possible under military rules. Maybe someone should ask the MRT's and the RNLI why they consistently seek AC support and training. Maybe they're not getting the service they want. An imminent Governement decision for the AC to operate a HEMS service in Athlone sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                          The personnel level is consistent with not alone operating 25 aircraft but also an entire airfield with all the associated roles including ATC, Fire Service, Security, Maintenance, Air Crew, Administration, Cadet and Apprentice training. So to compare that to CHC who operate from airports without the need to contribute to airport personnel is not comparing like with like.
                          Really, do you believe that?

                          Do you not think that there might be a little bit of excess in the Admin side.. One BG, two full col, 16 Lt. Col's... almost one senior officer per aircraft..

                          How many current flying officers and how many hours a year do they actually do... I reckon the average is quite a bit less then 200hrs, there are some exceptions but most guys spend very little time in an aircraft.

                          Seams like a lot of scrambled egg for a fairly small operation
                          Last edited by Charlie252; 8 February 2012, 23:10.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            In the US and UK... do the military operate officially under civil rules and regulations when carrying civies?
                            "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."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              MRT's have to train with all the air assets that they may meet as a most fundamendal premis of risk management. IAC helis work reek sunday and could well have been an AC responding to a mountain emergency in the NW durings its gorse fire response last year. Other issue of course is too many helis in the one area and the need to coordinate that overall aerial response.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by chrisr View Post
                                MRT's have to train with all the air assets that they may meet as a most fundamendal premis of risk management. IAC helis work reek sunday and could well have been an AC responding to a mountain emergency in the NW durings its gorse fire response last year. Other issue of course is too many helis in the one area and the need to coordinate that overall aerial response.
                                I know a few members of the Kerry MRT (one of your ptes is actually a member of KMRT) and I have to say that the SAR heli based in shannon (rescue 113?) provides an invaluable capability to locate and retrieve casualties and without a doubt has saved many lives, being one of Irelands busiest MRT they have been selected for immediate training on the new SAR heli the S-92 to come up with new drills for the heli.

                                The fact that the IAC are now lending themselves to MRTs for training can only be a good thing to fimiliarise the MRT members with the heli's and the drills/capabilites of the IAC and vice versa can only be a good thing for allm involved!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X