Thanks Thanks:  4
Likes Likes:  27
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 93
  1. #26
    CQMS jack nastyface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi B20. No im not saying that they should all be grounded, or that the Air Corps should become a ground corps.I would just suggest that given their safety record (one of the posters on the PC9 thread broke it down,and I found it quiet shocking,given the size of the Corps) that they take a step back,slow down, and recognise that there may be changes that could be made to the organisations (not individuals) apparent attitude to safety culture and training. By all means train, but do it in the safest way possible. And Im sure I'll be corrected if Im wrong, but aren't the Coastguard basically the guys they use to air lift people of the mountains?

  2. #27
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jack nastyface View Post
    And Im sure I'll be corrected if Im wrong, but aren't the Coastguard basically the guys they use to air lift people of the mountains?
    No they are not, it is generally the Air Corps, hence the need to have cross training with Mountain Rescue.

  3. #28
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    59
    Post Thanks / Like
    This site should be renamed as the a forum for disgruntled CHC and CG personnel Bitch about the Air Corps. Serious lads grow up. Thought this was supposed to be a Forum where people like me that are interested in our national service man and women in that Air Corps and what they do. Not a sad bitching forum. This is a AC page not a CG/CHC/CR, get your own.

  4. Likes Rhodes, DeV, Herald liked this post
  5. #29
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    No they are not, it is generally the Air Corps, hence the need to have cross training with Mountain Rescue.
    Actually, I think you will find that the Air Corps MRT operations are generally limited to the Wicklow mountains and arent the first port of call for SAR operations. AC really only get involved during protracted ops where lots of people need moving such as Lug a few years ago.

  6. #30
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    And yet when I had to evacuate a woman who broke her leg off Croagh Patrick 5 years ago it was an Air Corps heli that arrived.

  7. #31
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is the Air Corps working with Donegal Mountain rescue (see the photos on the page)
    http://www.mountainrescue.ie/AboutUs

  8. #32
    Private 2* DirkinDaHerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi all,

    Hey Bravo was it reek sunday by chance?... the Air Corps annually place an Air Corps Heli to CP on that weekend, the coast guard are always on call at Sligo. Im sure there was a reason for it been an Air Corps A/C on the day and not the private operator... OR perhaps they were busy on another call which happens from time to time

    DITH

  9. #33
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is the Air Corps working with Donegal Mountain rescue (see the photos on the page)
    http://www.mountainrescue.ie/AboutUs
    Photos are of Reek Sunday. A preplanned operation for one day a year that the Air Corps know about and plan in advance.

    And yet when I had to evacuate a woman who broke her leg off Croagh Patrick 5 years ago it was an Air Corps heli that arrived.
    One op in the last 5 years, I dont think that makes the Air Corps the primary rotary asset to MRTs outside the Pale. PS, was this also Reek Sunday?

  10. #34
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
    Photos are of Reek Sunday. A preplanned operation for one day a year that the Air Corps know about and plan in advance.


    One op in the last 5 years, I dont think that makes the Air Corps the primary rotary asset to MRTs outside the Pale. PS, was this also Reek Sunday?
    No, just a random weekend we decided to climb Croagh Patrick, happened to be in the right place with the right people and right equipment to help a stranger who broke her leg.

  11. #35
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like

  12. #36
    Private 2* DirkinDaHerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi all,

    LOL, That job was completed by the 139 cause it happened to be down on manoeuvres with the ARW/navy in the area, and it was the closest asset capable of effecting the rescue, common sense prevailed for once... nothing more.

    Dith.
    Hopefully the mayan's got it right and were all on a one way ticket outta here!!

  13. #37
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good to hear that on both occasions the Coast Guard utilised the closest assets, in this case IAC machines that were in the area on other operations. However, in 99% of all operations the IAC aren't the closet asset so can hardly be considered as a primary asset to MRTs.
    It also doesn't answer the question about whether civil personnel should be flying in military helicopters flying under military reg and procedures. Surely there's no great issue with the Air Corps gaining equivalent status for operations carrying civil personnel. It doesn't have to be an AOC but perhaps regs and procedures equivalent to an AOC operation with external, perhaps IAA oversight. That would quell all of these concerns. Surely that cant be so hard for the Air Corps.

  14. #38
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Next time you are stuck on a Mountain side and they send and Air Corps helicopter to rescue you, you can send it away as its procedures aren't up to speck.

    If the ICG doesn't have a problem deploying Air Corps assets so who died and made you God on this matter?

  15. Thanks tonyrdf thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Goldie fish, Rhodes, tonyrdf liked this post
  16. #39
    Private 2* DirkinDaHerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's a GOD! .... (who wants to go there) LOL
    Hopefully the mayan's got it right and were all on a one way ticket outta here!!

  17. #40
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Getting a bit touchy there Bravo. Nobody made me God, I'm just asking a question that it seems you cannot answer and and are therefore having a shot at me for some reason. Let me rephase it for you.

    1. 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.

    2. If the answer is yes then surely the IAC can see their way to establishing procedures based on best International practice while operating with civilians. How hard can it be for the IAC to do so? If it isn't a problem then its an easy fix, if it is a problem then that begs more questions then it answers.

    3. If your answer is no and you think civilians should be exposed to differing levels of safety, well that would say it all.

  18. #41
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's a GOD!
    Yes Dirk, there is....and apparently its me so be careful or I'll smite thee!

  19. #42
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jack nastyface View Post
    .I would just suggest that given their safety record
    11 crashes/write offs since 1969 ? - Source: Wings over Ireland (plus the 3 latest)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
    1. 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.
    Should members of the DF not?

  20. #43
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think I have answered the question. The IAC is considered a suitable and safe organisation for transporting civilians in all kind of conditions by:
    1) The aviation authorities (or else they would be clambering to have them grounded)
    2) The ICG who use them reasonably consistently
    3) The mountain rescue organisations.
    4) The general public who regularly ask why the Air Corp wasn't used

    You have on this thread and on other threads consistently slandered the Air Corps safety reputation without any imperical evidence (except inuendo and opinions) and I want to know what makes you think that you are better positioned to form such an opinion over the four mentioned above.

  21. Likes Rhodes liked this post
  22. #44
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    You have on this thread and on other threads consistently slandered the Air Corps safety reputation without any imperical evidence (except inuendo and opinions) and I want to know what makes you think that you are better positioned to form such an opinion over the four mentioned above.
    Easy to call it slander just because you don't agree with the points I am making. The evidence has already been given on the PC9 thread for all to decide for themselves. The Air Corps have written off over 11 of their recent fleet of 54 aircraft and severely damaged another 7 aircraft. 20.4% written off and another almost 17% seriously damaged. Is that imperical enough for you?

    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.

    Assuming a base line of 100 pilots and a turnover of 6 pilots per year the total pilots numbers for the last 30 years is in the order of 280 pilots. That means that IAC pilots over the last 30 years have an approx. 1 in 40 chance of being killed in an accident. Is that imperical enough for you.

    All of the above is public knowledge, you just need to put 1+2 together. What isn't known are the additional stats that aren't public knowledge.

    Now for your other points:
    The aviation authorities (or else they would be clambering to have them grounded)
    They have no juristiction over military operations. Thats a big difference from being happy with it.

    The ICG who use them reasonably consistently
    The ICG use what is needed to get the job done, including fishing trawlers, pleasure craft and all the other resources such as the RNLI, IRCG boats etc. Do they all have the same level of capability / safety in SAR operations? Just because they are utilised to get a job done doesn't mean they endorse their methods nor is it a reason not to improve where possible.

    The mountain rescue organisations. The general public who regularly ask why the Air Corp wasn't used
    Do they have the facts? Show them some of the stats above and see what happens.

    Now the questions remains:
    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
    Last edited by Tadpole; 7th February 2012 at 20:09.

  23. #45
    CQMS jack nastyface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Happyman View Post
    This site should be renamed as the a forum for disgruntled CHC and CG personnel Bitch about the Air Corps. Serious lads grow up. Thought this was supposed to be a Forum where people like me that are interested in our national service man and women in that Air Corps and what they do. Not a sad bitching forum. This is a AC page not a CG/CHC/CR, get your own.
    In fairness Happy,I wasnt bitching about the Corps,I wish it well and am intrested in our national service men and women,and their safety.It was only an observation. God.(not Tadpole) talk about people getting their my little ponys in a knot.

  24. #46
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Happyman,
    I'm afraid that's were we differ. What you call bitching I call criticism. I've never said that the Air Corps shouldn't be doing these ops but rather that if they wish to fly missions involving civilians they should be afforded the same safety as if on a commercial flight. Some people for some reason have taken exception to this demanding that the AC are no less safe and that I am nothing more then a slanderer, hence the stats for all to see.
    I just don't see why the AC couldnt operate civil ops to civil standards and why some take such great exception to the notion.

  25. #47
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the AC was so ropey our hallowed politicins would not avail of MATS.For a good while they were killing each other to avail of jollies in AC craft to get to every dogfight to impress constituents.
    Not entirely convinced with the civvies in AC craft debate.Accident victims etc dont have much choice as to who and how they are picked up by and are damn glad of it.Its not as if the AC are competing with other private non franchised rescue operators who might feel ther is no level playing field.

    To put that line further would not squad cars need to be licenced by taxi reg to convey suspects etc and the GS drivers need approp licence,ambulances likewise need one etc.

  26. Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #48
    C/S
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Happyman View Post
    This site should be renamed as the a forum for disgruntled CHC and CG personnel Bitch about the Air Corps. Serious lads grow up. Thought this was supposed to be a Forum where people like me that are interested in our national service man and women in that Air Corps and what they do. Not a sad bitching forum. This is a AC page not a CG/CHC/CR, get your own.
    I think you will find it's the other way round Where some people are concerned happyman. Why would the CG be disgruntled, they are the ones getting the 92's and in all likelihood will be expanding their role. As to the last bit of your paragraph, with all due respect for someone who joined in Dec and has 10 posts to your name it hasn't taken you long to get your feet under the carpet. I think you should leave that one to the moderator, people are entitled to an opinion And to provide factual info whether you like it or not, old boy.
    Last edited by Helihead; 7th February 2012 at 21:51.

  28. #49
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Danno,
    I see your point ref Garda cars etc. However, it never has been about the capability of the operators or their license but rather the regulations that they operate under. The civil aviation equivalent would be the rules of the road which all road users must obey. Garda cars and Ambulances may bend the rules at their own risk on an emergency call but are liable if an accident happens, the equivalent is a commercial SAR operator, inside the rules for 90% then agreed regulations outside the rules for the final 10%, ie the calls. The difference with the Air Corps is that they never operate under any kind of civil regs or agreed civil rescue regs when operating with civies on board.

    WRT other operators and a level playing I think that is prob about to kick off with regards to the HEMS / Air Ambulance operation.

  29. #50
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    In case it has been missed, the Don is also the first port of call for the AAIU and have been used frequently to move persons, tools and wreckage about. With regard to normal flight ops, the Don operates as close to JAR or EASA Ops as any civvie, but like any Military, retains the right to step outside the civvie rules to suit itself. Now, can someone elaborate how exactly it is not flying SAR Ops to the same standard as the civvies, for me, at least, because I don't know or understand enough to know the difference.

    regards
    GttC

  30. Likes Jetjock, Turkey liked this post

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
  •