Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ministerial Air Transport Service

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

  • Whats to shut down? its a flat surface with no moving parts ffs. Complete lack of joined up thinking, let the don survey it and carry out a few landings and hey presto another useable asset at no cost.

    Comment


    • Was it ever useable? I remember most of its use was from Young Haughey's Bell 206, and possibly one Promo overflight by a Dauphin.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • strange - im sure that the helipad was mentioned here a few weeks ago and then suddenly ended up mentioned in a newspaper... or am i wrong!? Its obscure enough a topic ?

        Also this
        "Haughey was the last Taoiseach to have used it. Bertie Ahern, Barry Cowen and Enda Kenny didn't bother with it," a source said.
        Who is Barry Cowen? a FF TD, that's all! and who is this "source"? because they might need a new one who actually knows the names of previous leaders!
        Last edited by morpheus; 14 February 2018, 10:07.
        "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


        • Originally posted by Tempest View Post
          Dail already has MP detachment to secure pad/chopper. No civvies to clear.
          Probably should have made my point clearer......

          If Dail helipad is gone there are other suitable central sites to land ARW, etc. for a Dublin central terrorist response. It would take time to get resources to area and no doubt there will be no shortage of gardai capable of clearing civvies, etc.
          An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

          Comment


          • I, of course, defer to the wisdom of my former Air Corps colleagues on the matter but judging from the images it would appear that there are more suitable LZs in the immediate vicinity of Govt building - the open space in the Dail environs, the junction of Merrion Street Upper and Merrion Square south, the square itself etc, etc rather than the roof of the building. Certainly in an emergency situation these locations can be easily secured and the public could not object in those circumstances. However if your aim is to have a handy location where you could be dropped off by your son's helicopter without attracting the attention of the great unwashed or risk having your tailor made shirts creased by the grubby paws of the voting public - well then ...........
            “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
            ― Thucydides

            Comment


            • Haughey had a lot of things done to suit himself, such as an exclusion zone around his island and a generator built FOC by the ESB, so he's no guideline to sensible State use.....I agree that a discrete landing pad has it's uses, even if
              only for a 135-sized helo.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                Probably should have made my point clearer......

                If Dail helipad is gone there are other suitable central sites to land ARW, etc. for a Dublin central terrorist response. It would take time to get resources to area and no doubt there will be no shortage of gardai capable of clearing civvies, etc.
                Yes kick rope out door go go go

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Shaqra View Post
                  I, of course, defer to the wisdom of my former Air Corps colleagues on the matter but judging from the images it would appear that there are more suitable LZs in the immediate vicinity of Govt building - the open space in the Dail environs, the junction of Merrion Street Upper and Merrion Square south, the square itself etc, etc rather than the roof of the building. Certainly in an emergency situation these locations can be easily secured and the public could not object in those circumstances. However if your aim is to have a handy location where you could be dropped off by your son's helicopter without attracting the attention of the great unwashed or risk having your tailor made shirts creased by the grubby paws of the voting public - well then ...........
                  No doubt there is but remember wires and approaches/departures

                  Comment


                  • It is now time finally to get rid of MATS?

                    Dedicated MATS only really started in 1979 (the year Charlie took over) to fly politicians around the EEC, back in the day when Aer Lingus was small and state owned. The image of the government jet is that it is a luxury for those at the top to pamper themselves. So it is time for this function to go.

                    I know the first argument against this is that "if we get rid of MATS we will lose budget". To this I say BS; the image of the IAC flying politicians around just gives the public the impression that the DF's are only there to serve those politicians be it on the government jet or flying them in army helicopters. As mentioned elsewhere it is about image and PR, we cannot do 24/365 air ambulance but we can fly Joe Soap TD for Back of Nowhere to open "anything" so he can shake hand and kiss babies! This use of our limited resources is a total waste.

                    The next argument will be that there is an EU meeting that some minister must attend. Well (once Covid-19 is over) in the past years the number of commercial connections between our little island and mainland Europe has exploded. Also EU meetings are not at the drop of a hat, they are planned even the emergency ones at least days in advanced so plenty of time to secure a flight. And as many others have now discovered it is possible to do "virtual meetings", even a virtual parliament!

                    The last major argument is always we can use the aircraft for air ambulance duties. Here I have to agree, having such an aircraft is useful and brings good PR. But then it should only be used for such transports.

                    Comment


                    • We could find that the PC12 is used for Air Ambulance missions just as often as the Lear in the future. It was designed specifically with the Australian Flying Doctor service in mind.
                      Any replacement of MATS should be with a standard airliner type. I'd be willing to say the cost to fly in an A320 or B737 is not far off the cost of flying a lear to the same destination. Members of the DF do enough routine travel overseas on scheduled flights to justify a dedicated aircraft. When the BBJ was being discussed initially, it was suggested that if we piggybacked our order with Ryanairs order for new aircraft, we would get a much better deal, and Mr Ryanair was patriotic enough to think it was a good idea.
                      When you are not flying passengers, you can carry cargo.
                      I think Airbus are doing a combined transport/tanker aircraft on its A330 airframe, but thats a whole other level.
                      I was saddened last night on twitter to see comments on a photo of the Lear flying into Newcastle. It's a jubject of fun for most outside the organisation. We have no fighters but we can afford an exec jet for ministers to take weekends in amsterdam etc...
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • This happened earlier. The CASA would make an Ideal MATS/Transport aircraft. Anything longer, go first class on scheduled, or charter out.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Airbus do the A330 MRTT, it is both a tanker and at the moment a passenger transport. Actually some of the RAF Voyagers were operating for charter airlines as their capacity was not needed. As we have no need of the tanker function it would just be a standard A330-200 passenger machine. However starting with the French Air Force there is now a cargo door on the main deck.

                          The Boeing KC-46A is a bit different, it was from the start fitted with a cargo door allowing the main deck to be used for a mix cargo and passengers although the latter is very limited compared to the donor B767 with just 114PAX.

                          A better option I believe would be an A321 P2F, decent range, fairly good cargo capacity and if it was done as a QC aircraft that would be ideal.
                          https://www.elbeflugzeugwerke.com/en.../a320a321-p2f/
                          As it is a commercial aircraft with nearly 10,000 built spares and servicing should not be so high as compared with a dedicated transported like the C-130 or A400M.

                          Comment


                          • The last number of years the Learjet is doing 150-300 hours on MATS plus air ambulance and other missions. In 2007, the GIV, Learjet and BKA did 544 hours on MATS.

                            The PC12 will be capable to doing the job (and will have more airframes) but will be slower (not sure of comfort level).

                            The days of Mary opening an off licence via the Air Corps are afaik gone due to cutbacks.

                            I would say that it has potentially paid for itself in the likes of critical Brexit talks. And due to the current economy that kind of capacity will be become more important in the next 10 years. Having said that as you say virtual meetings... who knows (but you don’t get the relationships built, the corner room bilaterals (which we have done very well in) etc

                            The PC12 could I suppose fill the air ambulance void but you will not get an airliner used for a MEDEVAC past the Government (don’t forget the Greens could be the king makers of the next Government). Also don’t forget the current and future COVID19 (and climate change) situation could Change Ireland’s aviation connectivity very quickly.

                            If we ever get an airliner sized aircraft, it absolutely must be quick change pax/cargo with a cargo door (otherwise it is pointless).

                            And yes the ability to do an urgent withdrawal from an overseas mission is a major plus but are we going to leave all the heavy equipment behind?

                            The key thing is utilisation, who knows what the future brings but realistically would it be worth it with what the current utilisation. Yes new missions could be found but will they justify it and what do you do when it goes u/s?

                            Framework contract for a lease could be cheaper or 1 multi year contract for all troop rotations plus an on call capability (say 24 hours notice).
                            Last edited by DeV; 23 April 2020, 18:26.

                            Comment


                            • Using the Learjet and PC-12 as air ambulance is something that everyone can get behind. The same aircraft flying any politicians around is something almost everyone is/will be against. The days when people like Charlie Haughey could use state assets as their own are long gone but the memory not.

                              MATS as a service is generally not looked on favourable, but if it is really needed then it would be better for that alone to be a civil charter. If the government really determine that it is essential and that airlines do not provide an adequate service there are other service providers such as Netjets & Flexjets.

                              Utilisation should not be the only criteria for a defence capability, if that was then there would be hardly any military equipment. There needs to be identified a requirement for a capability and then this needs to be justified. Let's for take Covid-19 as an example; if a year ago someone said we needed to buy 1000's of high tech ventilators, the answer would have been a definite NO. Defence needs are like many other emergency needs, if you do not have the capability when you needed it, there is often no chance to get it quickly.

                              But there is a way to help the justification based upon sharing, and there are two good examples:
                              (a) The NATO Heavy Airlift Wing which shares 3x C-17's but is shared by Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United States. Thus the non-NATO member Sweden gets a heavy airlift that it could not afford on its own.
                              (b) The Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet where a A330 MRTT fleet is funded and utilized by the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Norway.
                              So if we have a need to transport efficiently are there other non-aligned EU members who could have a similar need. In my mind come Austria and Finland. That could be an option that we together to support our UN troop deployments we define the need for 2 aircraft (so we cover the U/S situation).

                              As for quick change: (turn sound off)
                              https://www.aslairlines.fr/en/video/...nge/?loc=press
                              For a military allocation the overhead bins could be left out to give better cargo capacity but the principle and easy would remain. As long as you have a big door and a cargo loading system installed almost anything goes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                Using the Learjet and PC-12 as air ambulance is something that everyone can get behind. The same aircraft flying any politicians around is something almost everyone is/will be against. The days when people like Charlie Haughey could use state assets as their own are long gone but the memory not.

                                MATS as a service is generally not looked on favourable, but if it is really needed then it would be better for that alone to be a civil charter. If the government really determine that it is essential and that airlines do not provide an adequate service there are other service providers such as Netjets & Flexjets.

                                Utilisation should not be the only criteria for a defence capability, if that was then there would be hardly any military equipment. There needs to be identified a requirement for a capability and then this needs to be justified. Let's for take Covid-19 as an example; if a year ago someone said we needed to buy 1000's of high tech ventilators, the answer would have been a definite NO. Defence needs are like many other emergency needs, if you do not have the capability when you needed it, there is often no chance to get it quickly.

                                But there is a way to help the justification based upon sharing, and there are two good examples:
                                (a) The NATO Heavy Airlift Wing which shares 3x C-17's but is shared by Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United States. Thus the non-NATO member Sweden gets a heavy airlift that it could not afford on its own.
                                (b) The Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet where a A330 MRTT fleet is funded and utilized by the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Norway.
                                So if we have a need to transport efficiently are there other non-aligned EU members who could have a similar need. In my mind come Austria and Finland. That could be an option that we together to support our UN troop deployments we define the need for 2 aircraft (so we cover the U/S situation).

                                As for quick change: (turn sound off)
                                https://www.aslairlines.fr/en/video/...nge/?loc=press
                                For a military allocation the overhead bins could be left out to give better cargo capacity but the principle and easy would remain. As long as you have a big door and a cargo loading system installed almost anything goes.
                                Absolutely but try getting it past DoD and joe public taxpayer.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X