Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contracted Heli Training

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

  • #16
    Don't be under the illusion that AC pay is bad for pilots; it's not. You are not comparing like for like, in the first place. There is no Don pilot that will achieve his civvie equivalent of 900 flight hrs per year and compared to a civvy pilot, he pays for nothing; no paying for licensing/medical/recurrency training/car parking/uniform/HOTAC like low-cost airline pilots do. Pilots are among the best paid of all DF officers, much to the jealousy of ordinary line officers and a lot of airline pay is poor for pilots. A huge amount of civil pilots are in debt up to their oxters to pay for their training and type ratings, so it certainly is no bed of roses for civvie pilots. As an example, a friend who is a senior captain with a very well known low-cost airline had to pay for his conversion from the older model of 737 to the newer, a decade ago. Eu25 large, please. That or the dole. Later, he was asked if he'd like to become a Training Captain, as that airline was critically short of them. Initially he agreed, until he was told that he'd not be paid for this new responsibility and that he'd be pulled in on his days off, as required, to do this new duty, for no extra remun. Naturally, he declined and got a mouthful of abuse for declining. So, Ts and Cs may appear to be rosy outside but it's not always so and it suits some AC pilots to sit inside, getting everything paid for, whilst threatening to join the ranks of the departed...

    Comment


    • #17
      Would the 22 pilots who used to get the pilot retention scheme payment (average over €27,000 each) agree?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Would the 22 pilots who used to get the pilot retention scheme payment (average over €27,000 each) agree?
        With what?

        Ooh, I'm getting a message from the spirit world, they're very clear tonight - is there someone here called 'D...' De....' 'Dear ****ing God can you learn to converse rather than just broadcast?'

        Comment


        • #19
          Its beginning to sound like that the AC, in its current incarnation, is a failed institution.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by danno View Post
            Its beginning to sound like that the AC, in its current incarnation, is a failed institution.
            They were not tasked with providing the Coast Guard with a ready to go top cover.
            If they were I am sure one would be sitting ready to go. But no doubt something else would have being pared back in order to provide it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by danno View Post
              Its beginning to sound like that the AC, in its current incarnation, is a failed institution.
              Being fair to the AC, i think the model is designed to fail. That said, the kind of attitudes many on here report from their experience with the AC have done them no favours whatsoever.

              The image that comes across is of - unlike the NS and Army - a can't do' organisation...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                With what?

                Ooh, I'm getting a message from the spirit world, they're very clear tonight - is there someone here called 'D...' De....' 'Dear ****ing God can you learn to converse rather than just broadcast?'
                That AC pay is bad.

                If that's what was keeping pilots in getting rid of it is hardly likely to retain people

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by sofa View Post
                  They were not tasked with providing the Coast Guard with a ready to go top cover.
                  If they were I am sure one would be sitting ready to go.........
                  I appreciate that and have so posted. Have the fixed wings gone beyond the AC's ability to operate same and perhaps confining it to rotary units (no need for ATC) would be a sounder structure.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The original pilot retention scheme was based on a threat, ie, if you don't pay us more, we'll leave, which pissed off the DF and DoD no end and it didn't apply to techs, who found in 1988, when Qantas came called for Irish techs, that the DoD raised the buy-out cost from 1200 quid to 5000 over night (which was probably illegal) but still people left in droves, as they had had enough bullshit to last them a lifetime. Also, some of the alleged pilots were trying it on, as a few of them were full-time desk jockeys, who flew 1 hr a year to stay in receipt of flight pay. ATCos jumped on the bandwagon when they saw their mess mates getting offered tasty sums to stay.They were staying anyway, but claimed they'd leave....if the AC cannot put up a 24/7/365 Casa, that is down solely to the DoD, who will not put up the funds. It takes a great deal of money to put up and sustain a 24 hr operation; just ask any airline or any airport operator. You need manpower, 24-hr access to spares, 24-hr access to ATC and fire cover and you need standby people to cover sickleave and annual leave. The AC needs to play it's part by proper utilisation of manpower. If you give a guy a course on the Casa, then he or she needs to commit to a 3-yr tour on the aircraft to justify the cost of training. You also need to get rid of Army style NCOs courses, so that it doesnt take 16 weeks to become a corporal trench digger or grenade thrower, to operate a camera in the back of a Casa. If you want, as an organisation, to take on the job, then you have to adapt and dump any wasteful Army and AC practises, such as the ancient 9 to half four mindset and engage fully in a 24/7/365 system. Otherwise, hand it over to civvies...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      The original pilot retention scheme was based on a threat, ie, if you don't pay us more, we'll leave, which pissed off the DF and DoD no end and it didn't apply to techs, who found in 1988, when Qantas came called for Irish techs, that the DoD raised the buy-out cost from 1200 quid to 5000 over night (which was probably illegal) but still people left in droves, as they had had enough bullshit to last them a lifetime. Also, some of the alleged pilots were trying it on, as a few of them were full-time desk jockeys, who flew 1 hr a year to stay in receipt of flight pay. ATCos jumped on the bandwagon when they saw their mess mates getting offered tasty sums to stay.They were staying anyway, but claimed they'd leave....if the AC cannot put up a 24/7/365 Casa, that is down solely to the DoD, who will not put up the funds. It takes a great deal of money to put up and sustain a 24 hr operation; just ask any airline or any airport operator. You need manpower, 24-hr access to spares, 24-hr access to ATC and fire cover and you need standby people to cover sickleave and annual leave. The AC needs to play it's part by proper utilisation of manpower. If you give a guy a course on the Casa, then he or she needs to commit to a 3-yr tour on the aircraft to justify the cost of training. You also need to get rid of Army style NCOs courses, so that it doesnt take 16 weeks to become a corporal trench digger or grenade thrower, to operate a camera in the back of a Casa. If you want, as an organisation, to take on the job, then you have to adapt and dump any wasteful Army and AC practises, such as the ancient 9 to half four mindset and engage fully in a 24/7/365 system. Otherwise, hand it over to civvies...
                      The establishment would also need to reflect a 24/7 operation.

                      Equally so with officers

                      Most career courses are obviously geared towards the army, you could argue that it is desirable for AC personnel to complete army courses but there are also issues that realistically due to the amount of resources required it is not desirable to run a career course for less than 15 students.

                      The AC would probably have sufficient numbers to run their own PNCO (ie not army) syllabus, an AC Std NCO Cse every 2-3 years and maybe possibly a SNCO Cse every 3-4 years. But then if you want promotion and can't get the course.....

                      On the officers side, you could run an AC YOs Cse, but realistically it would not be viable to run AC JC&S or SC&S Cses. It would probably take a lot of modularisation of the DF C&S Cse syllabii to suit the AC officers completing specific modules.

                      If that's the case your looking at completing these courses overseas

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The naval service has gone much farther down the road to being a de facto separate service, establishment helps. Defined roles help. I think. Would both be aided by creating a separate navy and Air Force? Thoughts?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                          The naval service has gone much farther down the road to being a de facto separate service, establishment helps. Defined roles help. I think. Would both be aided by creating a separate navy and Air Force? Thoughts?
                          I don't think so, just a tonne more staff jobs to fill. Get the strength up to establishment, stop apply unsuitable DF practices/regulations to the AC

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Lets say the below is the 24/7/365 cover agreed. Let's say the max FDP is 12 hours.

                            1 X AW139 for EAS
                            2 pilots on 2 shift (daylight only) = 4 pilots

                            1 X AW139 for GP/air ambulance, etc etc
                            2 pilots on 4 shift (24/7) = 8 pilots

                            2 X GASU EC135
                            2 pilots on 4 shift (24/7) = 8 pilots

                            1 X CASA
                            2 pilots on 4 shift (24/7) = 8 pilots

                            That's a total of 28 pilots that are only available for those duties (nothing else), that is with zero allowance for them not being in a position to fly (could be office work, illness, GoH, Sim training, leave, courses, overseas, sports and anything in between). That is the minimum.

                            It also excludes any requirement to put other aircraft (of the same type) in the air at all (never mind simultaneously), it ignores that fact there is a L45 and Defender. It also ignores instructors (both on types previously mentioned and on PC9 or EC135).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              or, alternatively...

                              the EAS is a Dept of Health asset. if they want it to work they should employ their own pilots. thats 4 pilots the AC can use.

                              the GASU EC-135's, and the Defender, are Garda assets. if they want them to work they should employ their own pilots. thats another 8 pilots the AC can use.

                              suddenly the AC is better off by 12 qualified pilots and more backseaters, and if you add in some revolutionary new ideas like not using expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical staff like aircrew to shout 'left, right, left' on parade squares, not sending expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical staff like aircrew overseas without the aircraft that make them and their massive watches worth putting up with, and not believing that its more important that expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical aircrew should continue their game of Rounders or filling Annex B (requisition for toilet roll (soft)) rather than flying their aircraft.

                              to paraphrase, and extend, something i've read here before - Inertia, thy name is Dev, and by Christ you've no imagination...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                                or, alternatively...

                                the EAS is a Dept of Health asset. if they want it to work they should employ their own pilots. thats 4 pilots the AC can use.

                                the GASU EC-135's, and the Defender, are Garda assets. if they want them to work they should employ their own pilots. thats another 8 pilots the AC can use.

                                suddenly the AC is better off by 12 qualified pilots and more backseaters, and if you add in some revolutionary new ideas like not using expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical staff like aircrew to shout 'left, right, left' on parade squares, not sending expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical staff like aircrew overseas without the aircraft that make them and their massive watches worth putting up with, and not believing that its more important that expensively trained, expensively employed and mission critical aircrew should continue their game of Rounders or filling Annex B (requisition for toilet roll (soft)) rather than flying their aircraft.

                                to paraphrase, and extend, something i've read here before - Inertia, thy name is Dev, and by Christ you've no imagination...
                                +1

                                And that's without contracting out all the basic flight training, sending the cadets over to England would be cheaper, free up a load of pilots and the pilot hours occupied could be ~ shock/horror ~ used operationally!
                                Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X