Thanks Thanks:  23
Likes Likes:  28
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47
  1. #26
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  2. #27
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  3. #28
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    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).

  4. #29
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    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...

  5. Likes The real Jack, Turkey, CTU, Truck Driver liked this post
  6. #30
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  7. Likes Turkey, ropebag, CTU liked this post
  8. #31
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    all I did was point something out!!

    IMHO, there needs to be more specialist streams within the AC, so your going to have the following streams:
    Pilot
    Aeronautical Engineering
    General Engineering (including CRS)
    Aeronautical Medicine
    General Duties (Admin, Logs, Non-Tech, Duties etc)
    Sigs (including IT & ATC)

    Some of those streams may only have a handful of officers in them (some only one), that then creates a training, recruitment/retention and promotion issues. Not insurmountable ones but things that would need to be addressed.

    I'd be well of the view that AC (and NS) junior officers shouldn't be going overseas (outside their air/naval role), especially when personnel are at critical levels. But are we then going to increase their pay?

    I'd also question GoH being provided by AC personnel but it is more likely to be required due to a decreased army, so reduce the occasions that they are required and/or establish a Gen Duties Sqn (that's going to a fun posting).

    TRJ, operational missions are those missions assigned by Government, those include fishery protection, MATS, EAS, etc. Hopefully (with the personnel) in the future those will include AC aircraft overseas.

  9. #32
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    ...or establish a Gen Duties Sqn (that's going to a fun posting). ..
    you might be surprised - lots of people during their service go through a period where, because of their spouses career, kids, looking after older parents etc.. a much more predictable, 9-5, monday to friday job with no random exercises or rushed op tours comes in very useful.

    do that for 2 years, get things back on track and get your mojo sorted and off you go back into the exciting stuff.

  10. Likes Truck Driver liked this post
  11. #33
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dev I'm well aware of what the ACs operational outputs are and training pilots is not one of them, however it uses up a huge amount of their manpower and flying hours and it's not going to be reduced any time soon
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  12. #34
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,942
    Post Thanks / Like
    contract out the training and we end up with some numpty asking why we have trainer aircraft if we dont train any pilots
    "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."

  13. #35
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    contract out the training and we end up with some numpty asking why we have trainer aircraft if we dont train any pilots
    its a situation thats quite easily understandable if you explain it - even to slope-faced mouthbreathers like politicians and journalists - whats not so easily explainable is why you have more training aircraft than operational aircraft and still suffer from a shortage of trained aircrew.

  14. Likes The real Jack, Turkey liked this post
  15. #36
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    This whole conversation has happened here before I remember ropebag providing a zinger about the AC being the Air arm of the DF not the national Pilot training corps. It'll never happen but I'd flog the PC9 fleet, contract out the pilot training and buy a couple of cessnas and a King air to maintain currency and hour building gigs.
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  16. Likes ropebag liked this post
  17. #37
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    you might be surprised - lots of people during their service go through a period where, because of their spouses career, kids, looking after older parents etc.. a much more predictable, 9-5, monday to friday job with no random exercises or rushed op tours comes in very useful.

    do that for 2 years, get things back on track and get your mojo sorted and off you go back into the exciting stuff.
    I'd agree but in order to rotate in and out they are going to have to be skilled people, not necessarily techs but that would mean only the likes of clerks, storemen, drivers, maybe refuellers, maybe CRS, etc could rotate.


    For the likes of General engineering, medics, general duties and CIS (non-ATC), the rotations/promotion stream could include the army (and NS). For example, OIC CRS could be a Lt vacancies could be advertised for suitable army engineer officers. When officer wants promotion they apply to the army.

  18. #38
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    This whole conversation has happened here before I remember ropebag providing a zinger about the AC being the Air arm of the DF not the national Pilot training corps. It'll never happen but I'd flog the PC9 fleet, contract out the pilot training and buy a couple of cessnas and a King air to maintain currency and hour building gigs.
    For what though it's a catch 22.

    The DF will not be buying fighters (if they did they would never be deployed overseas), more utility helos for army training/ops at home (possibly with a flight deployed overseas).

    Then all the funds previously for AC use will go to private contractors to do jobs previously done more cost effectively by AC.

  19. #39
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Was looking at the Rescue 111 AAIU report today, issues with AC pilot retention were highlighted by the Glesson Commission in 1990!

  20. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  21. #40
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

    The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

    Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?

  22. #41
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,533
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

    The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

    Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?
    That is probably the only provision of the treaty that has not been broken to be honest.....
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  23. Thanks sofa, na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  24. #42
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

    The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

    Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?
    That was a new one of me
    http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/do...december-1921/

    Except of course, that the Irish Free State doesn't exist anymore

  25. Thanks EUFighter, sofa thanked for this post
  26. #43
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like
    I remember that provision, and the explicit forbidding of conscription or acquisition of submarines.
    However that was a treaty between a dominion and the imperial power...in law, if not fact. Ireland was explicitly not considered independent, merely having a convoluted form of Home Rule. Irish citizenship was not deemed to exist for any legal purpose beyond the borders of the Free State. In reality, it was independence of course but the discrepancy between law and fact caused much friction.
    The treaty provisions have been completely surpassed, gradually by the Statute of Westminster, e 1937 Constitution, the 1948 Republic and the consequent Ireland Act in the U.K. Ireland is sovereign and no treaty restrictions apply. Edit: I stated originally that we have exceeded the U.K. Population ratio at points in the past, based on a discussion I had elsewhere at one time. Checking the facts, Dev is right. i don't think we have.
    Last edited by expat01; 4th April 2017 at 11:08.

  27. Thanks Tempest, sofa thanked for this post
  28. #44
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm pretty sure that as far as the British Government is concerned, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty is about as live as the 1420 Treaty of Troyes.

    If the UK thinks Ireland isn't bound by its provisions, why should Ireland?

  29. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, DeV liked this post
  30. #45
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    All those laws dealing with the treaty GOI etc have been repealed . The '21 truce was unwritten. Any prospect of the thread topic getting a look in?
    Last edited by danno; 4th April 2017 at 21:59.

  31. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post
    Dislikes Flamingo disliked this post
  32. #46
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Semi related but AC tech's are now being trained by a EASA Part 147 institution (TTS, AC Col) and get a level 7 degree from DIT

  33. #47
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    That originated because there were found to be major holes in the system as far as training of techs was concerned; post TTS follow-up was non existent, actual type training was for the favoured few only and little empires in certain hangars meant that, unless you were in a certain loop, you got next to no hands on and you were denied decent experience. I recall asking an EngOff why there was no type training beyond the basics for techs, despite there being a fund of 100,000 being under a certain subhead for exactly that, he said that it was for EngOffs only and not for the unwashed. Imagine trying to run a modern air arm with no type training...

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for 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
  •