Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

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

  • What about GASU? Should be privatise that aswell or does that get a pass because it falls under a different heading on the military.ie website?
    Helicopters owned by the Dept for Justice
    Gardai supply the observers and control its operations
    Dept of Justice Tenders the maintaince
    Air Corps supply pilots, a place to land and for some reason register the aircraft on the military register.
    Sounds part privatised to me.
    And if the air corps current "issues" start to effect GASU ops what do you think Dept of Justice will do then.
    It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
    It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
    It was a new age...It was the end of history.
    It was the year everything changed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
      Again your missing the point. the aircraft are being used because they are there...if they become the sole supplier of the service, when the aircraft are no longer available they will have to be replaced at the state expense.

      Any contracted service provider cannot include the cost of aircraft purchase in the tender ( mots will probably just lease them anyway)

      The aircraft in use were not intended for what they are used for and a such their life time and availability is been eaten into to provide a service to meet a political agenda. Going back to when the Allouettes were purchased it has been the same.....

      We buy them under the guise of advancing our military wing and they spend 90% of their working lives doing civilian roles..their purchase and replacement is from a defence capital budget but the DF get relatively little practical use because of their management.


      Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
      Working in acute hospital I'm well aware of what the types of transfer are...and from an aviation back round what it takes to get machines to go where.

      But its not really relevent to the point what were are doing is actually decreasing the availability of machines to those who should be using them as Ropebag and Apod have pointed out.

      Government policy should be about providing the service from the optimal supplier. The Air corps is not an optimal supplier, yes it does an admirable job, but at a cost to the DF.

      The military should be a back up to civilian services....not the primary supplier of service !

      This is where successive governments have abused power for so long , doing things on the cheap using the DF when there should be specialist companies out there... we no longer have the DF covering bus strikes, bin strikes, and firefighters strikes, but we have the AC running around doing the NAS job... and again no offence to the AC but its not what a military air wing is for.
      Originally posted by CTU View Post
      Helicopters owned by the Dept for Justice
      Gardai supply the observers and control its operations
      Dept of Justice Tenders the maintaince
      Air Corps supply pilots, a place to land and for some reason register the aircraft on the military register.
      Sounds part privatised to me.
      And if the air corps current "issues" start to effect GASU ops what do you think Dept of Justice will do then.
      EAS and GASU won’t (be allowed to) suffer the issues because they are ops (as opposed to training/Ex). Ops are prioritised. If there was an operational deployment of 2 x heli to Cork for Charles’s visit that would be prioritised too. If providing a heli for parachute training has to be cancelled to save a number of lives..... that is what is done.

      Does that effect availability of other aircraft, pilots, techs etc - absolutely - but we aren’t talking about huge numbers here. The major problem is lack of personnel.

      What makes you think that if EAS was moved to a contractor that it would hugely benefit the AC? I would say the crews morale, espirit de Corps and raison d’ete benefits knowing they are saving lives every day and making a difference. It won’t be bad for retention either as a result. Oh not forgetting that the HSE pay DoD for the service.

      The reason the GASU aircraft are on the Military register is it is AFAIK of benefit to their ops.



      For EAS look at the costs in the report:



      Now this €7 million contract for night air ambulance flights to the UK. €7 m over 2 years for approx 5 flights annually (5 flights time critical at night that is), let’s say a return flight to the UK is approx 4 hours. So that is € 3.5m for approx 20 flying hours. Which means the contractor is getting € 175,000 per flight hour.

      According to DoD 2015 figures MATS using the Learjet cost € 3,780 per flight hour.




      Since the economic fell, the MATS is comparatively rarely used, that means the Learjet has more availability (now obviously if it is away it can’t be used but there are still other options.
      Last edited by DeV; 14 June 2018, 11:51.

      Comment


      • GASU at this point should be manned 100% from within the ranks of the Gardai. A completely separate entity with its own cadre of pilots and observers drawn from within the force.

        Likewise the once temparory Air Ambulance proving experiment should now be shuffled off to a civilian operator as is SOP just about everywhere.

        The UH tender program was heralded as primarily a tool for use in support of other branches of the DF. The selection of the AW139 in itself was a cop out militarily. The defence of the acquired HEMS role by serving members of the Air Corps is a cop out militarily. No serving member of the DF is simply a "taxpayer and a citizen."
        Last edited by Jetjock; 15 June 2018, 06:11.

        Comment


        • Does that effect availability of other aircraft, pilots, techs etc - absolutely - but we aren’t talking about huge numbers here. The major problem is lack of personnel.
          and if you tie them up doing HEMS or EAS work they ain't doing what they are supposed to be doing.

          would say the crews morale, espirit de Corps and raison d’ete benefits knowing they are saving lives every day and making a difference
          ya think... and they could be pissed off waiting around to be called to doing this type of work when they could be doing exercises along with the rest of the DF.

          Now this €7 million contract for night air ambulance flights to the UK. €7 m over 2 years for approx 5 flights annually (5 flights time critical at night that is), let’s say a return flight to the UK is approx 4 hours. So that is € 3.5m for approx 20 flying hours. Which means the contractor is getting € 175,000 per flight hour
          So instead we have a multi million euro jet sitting in a hanger waiting to be used along with trained crews and support people..... doing an occasional MATS flight..... and the first time that aircraft goes tech we have to pay for someone else to do it!!!!
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • Originally posted by apod View Post
            Less of the patronising if you don't mind.Play the ball not the man etc. You may disagree with me but for you to confuse my "Blinkered ,singular view" for stupidity would be a mistake.
            I am neither. I am a straight shooter and I don't believe in BS.Despite your opinion.
            The simple fact is the 139's and 135's were purchased and lauded as Army Support Helis and that was going to be their bread and butter. I was on the very first Infantry exercises that they were used on the crews were all about the "new era" of Army co-op that was being ushered in.

            That lasted all of 5 minutes. The "SAR is the AC" brigade were not one bit impressed and hankered back to the halcyon days of dope on a rope and blue flight suits.
            The Military Co-op was doomed from the start.
            Go back to the later part of the first ten years of the noughties. We were in an out of Helis more than times than four tonners. Now,unless you are on a specialist course you can forget it.

            The problem is the mindset.But hey WTF would I know.I am just an Ignorant grunt.
            Apod, I'm not quite sure where you feel like I inferred that you were stupid because that word was not used nor inferred toward you in my post. There is a defined difference between having an opinion based on stupidity and one based on a lack of overall understanding of the topic at hand. Your posts on this matter still fall firmly into the latter for me.

            I outlined at length several different things to you, including correcting your incorrect statement about pilot hours and you addressed practically nothing.

            Your argument is essentially "when they were purchased over a decade ago they were meant to be all about supporting the army, now they are doing something else and I dont like it". I understand the sentiment, as I said in my previous post to you but you have to at least appreciate the bigger picture.

            I'm not going to repeat the points that I raised previously. If you don't want to discuss the contents of government policy, the 2015WP, PR etc well then I'll assume you either dont want to discuss them because you realise they clash with your agenda or that you don't understand them and their implications.

            The current reality is that there is no political will to deploy AC assets overseas to support the army and there is no current requirement to do so. Of course that doesn't mean that there won't be in the future but it isnt rocket science either. As I said, the Italians are currently doing much simpler stuff than the current EAS operation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to them but it is essentially VFR flying. If you consider this "military flying" well then you may want to think again.

            The other bigger issue currently is retention, for both aircrew and ground crew. The AC has suffered a significant brain drain over the last few years with many going to the ME to take advantage of a lucrative market.

            Neither the government stance or the retention issue is going to be changed/solved in the next five year period at a minimum in my opinion.

            I have seen it mentioned here and you mentioned it again about the SAR glory days etc. Again, chat to Helicopter crews and see just how many are longing for a return of SAR. The AC have been out of the SAR role completely for almost fifteen years. Meaning that anyone who joined after 2000/01 has pretty much no experience of SAR. In fact the GOC and perhaps less than a half a dozen others are the last ones who were directly involved. The only people I can see longing for the return of SAR is the likes of yourself speaking on behalf of others.

            You say you are a straight shooter so please humour me. Do you accept that the 2015WP explicitly states that the government can use DF assets however it sees fit under the guise of SLA and MOU's etc? Do you accept that the DoD are the people who sanction such agreements and them turn to the AC and direct them to do it.

            My main gripe (if you could call it that) is that you have a perception that EAS is AC driven, and that from the GOC down to the crew themselves are choosing to do that instead of "real work" slinging around guns and carrying troops. Sure in your eyes, the whole operation was created just to allow pilots to log hours. It seems really plausible that two government depts, the COS, GOCAC, the HSE, the NAS, the NACC, dozens of aircrew, technicians, ops staff etc etc were all tasked with participating in EAS purely (in your own words) to allow the pilots to log hours. Do you really believe this?

            How many P1's have you submitted recently? How many times have you asked the AC to come to your location to brief personnel on something? Pretty sure if I asked most officers or NCOs what a P1 request was, they would look at me with ten heads.

            Again, if you want to discuss the bigger picture and suggest possible ways to address them other than "NOT THEIR JOB" (despite the fact that it is according to the WP and DF roles & responsibilies) I am all ears.

            For the record, I would much rather see AC assets routinely supporting the DF overseas whether it be ISTAR, strategic lift, heli lift, medevac etc but it isn't on the table unfortunately. You can only play the hand you are dealt.

            As for the comment from JetJock. Regardless of whether someone is in the DF or not, they are entitled to have an opinion regarding the ROI from state assets.

            I dont agree with the NS having a vessel and crew in the med for various different reasons but I can also appreciate that it is a great opportunity for the personnel on board to gain new skills and everything else that goes along with participating in such an operation. But as a taxpayer I would much rather see the NS retention issues addressed and have the vessel patrolling our own national interests rather than acting as, as some would call it, a glorified taxi service. Again its all about optics, good for PR and doesn't cost the government a whole lot extra.

            As it currently stands, given the public perception of the DF in general, I would much rather explain to someone that given the tiny amount that is invested in the defence budget every year, that some of it is going to provide a service that can and does make tangible and at times life saving difference to ordinary peoples daily lives rather than trying to justify why aircraft are burning holes in the sky carrying around 105 guns that have never been deployed in anger at home or overseas or doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas.

            As for sofas claim regarding flight hours. I'm quite sure that the context of the article (of which I'd love to read) has shifted to suit the "brillcream boys" narrative. If the GOC did say that in a published article I would be fairly sure it referred to a minimum amount of hours per year to maintain a certain level of currency resulting in X amount of hours by the time their 12 year contract elapsed. Pretty simple maths being construed as something else once again. If you have the link to the article please post it so people can read it for themselves, otherwise its nothing but hot air.
            Last edited by Chuck; 14 June 2018, 13:49.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
              and if you tie them up doing HEMS or EAS work they ain't doing what they are supposed to be doing.
              because .... DoD don’t provide the resources to provide the hours not because

              The EAS hours being funded by HSE

              ya think... and they could be pissed off waiting around to be called to doing this type of work when they could be doing exercises along with the rest of the DF.
              or both if DoD provided the hours



              So instead we have a multi million euro jet sitting in a hanger waiting to be used along with trained crews and support people..... doing an occasional MATS flight..... and the first time that aircraft goes tech we have to pay for someone else to do it!!!!
              no because there is also 2 CASAs (and subsequent replacements) and soon enough to be 3 x PC12s that can also do the job.

              Originally posted by Chuck View Post
              The current reality is that there is no political will to deploy AC assets overseas to support the army and there is no current requirement to do so. Of course that doesn't mean that there won't be in the future but it isnt rocket science either. As I said, the Italians are currently doing much simpler stuff than the current EAS operation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to them but it is essentially VFR flying. If you consider this "military flying" well then you may want to think again.
              there would be nothing to stop the AC conducting a standalone deployment on a PSO with a flight of 2 x AW139s. Helis are a critical UN/EU force enabler (for CASEVAC) and multiplier (for transport). They are always looking for

              I dont agree with the NS having a vessel and crew in the med for various different reasons but I can also appreciate that it is a great opportunity for the personnel on board to gain new skills and everything else that goes along with participating in such an operation. But as a taxpayer I would much rather see the NS retention issues addressed and have the vessel patrolling our own national interests rather than acting as, as some would call it, a glorified taxi service. Again its all about optics, good for PR and doesn't cost the government a whole lot extra.
              although they are long hard deployments to the Med... I’d say the allowances help pay the bills that may otherwise have to go unpaid.

              doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas.
              it doesn’t matter they still have to capable of it for interoperability and CASEVAC reasons.

              As for sofas claim regarding flight hours. I'm quite sure that the context of the article (of which I'd love to read) has shifted to suit the "brillcream boys" narrative. If the GOC did say that in a published article I would be fairly sure it referred to a minimum amount of hours per year to maintain a certain level of currency resulting in X amount of hours by the time their 12 year contract elapsed. Pretty simple maths being construed as something else once again. If you have the link to the article please post it so people can read it for themselves, otherwise its nothing but hot air.
              Come to think of it if I remember rightly the quote was more to do with how many hours flying time was the target or average annually (nothing to do with get the hours so they leave).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                there would be nothing to stop the AC conducting a standalone deployment on a PSO with a flight of 2 x AW139s. Helis are a critical UN/EU force enabler (for CASEVAC) and multiplier (for transport). They are always looking for

                although they are long hard deployments to the Med... I’d say the allowances help pay the bills that may otherwise have to go unpaid.

                it doesn’t matter they still have to capable of it for interoperability and CASEVAC reasons.


                Come to think of it if I remember rightly the quote was more to do with how many hours flying time was the target or average annually (nothing to do with get the hours so they leave).
                Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


                It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".

                The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.

                Yes the NS mission is hard on the crew I have no doubt and they deserve the financial renumeration and their medal for it. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I simply said that as a taxpayer I don't see it as an effective use of an expensive state asset considering the size of our own EEZ and the current retention issues. I can also see the benefit that it offers to the NS and to its personnel. I can have an opinion on it but also see and understand both sides of the discussion.

                Again, yes, thank you for stating the obvious. They are of course required to train for it, just like they train for every other discipline that they participate in. Training for various disciplines doesnt require hundreds of hours per year. Training schedules are orientated around anticipated ops. For example, gorse fires generally occur in summer, so you won't find the bambi bucket out in the middle of december. Training currency could be one sortie of underslung loads to become current once again. Aircraft hours are precious and shouldnt be wasted unless absolutely required.

                Also, conducting a CASEVAC doesn't mean you have to practice it multiple times a year. It isn't rocket science. Wait for a signal or escort and approach the aircraft slowly from between 10 and 2 o clock. Avoid the large blade which is spinning at very high RPM at the back. I reckon 99% of soldiers could tell you that. You can apply that advice to almost every helicopter out there. The EAS guys seem to have no issue working with ambulance service or fire brigade or other agencies at the scene who might have never seen a helicopter before, let alone helped load a patient onto one.
                Last edited by Chuck; 14 June 2018, 15:21.

                Comment


                • As an aside it is worth mentioning crews on HMS QE trained in aircraft handling on deck in the absence of aircraft, instead using full scale models.
                  Training does not always require an aircraft. I'm sure anyone here who has parachuted will agree that you can learn to jump out of a plane on the ground, without an actual aircraft.. You only need the plane to do the actual jump.
                  I remember doing APC debus drills from a minibus. (M3 days).
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    As an aside it is worth mentioning crews on HMS QE trained in aircraft handling on deck in the absence of aircraft, instead using full scale models.
                    Training does not always require an aircraft. I'm sure anyone here who has parachuted will agree that you can learn to jump out of a plane on the ground, without an actual aircraft.. You only need the plane to do the actual jump.
                    I remember doing APC debus drills from a minibus. (M3 days).
                    Fully agree with you.

                    I'd just like to point out that I am not abdicating completely substituting live drills and training for PowerPoint's and dry drills but when there is a finite allocation of resources, there has to be a priority and unfortunately things get cut.

                    As an aside, it is my understanding that every new entrant to the DF undergoes heli drills at some point during their induction. Is this still the case?

                    Is there training doctrine that state how often a soldier must conduct CASEVAC drills to be "current"? Is there unit training where CASEVAC drills are required and what is the frequency? Are CASEVAC by air carried out as part of every MRE? Is it included in the TI?

                    Perhaps if units are finding it hard to acquire aircraft for training they should begin to adjust their syllabi to include it. Make their participation a "need to have" versus a "nice to have". Very simple solution that would require a very valid reason for non participation.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                      Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


                      It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".

                      The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.

                      Yes the NS mission is hard on the crew I have no doubt and they deserve the financial renumeration and their medal for it. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I simply said that as a taxpayer I don't see it as an effective use of an expensive state asset considering the size of our own EEZ and the current retention issues. I can also see the benefit that it offers to the NS and to its personnel. I can have an opinion on it but also see and understand both sides of the discussion.

                      Again, yes, thank you for stating the obvious. They are of course required to train for it, just like they train for every other discipline that they participate in. Training for various disciplines doesnt require hundreds of hours per year. Training schedules are orientated around anticipated ops. For example, gorse fires generally occur in summer, so you won't find the bambi bucket out in the middle of december. Training currency could be one sortie of underslung loads to become current once again. Aircraft hours are precious and shouldnt be wasted unless absolutely required.

                      Also, conducting a CASEVAC doesn't mean you have to practice it multiple times a year. It isn't rocket science. Wait for a signal or escort and approach the aircraft slowly from between 10 and 2 o clock. Avoid the large blade which is spinning at very high RPM at the back. I reckon 99% of soldiers could tell you that. You can apply that advice to almost every helicopter out there. The EAS guys seem to have no issue working with ambulance service or fire brigade or other agencies at the scene who might have never seen a helicopter before, let alone helped load a patient onto one.

                      I’m not suggesting that GOCAC launches an invasion of Mali

                      Have a look at some UN reports on individual missions they often call on the member states to deploy more Helis. The point I’m making is that if it was decided by Government, received Dail approval to deploy 2 x AW139’s on a UN Mandated mission, there would be nothing to stop it. The other point I’m making is that such a deployment doesn’t necessarily have to be on a mission where there are already significant numbers of Irish troops. It could be to Congo, CAR or Sudan for example.



                      Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                      Fully agree with you.

                      I'd just like to point out that I am not abdicating completely substituting live drills and training for PowerPoint's and dry drills but when there is a finite allocation of resources, there has to be a priority and unfortunately things get cut.

                      As an aside, it is my understanding that every new entrant to the DF undergoes heli drills at some point during their induction. Is this still the case?

                      Is there training doctrine that state how often a soldier must conduct CASEVAC drills to be "current"? Is there unit training where CASEVAC drills are required and what is the frequency? Are CASEVAC by air carried out as part of every MRE? Is it included in the TI?

                      Perhaps if units are finding it hard to acquire aircraft for training they should begin to adjust their syllabi to include it. Make their participation a "need to have" versus a "nice to have". Very simple solution that would require a very valid reason for non participation.
                      Absolutely
                      I know they are definitely included on the MREs and as far as I know the YE Cses.

                      Comment


                      • Apod, I'm not quite sure where you feel like I inferred that you were stupid because that word was not used nor inferred toward you in my post. There is a defined difference between having an opinion based on stupidity and one based on a lack of overall understanding of the topic at hand. Your posts on this matter still fall firmly into the latter for me.
                        Ah.Let me see. " Apod, you have a superior understanding of Army operations than I but you're understanding of the AC and more importantly the political strings that are being pulled behind the scenes are severely lacking."

                        Seems pretty cut and dried condescension to me and I am long enough in the DF to recognise it when I hear it or read it. Your advice to read certain documents also implies a perception that I have not.In fact I have.Probably before you did in some cases. Now.I said I was a straight shooter so here it is.

                        You are using Policy documents to mask and excuse the non-military mindset that exists in certain quarters within the AC. An attitude that anybody who has been in the DF for any long period of time KNOWS exists. (Cue jokes about AC and Military discounts etc etc).

                        My point has been eloquently made also above by some of the other posters. The AC is part of the MILITARY. The equipment is being used for non military roles which reduces their availability for use by what should be their primary customer. That's cut and dried.No ambiguity. By you own admission you have proved my point.

                        "
                        As it currently stands, given the public perception of the DF in general, I would much rather explain to someone that given the tiny amount that is invested in the defence budget every year, that some of it is going to provide a service that can and does make tangible and at times life saving difference to ordinary peoples daily lives rather than trying to justify why aircraft are burning holes in the sky carrying around 105 guns that have never been deployed in anger at home or overseas or doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas".

                        You are somehow embarrassed to admit to civvy's that the Military Air wing on the state engages in Military training??? Training which increases skillsets and experience so that god forbid we ever have to use the assets in a live situation we can do so competently and safely. Yup. Spoken like a true 9-5 Donner.

                        As for P1 requests.I was making them out when you were doing your junior cert. The AC won't even send down a Troop drill briefer any more to units."Get you own LPC's to do it" is the mantra. LPC's who can't remain current due to lack of courses and course places.
                        Of course all of which is a moot point as every time you look for a Heli you get rebuffed at the last minute." Weather/Busy with another task/Maintenance" being the usual fob offs.

                        Anyway I have neither the time or the inclination to spend hours debating this and typing long winded posts. I have made my point.
                        You disagree.That's your perogative. No worries. But please don't proceed from a false assumption that others can't see through weak excuses and hiding behind flawed decisions and policy based on penny pinching.The DoD may pull the strings but anybody that I know who was kicking against those decisions has left the AC for greener pastures mainly down to total frustration.

                        Anyway.That's my tuppence worth.

                        I'll get my coat.
                        Last edited by apod; 21 June 2018, 22:29.
                        "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                          Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


                          It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".
                          Last time I checked the overseas missions were multinational, so while Ireland might not deploy helicopters overseas I would say some of the other nations might. So It might be a good idea to train the troops how to work with helicopters and maybe just maybe one day we might have a Chad type mission again where we deploy with our own resources instead of renting equipment which can't be used because of some bureaucratic cock up.


                          The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.
                          I remember when the 139s were newish and they were sent to the then Augusta Westland stand at Farnborough, I was talking to the crew who said there were rumours of overseas deployment back then, but it was more likely to be Kosovo then Africa and they were looking forward to do more army support work. I also remember them telling me about how they went to the stand of the manufacturer of their helmets to ask for some advice on them only to be told that they stopped making them ten years ago!
                          It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                          It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                          It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                          It was the year everything changed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            Again your missing the point. the aircraft are being used because they are there...if they become the sole supplier of the service, when the aircraft are no longer available they will have to be replaced at the state expense.

                            Any contracted service provider cannot include the cost of aircraft purchase in the tender ( mots will probably just lease them anyway)

                            The aircraft in use were not intended for what they are used for and a such their life time and availability is been eaten into to provide a service to meet a political agenda. Going back to when the Allouettes were purchased it has been the same.....

                            We buy them under the guise of advancing our military wing and they spend 90% of their working lives doing civilian roles..their purchase and replacement is from a defence capital budget but the DF get relatively little practical use because of their management.
                            You are engaging in fallacies. There is no additional funding needed to operate the existing aircraft for transfers.

                            Comment


                            • @apod, it seems that you cannot decide what you actually read and what you think you read 'between the lines'.

                              At first you said EAS was created purely to provide hours for pilots. I clearly explained to you that this was not the case - twice. My advice to read the ARM would have answered this question for you. You made a statement which you considered to be a fact. Which in reality it was completely untrue.

                              You then continued to accuse me of calling you stupid, which I did not. You then changed your tune and it was now condescension. For someone who doesn't like the goalposts moving, you are quite fond of doing it to suit yourself. Ironically you then went on to be quite condescending yourself.

                              I didn't use the word embarrassed, this is yet another word/concept that you have dreamt up out of thin air. Read my post again. And if you are so inclined please point out where I said or inferred I was embarassed about anything. For someone that talks a lot about facts, you are fond of reading between the lines and coming up with something completely different. Since you clearly didn't understand what I was trying to say, I will try and explain it better.

                              The public perception of the DF is very important in my opinion. I would go as far to say that it is now, and historically has been, quite negative in so far as people dont appreciate it until they are called upon for flood relief etc.

                              If I was speaking to someone who had no preconceived ideas about the DF I think most of these type of people would perceive a greater benefit from the EAS service than slinging around big artillery pieces that serve no purpose either at home or overseas. It is not a complex or difficult opinion to grasp surely? And just to clarify - the word embarassed was not used - again.

                              The more people who have an active and positive interest in the DF, the more politicians might begin to take it seriously, because it may well be worth votes. EAS, whether you like it or not, is an easy win to get people backing the DF.

                              I have made my point also and while it has taken much longer than I would have liked to move from "NOT THEIR JOB" and "sure EAS was set up to give pilots hours" type posts to at least some semblance of an acknowledgement that it actually is according to government policy, at least some progress has been made.
                              Last edited by Chuck; 14 June 2018, 20:56.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CTU View Post
                                Last time I checked the overseas missions were multinational, so while Ireland might not deploy helicopters overseas I would say some of the other nations might. So It might be a good idea to train the troops how to work with helicopters and maybe just maybe one day we might have a Chad type mission again where we deploy with our own resources instead of renting equipment which can't be used because of some bureaucratic cock up.




                                I remember when the 139s were newish and they were sent to the then Augusta Westland stand at Farnborough, I was talking to the crew who said there were rumours of overseas deployment back then, but it was more likely to be Kosovo then Africa and they were looking forward to do more army support work. I also remember them telling me about how they went to the stand of the manufacturer of their helmets to ask for some advice on them only to be told that they stopped making them ten years ago!
                                I agree with you and I have no doubt that if such a mission arose whereby the use of helicopters was to be a routine occurance there would be a significant emphasis on it prior to deployment and again constant training in the AO.

                                The rhetoric you heard from the horses mouth hasnt changed. I would wager that the vast majority of air crew would rather be deployed to and overseas mission either supporting our own troops or someone else's than providing EAS for a multitude of different reasons.

                                Doing such a mission for even 3 months rotations would probably have a very positive effect on rentention but would require a significant rollback of what is currently done on island including EAS and GASU.
                                Last edited by Chuck; 14 June 2018, 21:12.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X