Originally posted by Jessup
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air Corps Not Asked To Tender For SAR Contract
Collapse
X
-
Isn't this whole storm being kicked up by an Air Corps exer?
In another part of the wider Independent media organisation, namely the Evening Herald, this gentleman claimed that the Air Corps AW-139's could do the same job as the S-92's with a few modifications.
Pay little attention. Sensationalism by those looking to sell papers.
The ex officer lost all credibility in my eyes with the '139 statement.Last edited by Jetjock; 10 August 2010, 14:05.
Comment
-
Originally posted by FMolloy View PostDid you not think to PM a mod about it, rather than make out there is some conspiracy?
As unpalatable as it might be for many, the circumstances in which the AC lost the SAR function was an absolute disgrace. In my opinion, the organisation has been 'black listed' ever since in that regard. The disgraceful use of the 'safety card' was seen for what it was and the integrity of the entire AC was called into question at the time.
The pricks that resulted in the AC loosing the SAR function sullied the reputation of SAR in the AC built up by the bravery and loss of life among SAR crews. The 'Blue Flu' put the AC on a par with the feckin Gardai ffs!
I had mostly negative experiences with the laziness and constant unavailability (except on rotation day!) of the AC on the border. Ironically, many of those crews were probably in SAR at one stage The bravery of those in SAR was universally recognised throughout the DF, particualrly the winch men. Even pre the Waterford accident I'm sure AC SAR had clocked up a few DSMs. The SAR function was one of those shining lights that those in the DF could point to when people were questioning the need for a DF at all, particularly during the worst of the hearing claims.
It's a pity the AC and the DF didn't take the same robust disciplinary action in that case as they did in the recent 'prickgate' case.
As for PM-ing a mod about a mod (who are appointed how exactly?) Is that not a little like reporting a Garda to the Gardai? You're not going to get much joy there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jessup View PostWell in all fairness it was a most unusual omission. Both articles were one under each other in the on-line version of the paper.
Originally posted by Jessup View PostAs for PM-ing a mod about a mod (who are appointed how exactly?) Is that not a little like reporting a Garda to the Gardai? You're not going to get much joy there.
2. Boomer appoints the mods, how he appoints them is up to him since it is his website. When you create & fund your own discussion board you can appoint moderators however you see fit.
3. If you're not happy with how things are run you know where the door is."The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."
Comment
-
Careful now Jessup.
It would appear that youre attempts to bring the media spotlight on the contract award have failed and you cannot deal (like the AC in general) with reasoned arguement so you have resorted to name calling. As this was the subject of a legal case, which found issues with safety in AC SAR I would urge caution on your part.
To use your own words:
As unpalatable as it might be for many
Comment
-
1. Including a related article, from the same source, with a hyperlink directly under the article that was not omitted is hardly an example of spending "days trawling through newspapers" Don't be such a drama queen.
2. Your position is that "there was no decision, conscious of otherwise, to omit the article from the board". The members of the forum now know that the article WAS omitted and they can make their mind up about that.
3. "When you create & fund your own discussion board you can appoint moderators however you see fit". So it's a case of it's your ball and if you don't like the way the other kids are playing then you're going home. Seriously, what age are you, 12?
4. If everyone just walked away from any club or organisation when they are unhappy with a particular issue instead of raising the issue then the world would be in a sorry state. Wind your neck in. If you can't handle the heat as a Mod and inevitable criticism that sometimes might be attached with performing this role then I presume you can also know where the door is?
5. In my opinion it's totally appropriate that the rights to publishing news should be restricted to Mods. It should also be the right of an ordinary user to publicly raise an issue with a Mod.
Comment
-
It's a pity the AC and the DF didn't take the same robust disciplinary action in that case as they did in the recent 'prickgate' case.
there were some very stupid egotistically people involved and your right they should have all been charged.
but maybe the DF and the AC couldnt afford to take disciplinary against so many PilotsThings fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Comment
-
Just for information the News forum is pre-moderated. Anyone can post there, it will be approved by one of us if relevant to the irish military in some way."Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tadpole View PostCareful now Jessup.
It would appear that youre attempts to bring the media spotlight on the contract award have failed and you cannot deal (like the AC in general) with reasoned arguement so you have resorted to name calling. As this was the subject of a legal case, which found issues with safety in AC SAR I would urge caution on your part.
I've no respect for most of the media in Ireland so am not trying to bring the media spotlight on the case. If I wanted to do that I'd just email Declan Power; one of the few media hacks that I do respect.
What legal case are you talking about here? There's always going to safety issues in SAR, it's a dangerous job. Issues should be dealt with. Not ignored by those in charge and manipulated or exaggerated by others, with ulterior, self serving motives. My recollection of a 'review' after Sligo (maybe it was a judicial review) was that SOME of the safety concerns were substantiated. Is that the legal 'case' you're talking about?
Originally posted by Tadpole View PostThe AC SAR service, despite the efforts of the men and women at the pointy end, never, ever matched the quality of service provided by any of the 3 civil companies who have so far held the mantal. Thats not a slight on the individuals involved or the skills they brought to SAR (Many of whom are still in SAR) but rather the inability the AC as an organisation to provide a robust and consistent service. This legacy unfortunately remains within the organisation in many aspects of its current operations.
Aside from that issue my reason for putting a spotlight on this case is to remind people about biting the hand that feeds you and to question whether this deal is the best for the Irish State.
Can someone clarify this issue about CHC 'owning' the new choppers after the contract has expired? Is the Irish State not paying for these choppers in full as part of the contract? Surely this doesn't mean that if the State wanted to replace CHC then there would be no choppers for a new operator?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jessup View Post1. Including a related article, from the same source, with a hyperlink directly under the article that was not omitted is hardly an example of spending "days trawling through newspapers" Don't be such a drama queen.
Originally posted by Jessup View Post2. Your position is that "there was no decision, conscious of otherwise, to omit the article from the board". The members of the forum now know that the article WAS omitted and they can make their mind up about that.
Originally posted by Jessup View Post3. "When you create & fund your own discussion board you can appoint moderators however you see fit". So it's a case of it's your ball and if you don't like the way the other kids are playing then you're going home. Seriously, what age are you, 12?
Alternatively put your money where your mouth is and buy your own website. Then you can post to your heart's content without fear of being censured by the IMO/AC anti-SAR conspiracy.
Originally posted by Jessup View Post4. If everyone just walked away from any club or organisation when they are unhappy with a particular issue instead of raising the issue then the world would be in a sorry state. Wind your neck in. If you can't handle the heat as a Mod and inevitable criticism that sometimes might be attached with performing this role then I presume you can also know where the door is?
Originally posted by Jessup View Post5. In my opinion it's totally appropriate that the rights to publishing news should be restricted to Mods. It should also be the right of an ordinary user to publicly raise an issue with a Mod.
The answer is none, because it is not restricted to mods. Anyone can post there so long as they follow the rules there. The fact that you can't post there means there is some sort of problem. Yet instead of raising this with the mod (either by pm or publicly in the 'site errors' section) and getting it fixed, you saw it as some sort of effort to gag you and your imagination ran away from you."The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jessup View PostThe members of the forum now know that the article WAS omitted and they can make their mind up about that.
Mods on IMO do so voluntarily and without any personal gain. They give up their free time to make sure idiots don't ruin it for the rest of us.
I have always found the mods and the individual who appointed them for that matter to be of the utmost integrity and I think you'll find many more than me here willing to jump to their defence.
Implying something untoward without any basis is taking it too far.
As far as the door, I have no objection to some people getting a gentle nudge in it's direction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by trellheim View PostJust for information the News forum is pre-moderated. Anyone can post there, it will be approved by one of us if relevant to the irish military in some way.
Spot on Trellheim. I'm sure everyone agrees with that, otherwise there would be some serious piss taking.
I've just checked that and you can post a new thread. What I tried to do was 'reply' to the post that had the first article and got the message about "insufficient rights" etc..........which I also agree with otherwise the same problem would arise.
Comment
-
SAR contract
Reading C Reynolds article suggests the service is on public tender and as state/public funding is involved it must be processed under EEC public procurement rules.
The operator provides/owns the craft and retains same when contract expires.All purchase costs/repairs maintenance w&t is at operators expense who are oblidged to provide craft which fullfill contract parameters.
It would be unusual foe one state body to tender for contracts in competition with private bodies and indeed special EU clearance would be needed to allow a state body obtain such a contract as the State body is subsidised from public funds and is seen to have an unfair advantage.
As I see it one way for the IAC to get the service is if SAR is transferred from DOT to DOD who could then allocate it to IAC without need for tendering.However the question remains as to whether IAC WANT SAR as it is not a core op and would involve dispersal of assets at various locations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jetjock View PostMy minds made up. You're talking through your backside on this one. When you take off your tin foil hat and stop seeing spouting conspiracy theories think about this:
Mods on IMO do so voluntarily and without any personal gain. They give up their free time to make sure idiots don't ruin it for the rest of us.
I have always found the mods and the individual who appointed them for that matter to be of the utmost integrity and I think you'll find many more than me here willing to jump to their defence.
Implying something untoward without any basis is taking it too far.
As far as the door, I have no objection to some people getting a gentle nudge in it's direction.
God Bless you innocence and naivety. One of the Mods is the tooth fairy too I suppose and another is Santa Claus. If a healthy professional skepticism towards anyone in a position of authority earns me the title of a tin foil hat wearer then I wear it with pride. A few more tin foil hat wearers in the last ten years would have served this country well.
As for showing me the door, that sounds awfully similar to the Bertie Ahern suicide advice for the 'tin foil hat wearers' who raised concerns about the economy. I rather wear a tin foil hat than an anorak any time.
"Trust but Verify"
Comment
Comment