Why isn't Baldonnel a commercial airport?

fireplace1982

Runway orientation is 23/05 and 29/11 with 29/11 being the longer, not a huge difference between dublins main runway 28/10. The surrounding mountains dont make a huge difference as there are hundreds of airports in real mountainous areas that service public transport (salzburg, Cusco etc).
Operating the helis out of the curragh makes no sense, it is a 5 minute flight from Casement to the Curragh and the amount of money needed to support 6 139s and 2 135s would be crazy (hangars, towers, ramps, stores, offices, runways/FATOs,).
737s and the like have flown in and out of Bal before but it would require major infrastructural work for a sustained operation, however the main thing that will stop Bal being joint operated with civvies is noise pollution. The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.
One more thing, there seems to be a lot of 'Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

Davidth88

'

Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

All I was trying to say is that there is no reason not to mix military/civil operations that I know of.

Ill be frank I have never really understood what the IAC try to achieve with their PC9's, it's not like the pilots are going on to work on fast jets etc, nor are the PC9s capable ( that I know of ) of protecting the airspace as such.

If you take the CASA away ( which there should be mopre of as the Cocaine finds down in Cork are testament to ) , and the helecopters , whats left...basically an operation similar to 32sq http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._32_(The_Royal)_Squadron_RAF

( open to correction )

themarcus

fireplace1982 wrote: »

One more thing, there seems to be a lot of 'Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

It's not so much that they don't do anything, more that they could scarcely claim to be maximising the potential of their real estate. Even if they sold it to property developers (admittedly unlikely at the mo) the revenue would dwarf the cost of a new facility in the midlands.

fireplace1982 wrote: »

The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.

You've definitely got a point there - it'd be political suicide. Shame that.

fireplace1982

The PC9s train pilots (or rather the pilot within it does!) Hence why their squadron is called the Flying Training School...does exactly what it says on the tin.

Fratton Fred

fireplace1982 wrote: »

The PC9s train pilots (or rather the pilot within it does!) Hence why their squadron is called the Flying Training School...does exactly what it says on the tin.

trains them for what though?

I don't want to knock the Air Corp, they do the best with what they have, but fixed wing wise they are a cross between a display team and a taxi service for a few people who, frankly, should take the ****ing bus so they can see how crap public transport is.

Of course a military airfield is needed for military transport, but shannon probably carries more military traffic than Baldonnel so why not give O'Leary a chance to do something with it?

fireplace1982

How do government jet pilots learn the basics, or a aw139 skipper? or a CASA pilot? Where do GASU pilots learn their trade? In FTS, hence the PC9s, if people read anything else into them...such as their limited intercept capablility then that is their problem, they were not bought as fighters or as a lead into jet training, they are used to train young guys how to fly and also to teach more experienced guys how to become instructors. The Air Corps is a lot more than their PC9s, its just that they do the state flypasts etc so people see them and think why? well 9-5 monday to friday they are teaching guys how to fly....

Davidth88

This thread has changed direction somewhat.... but I am afraid I am going to pull it further off.

So the PC9s are used to train pilots for the CASA, The Garda Air Support Unit, and the AW139s ?

In these times ( and indeed at anytime ) is having a dedicated flight training school cost effective , how many pilots do the IAC need for these roles ?

Could they not use commercial flight schools ( I assume they have to send the pilots off for flight conversion anyway ?? ) . For the special roles such as the CASA/GASU etc, there must be special schools somewhere in the world ( uk/usa ) that could teach the skills for that . In fact couldn't the GASU employ civilians ( they do elsewhere ).

To be honest , my view would be that the IAC should be an effective force, that can support the troops on the ground . Why are there not a number of GA ( Ground attack ) sq's ? They could then be deployed overseas to help the troops in a practical manner. ( fancy some Harriers anyone ? )

fireplace1982

If the air corps sent their pilots off for commercial training what would they get back?....commercial pilots. Not pilots trained to military standards (i have heard that there is a one in four failure rate in the Air Corps), military pilots need to be trained in close formation, aerobatics, air firing, tactical navigation, night navigation, army support.

Whether the PC9 was the right aircraft to purchase is open to debate but to do the whole ' sure what do them things do anyway other than swan around, lets get f16s' is a waste of time and space on the megaweb!

As for ground attck, harriers et al... walter mittysim in extremis

Davidth88

whoa

military pilots need to be trained in close formation, aerobatics, air firing, tactical navigation, night navigation, army support.

How many of these skills are required to fly the CASA / Islander / Gulfstream/ Lear Jet / King Air

Ok I can understand night navigation ( surely civil pilots do that too ) , but close formation ? aerobatics ? air firing ?

I don't understand the reference to Walter Mitty... I was making a serious suggestion that if the IAC want to support the Army in an more active way, if that's on cloud cookoo land then so be it .

I certainly don't have any wish/dream to join the IAC.....

jmayo

fireplace1982 wrote: »

How do government jet pilots learn the basics, or a aw139 skipper? or a CASA pilot? Where do GASU pilots learn their trade? In FTS, hence the PC9s, if people read anything else into them...such as their limited intercept capablility then that is their problem, they were not bought as fighters or as a lead into jet training, they are used to train young guys how to fly and also to teach more experienced guys how to become instructors. The Air Corps is a lot more than their PC9s, its just that they do the state flypasts etc so people see them and think why? well 9-5 monday to friday they are teaching guys how to fly....

Why would you learn how to fly a PC9 to help you fly an AW139 ?
I would find it very unsual for pilots to start their training on a PC9.
It would make sense to start in the Cessna.
I would presume the heli guys do most of their training in an EC135.

You usually start on a very basic aircraft, even a Cessna or in the RAF something like a Firefly, then moving to something like a Tucano.
Heli pilots may do some fixed wing training, but they are usually moved to helis because they are pretty different.
Of course the Air Corps could be totally different to other air forces, but it would not make much sense training someone to high standard in high spec fixed wing trainer, to hand them over for heli training.

fireplace1982

The air corps needed to replace their basic trainer (to take an 19 year old guy off the street and teach him how to fly to a high standard) if they dont make the cut they are gone. What do you get to do the training? a screening aircraft?, then a pc9 then a subsonic jet.... yes that would be great but budgetary contraints necessitated a single type, capable of training a student to a high (SPIFR) status.

With irish weather being what it is a machine that can do basic training above the weather would be nice too. An analogue cockpit trainer would not make sense as no Air Corps aircraft has en EFIS-less cockpit. An aircraft that can support the teaching of basic airmanship as well as fast, advanced flying. The fact that it is a fixed wing is irrelevant, a hopeful cadet must prove he has what it take to handle the pressure of intense flight training, if he/she cant its good luck to ye.

The RAF train their heli pilots on the tucano (very similar to PC9). Sure, we can train our fixed wing guys on cessnas .... While we are at it we could train our troops for overseas service from robbies 'two at a time lads, sorry no room for rifles' We could have dropped the ball into thomand park in a ford transit too.

The air corps has a miniature budget and a meagre fleet and still the moaning goes on. Do you think it is the air corps choice that part of their task is ministerial VIP... As for getting harriers and all that stuff sure that would be great if the public support (or finance) was there for it but from what can be seen from this thread there are a lot of experts who have no time for the air corps no matter what they do.

pclancy

So basically flightpaths annoying people and the fact that the IAC don't want to share are the main killers of any commercial operation out of BAL. Does seem a shame allright to have it so empty when DUB is so congested and hard to get to.

FiSe

Sorry got lost here after all those posts...

Why, exactly, do we need a new commercial airport in Dublin? Or should I say, new-ish as Baldonnel will need to be completly renovated...

Wouldn't be cheaper just to go off to M.O'L estate and build a brand new, sparkling airport on the green field?

How many passengers passing through the Big Smoke Airport would rather use Shannon, Cork, or let's say Kerry airports instead?

And, ehm, IAC... military and civilian operations from the same airports are possible, but let's not forget that all above named airfields are in countries which have more than just a one pure military airfield.
So, wouldn't make a more sense to equip this army branch properly and adequately to its role, instead of taking the only space they still have off them?

mikemac

fireplace1982 wrote: »

however the main thing that will stop Bal being joint operated with civvies is noise pollution. The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.

I'm not sure how old Baldonnel is, a quick google search shows it was there in the 1930's and most of the estates in Tallaght and Clondalkin didn't exist back then. Sure they were probably country villages back then! The residents will have to be ignored if it's deemed to be in the national interest, I'm not saying if it is or not.

Sure the same protests happened at Dublin Airport from residents in Portmarnock and the planned new runway.
Can't keep everyone happy

pclancy

They're not gunna get any more dosh to be able to perform any more tasks then they allready do though are they? I don't see Baldonnel ever changing to civilian use, as you say it might someday turn out that a new more midlands located airport springs up from a green field.

Maybe Portlaoise will finally get its runway

Davidth88

Sorry to everyone for dragging the thread off track , perhaps we should open a more general IAC thread ?

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?

( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )

Dublin would be cut off from the rest of the world !

Shannon/Cork are NOT viable diverts , they are both 3-4-5 hrs from Dublin , there isn't even a dual carrageway between the cities for goodness sake .

Now if BAL is a viable alternative , well not withstanding the runway direction/location of residents, where else could you put it ? South of Dublin is no good ( bit bumpy ) , east is no good ( bit wet ) , north is already taken, so that leaves the west of the city.

FiSe

pclancy wrote: »

They're not gunna get any more dosh to be able to perform any more tasks then they allready do though are they?

No, but it's not 'their' fault

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?
( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )
Dublin would be cut off from the rest of the world !
Shannon/Cork are NOT viable diverts , they are both 3-4-5 hrs from Dublin , there isn't even a dual carrageway between the cities for goodness sake .

Maybe another runway would sort out this problem?

I still don't understand why would Dublin need another separate airport? It's a city with only 1.5mil habitants, one properly working airport should be enough.

Let's put it this way, I'm living in Co. Limerick, hence I'm using Cork or Shannon, if I can and whenewer I can.
Unfortunately, those 2 airports are in the shade of Dublin, big time, so I have to travel all the way to Dublin if I want to travel to the destinations which aren't served by those two 'regional' airports. It's highly inconvinient for me, not because the 2.5hrs drive, which is really nothing, but because I have to stay somewhere overnight as most of the flights leaving in the morning, but I have no choice. And tens of thousands of other travelling folks are in the same situation.
So, if those two airports would work as they should, it would ease that pressure on the D. Airport. But this would bring much less revenue to the DAA, so there's really no way this will ever happen...

I do agree, there should be dual carriageways built all around the country at least 5yrs ago and all 'N' marked roads should be those, but well...this is theme for another topic.
It takes 1.5hrs D to LMK on the train.
There's a new N7 being build, which will be a dual carriageway all the way D to LMK, and even with the current bad N7 we have, you'd really need to employ all your driving skills to get to Shannon in 5 hours :P well, on the pushbike perhaps :rolleyes:
Not sure what the story is down in Cork though...

Davidth88

The reason I put 3-4-5 hrs was because if you diverted to Shannon, you would wait for a bus for an hour , then 2.5 hrs driving ( buses are not as fast as cars ) to Dublin AIRPORT ( the wrong side of Dublin ).

The reason for a second airport would be the greater flexability, a second runway at the current Dublin would help of course , along with the terminal currently being built in the wrong place ( another thread )

SNN should be developed more , I think the announcement recently about the fact you will now have US Customs here is a good thing , and may encourage traffic to stage through there. You certainly get people coming from London to Dublin to go to the US to pre clear INS.

jackofalltrades

micmclo wrote:

I'm not sure how old Baldonnel is, a quick google search shows it was there in the 1930's and most of the estates in Tallaght and Clondalkin didn't exist back then. Sure they were probably country villages back then! The residents will have to be ignored if it's deemed to be in the national interest, I'm not saying if it is or not.

Sure the same protests happened at Dublin Airport from residents in Portmarnock and the planned new runway.
Can't keep everyone happy

It's one thing upsetting a few thousand people in Portmarnock, its a completely different thing to put tens if not hundreds of thousands of people under a busy commercial flight path.

davidth88 wrote:

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?

( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )

That scenario would no longer be a possibility after the parallel runway is built. Which combined with the second terminal and a slowing economy should comfortably meet current/medium term demand.

pclancy wrote:

Maybe Portlaoise will finally get its runway:D

And after that direct flights to the US:)

themarcus

A few people seem to reckon we don't need another airport in Dublin.

Most economic theory would suggest that we really do. Dublin airport is a monopoly at the moment (no other airports are close enough to offer a realistic alternative). A competitor would steal their business until they shaped up and offered better service in order to retain business.

Re the Air Corps - I'm sure they could deal with sharing or even relocating.

Re the noise pollution - well, its the NIMBY Complex - I don't live near Baldonnel, neither do most people. In any case realignment of the runways so that they point towards less densely populated areas anyone? They're just reinforced roads after all!

Anyway I just created this thread because I'm writing an assignment on airport competition in Dublin and wanted to hear a few ideas. Thanks to everyone who came up with stuff - gave me some good leads!

FiSe

So, basically, you've kept the same view on the matter as on the beginning of the thread... :rolleyes:

...and here: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388412.htm

themarcus

FiSe wrote: »

So, basically, you've kept the same view on the matter as on the beginning of the thread... :rolleyes:

...and here: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388412.htm

True

I never advocated fire though - fire-starting would be practically banned in my airport!

View Profile

themarcus
In any case realignment of the runways so that they point towards less densely populated areas anyone? They're just reinforced roads after all!

You cant just redirect a runway in a different direction.

Its an east/west direction for a reason, ie. the mountains to the south, never mind the prevailing wind.

Davidth88
...... to Dublin AIRPORT ( the wrong side of Dublin )

I dont understand. Dublin airport is on the Northside, that's the better side of the city.
And only a 15 minute drive away for me.;)

Considering all the moaning that happened/is happening with Portmarnock residents about the parallel runway I doubt the southsiders will tolerate having commercial a/c interrupting their croquet games.

diverdriver

military pilots need to be trained in close formation, aerobatics, air firing, tactical navigation, night navigation, army support.

Fireplace, while I can understand your point of view. I was very much a supporter of the Air Corps over the years and indeed had a similar point of view. I've changed my mind though. The reality if that is the the list above is quite correct for an air force that actually might have to carry out those roles one day. The Air Corps doesn't need any of those except for army support. Which it barely provides with helicopters wholly unsuitable for the task. They cannot deploy overseas where they're needed and can barely operate away from Baldonnel.

Let's look at each role they carry out

The CASA, could easily be replaced by a Coastguard unit just like SAR was. The Air Corps used to do SAR but they effed it up with infighting and it's gone to civvies.

The Garda chopper doesn't need to be flown by military officers. Civvies do it in the UK more cheaply. Same in the USA.

Jets for the goverment can easily be hired in. Ever heard of Netjets?

The PC9's are light strike aircraft in theory but are mostly lead in trainers for jets we don't have. They could easily be replaced by light piston trainers. Or the role handed to a contractor just like the RAF does.

The RAF's helicopter pilots are also trained by civilians. They can do the same for ours. Send potential candidates away for a year to train abroad to fly our few remaining aircraft. The can easily recruit from within the army. Using Warrant officer pilots. Just like the British Army Air Corps.

The Cessnas, well they're Cessnas. The army can operate them too. My suggestion: revert the Air Corps back to green uniforms and use the budget to have an effective and professional helicopter heavy, Army Air Corps with a few fixed wing liaison aircraft based wherever, even Baldonnel.

Frankly the Air Corps is a luxury we can no longer afford. I believe it's time is past. Sad but true. Frankly I cannot see it surviving in it's present form for another twenty years.

preilly79

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Minister of Defense has been requested to keep all commercial activity out of Baldonnel to prepare for the forthcoming NWO. Every major city will need a landing base for B52's C17A Globemaster III, Galaxy's, Antonov 125's and various commandeered civilian aircraft for both the deployment of international troops, authorities, military equipment and also the removal of dissidents to foreign FEMA camps.

Any civilian use of this airport could jeopardies the flow of emergency military operations. Baldonnel is also very suitable as a military airfield because of its close proximity to the network of interurban motorways which is far more important than any public transport network.

Similar requests will be made for Shannon and Knock after all the tumbleweed is cleared from the runways :eek:

It's official, you're completely off your rocker.

pclancy

Lets keep it friendly eh?

tracker-man

I must agree with pretty much everything DiverDriver has said. Ya it was nice having an Air corps for the past number of years but in these economic times its real usefullness is put to question. Certainly I think a number of aircraft should be kept, and a small workforce employed but as said above, in its current state, it is wasting money. I am proud that we have an air corps and I regret to have to say that, really lads, we need a reform! A rethink. All the Air corps helis are civvie spec, they arent "Air Corps" material as such, they would be no use in chad, the sand would eat it, and bullets would go right through it. As said before its sole use is..... sorry, what exactly is its purpose again? :pac:

pclancy wrote: »

Lets keep it friendly eh?

I think he said what was on everyones mind, and in fairness, I don't think it could have been any more polite!

pclancy

Yeah true but everyone's side in a debate should be equally expressible no matter how barmy it may seem