AW139 and EC135 over M50

100gSoma

I saw an AW139 and one of the EC135s flying low over the M50 today at dawn (about 745am). Circling around at 1000ft maybe. Quite a distraction to some drivers I think as there was a lot of slowing and starting going on.
I was wondering were they following a money transfer or was there some reason for this activity. It would seem too much of a distraction (read danger) to road traffic unless it was entirely neccessary?

godtabh

I saw them this morning cycling to work. It was hard to make out given how dark it was. I live close to the mint so I was thinking it might be something to do with that

John_D80

100gSoma wrote: »

It would seem too much of a distraction (read danger) to road traffic unless it was entirely neccessary?

How are heli's dangerous to traffic at 1000ft? Thats just silly.

godtabh

John_D80 wrote: »

How are heli's dangerous to traffic at 1000ft? Thats just silly.

People looking up when they should be looking ahead

John_D80

godtabh wrote: »

People looking up when they should be looking ahead

Lol well in that case the danger is from bad drivers and not helicopters. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

[Mod]Unapproved BlueCode's post. Given the Irish authorities are a bit paranoid about operational matters, stating the conditions required for a deployment of the helos is probably pushing it[/mod]

I have it on good authority it was a deployment exercise at the airport.

John_D80

Deleted User wrote: »

I have it on good authority it was a deployment exercise at the airport.

Even on the best authorithy, I dont think you should be posting that info here.

bluecode

Manic Moran wrote: »

[Mod]Unapproved BlueCode's post. Given the Irish authorities are a bit paranoid about operational matters, stating the conditions required for a deployment of the helos is probably pushing it[/mod]

Not just the authorities it seems. Seriously I have no real operational knowledge other than observation as does anyone near the M50 on those occasions. I know you're a military officer and all that thus sensitive to those matters and indeed the person reporting me to you might feel I've crossed some line I'm unaware of. But if I know this anyone can figure it out.
Besides I'm not subject to the official secrets act anymore. I think.

In any case the level of security on these occasions has to be seen to be believed. It is overt to the point of excess. Incredibly impressive to watch though.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

bluecode wrote: »

Not just the authorities it seems. Seriously I have no real operational knowledge other than observation as does anyone near the M50 on those occasions. I know you're a military officer and all that thus sensitive to those matters and indeed the person reporting me to you might feel I've crossed some line I'm unaware of. But if I know this anyone can figure it out.
Besides I'm not subject to the official secrets act anymore. I think.

In any case the level of security on these occasions has to be seen to be believed. It is overt to the point of excess. Incredibly impressive to watch though.

If you have served in the DF, you are always subject to the Official Secrets Act.

John_D80

As an individual I believe you have to sign a special document to become subject to the official secrets act.

I dont think members of the DF sign up to this unless its a special case. Open to correction though.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

As an individual I believe you have to sign a special document to become subject to the official secrets act.

I dont think members of the DF sign up to this unless its a special case. Open to correction though.

Nope, in Ireland, the Official Secrets Act, 1963, applies to everyone in the country, and here's Section 9, the part that refers to the DF:

9.—(1) A person shall not, in any manner prejudicial to the safety or preservation of the State—


(a) obtain, record, communicate to any other person or publish, or


(b) have in his possession or under his control any document containing, or other record whatsoever of,


information relating to—


(i) the number, description, armament, equipment, disposition, movement or condition of any of the Defence Forces or of any of the vessels or aircraft belonging to the State,


(ii) any operations or projected operations of any of the Defence Forces or of the Garda Síochána or of any of the vessels or aircraft belonging to the State,


(iii) any measures for the defence or fortification of any place on behalf of the State,


(iv) munitions of war, or


(v) any other matter whatsoever information as to which would or might be prejudicial to the safety or preservation of the State.


(2) Where a person is charged with a contravention of this section it shall be a good defence to prove that the act in respect of which he is charged was authorised by a Minister or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or was done in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office.

It's pretty comprehensive.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Wasn't there a case not so long ago of a sailor in the NS texting his GF about his patrol route and times or something like that? I'm fairly sure he was charged, maybe even discharged due to the Official Secrets Act.

bluecode

Really? Maybe I should hand myself in. I'm not entirely facetious as I take take stuff seriously. I would not reveal anything operational that I know of. I am a clean Marine to use an Americanism.

But I know nothing of operational matters as currently stipulated. I was a member of the DF, as in the FCA as it was and the Act was quoted when I joined.

But really I know nothing and can only extrapolate based on my experience and opinion.

I suppose realistically we live in a free country. Maybe I should be glad of that.

neilled

benwavner wrote: »

Wasn't there a case not so long ago of a sailor in the NS texting his GF about his patrol route and times or something like that? I'm fairly sure he was charged, maybe even discharged due to the Official Secrets Act.

the 3 months in the funhouse and discharged...

John_D80

John_D80 wrote: »

Even on the best authorithy, I dont think you should be posting that info here.

Considering it was visible out the window of the terminal to all asundry, I say "feh" to you.

John_D80

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering it was visible out the window of the terminal to all asundry, I say "feh" to you.

Considering there is a lot more to these kind of exercises than what is visible to whoever may happen upon them, and the possibility that they are a regular occurrence, then your ''feh'' displays as much cop-on as your original post.

Loose lips etc. Information gained from good authorities should sometimes be kept to yourself. And I would certainly question how 'good' this authority is when he is blabbing information that directly relates to airport security, to someone who's going to post it on boards.