Irish government jet

cerastes

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Can you prove that it did happen a lot or are you just throwing wild accusations about to disprove Tenger?

Innocent until proven guilty is generally how things work.

Incidentally, the dauphins were totally rebuilt by the new owner before being sold to the Chileans. The dauphins have been shown to be totally inadequate aircraft for the purpose that they were needed for. I presumed that anyone with a passing interest in aviation was aware of the issues surrounding these helos.

The onus isnt on me to disprove an assertion, Im pointing out that unless they absolutely know it was only 2-3 flights and can prove that, then why mention it?
The dauphins were rebuilt and are used to this day by the Chilean Navy, they were rebuilt, but how much was that rebuild compared to replacing them? they were inadequete for the purpose because? not because of the design,they were poorly chosen due to our needs and were poorly fitted out at the request of people who didnt but should have known better, the USCG and the Chileans use them for some form of SAR, they never really suited us having a limited range of options for alternate aircraft, range, payload etc, they could have if they were complementing a larger design, but why bother if thats the case, just buy one larger aircraft type. At the time they should have acquired a few/fewer larger helicopters, as is used now privately hired/contracted out.

anyway, no point arguing with people, my opinions are my own.
But the aircraft in question is on the ground and of no use, so someone is making poor planning decisions, either operating it or being aware these things will crop up and still not having a contingency.

BMJD

Tenger wrote: »

This happened on 2-3 occasions so statistically irrelevant.

can you provide a source for this number?

from reading between the lines in this debate from 2007, we can easily deduce that it is a lot more than "2-3 times"

The Taoiseach:The MATS aircraft are housed at Baldonnel. I suggest the Deputy direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Practically all flights arrive at or depart from Baldonnel. A high proportion take off from Baldonnel and a smaller number from Dublin Airport. Those that take off from Dublin Airport do so for a variety of logistical, operational or safety reasons, including the needs of the travelling party but it is rare occurrence. My colleagues use Baldonnel in practically every case. They usually leave so early in the morning when travelling to Brussels that they do not encounter problems with traffic.

]The Taoiseach:Most long-haul flights such as those to the United States usually leave from Dublin Airport, while shorter journeys such as those to Britain commence from Baldonnel. I fly from both Baldonnel and Dublin Airport. If I am returning late at night, I prefer to land at Dublin Airport, as it is located five minutes from my home but otherwise I do not really care. Most flights usually leave from Baldonnel. There are not as many flights within the State.

Mr. Rabbitte: ——including when it comes to the environment. Is it the case, as is reported, that the jet takes off from Baldonnel and lands again at Dublin Airport to collect the Taoiseach because that is more convenient? Has the Taoiseach concerns about his carbon footprint? I noticed he was in Galway recently to talk about climate change. Is it the most efficient use of Government transport that, rather than shoot [5]over the West Link bridge and out to Baldonnel, like the rest of us, the jet leaves Baldonnel and calls at Dublin Airport to collect the Taoiseach, and has him back for canvassing in no time at all? Would it not be better to go to Baldonnel in the first instance?

The Taoiseach: If I did so, the Deputy would probably accuse me of being in his constituency again.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Taoiseach is always welcome to my constituency.

The Taoiseach: I do come into Dublin Airport — there is no doubt about that. I am not a great user of the Government jet. As the Deputy knows, some of my colleagues have far more reason to do so. Most of my use is in regard to the European Council meetings.

The wear and tear issue came up a number of years ago. The Air Corps advised me that the wear and tear on the aircraft as a consequence of operating in an out of Dublin is impossible to quantify — it is just wear and tear, and does not make a lot of difference.

I rather arrive back into Dublin Airport for a number of reasons, but sometimes I do not do this. I flew out of Baldonnel last week when I travelled to the UK and I sometimes fly back into Baldonnel. Frankly, I am more interested in where I land at my destination. When I go to the UK, I try to land at the military airport because it is far nearer to London and far more convenient. There is a not a great difference. If it is late at night, I rather come into Dublin Airport.

BMJD

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/berties-airport-choice-cost-extra-1200-per-trip-26476909.html

Ministerial flight schedules for the past 18 months, obtained by the Irish Independent, reveal that the Gulfstream jet landed at Dublin Airport on 43 different occasions, the Learjet landed on nine occasions and the Beechcraft on one occasion, with the former Taoiseach on board.

smurfjed

It is absolutely relevant to repair costs, when an aircraft is operated outside its use expected by the manufacturer, then the cost of repair is going to increase.

We have operated G4's for over 28 years! We jump from an VIP airport to an international airport on a regular basis, takeoff up to 1500 feet, left turn, intercept the ILS and land, total time 5 minutes. And we do not have any irregular gear problems associated with doing this. Also while manufacturer guarantees for airliners might have average sector length requirements, there is no such thing for Gulfstreams as this is what they were designed for.

cerastes

smurfjed wrote: »

We have operated G4's for over 28 years! We jump from an VIP airport to an international airport on a regular basis, takeoff up to 1500 feet, left turn, intercept the ILS and land, total time 5 minutes. And we do not have any irregular gear problems associated with doing this. Also while manufacturer guarantees for airliners might have average sector length requirements, there is no such thing for Gulfstreams as this is what they were designed for.

The G4 was designed to do a 5 minute hop? ok

You dont have irregular gear problems, so you have expected (PM)gear problems, so there is some contingency in the financial and maintenance planning?
and this is a private company funded by its users? not the taxpayer

On the other hand, a former Taoiseach liked to get home in time at our expense? whether this affected the current problems, who knows? probably GD/Gulfstream.
Its an inefficient use of state resources at the least.
Private companies can do what they like, do they after not provisioning for such events, dispose of aircraft willy nilly? They probably manage to put up hours in line with operating costs, ie they dont buy an aircraft to sit on the ground.

smurfjed

Its an inefficient use of state resources at the least.

Why?

Once again i will say it, 2.5 million Euros isn't for a gear problem, it is just too much, especially as gear overhaul costs are accounted for in the operating costs.

whether this affected the current problems, who knows?

You are clutching at straws to prove your point.

Google "G4 for sale", look at the age of the aircraft available and the hours/ landings, these aircraft do not fly like commercial jets.

Tenger

BMJD wrote: »

can you provide a source for this number?
from reading between the lines in this debate from 2007, we can easily deduce that it is a lot more than "2-3 times"

I stand corrected. Well proven. I made an assumption of "2-3 times" I never claimed this was a definitive number.

cerastes wrote: »

The onus isn't on me to disprove an assertion, I'm pointing out that unless they absolutely know it was only 2-3 flights and can prove that, then why mention it?.....

anyway, no point arguing with people, my opinions are my own....

Actually it was you who made the assertion first, you were the one to mention it. I offered an alternative guess which was since disproven by BMJD.


As indicated by Smurfjed the G-IV is designed for this type of operation. You asserted that it has been operated outside the manufacturers guidelines,

Now I will not argue that the use of the G-IV on short (non-essential) hops has not affected its current status. But until we get some clarity on the issue we could hold off on assigning blame to such a Daily Mail type scenario.

Irish Steve

cerastes wrote: »

Where does that occur elsewhere with aircraft.

It happened for years with the Government policy of requiring all transatlantic flights to enter and leave via Shannon, which meant that EI 747 aircraft designed for long haul operations were accumulating 3 cycles in Ireland per rotation, compared to 1 cycle per rotation for the competition that were operating out of places like Heathrow, etc. That was a MASSIVE increase in maintenance costs for Aer Lingus in comparison to BA, Virgin, Lufthansa, Air France, etc,etc. For years, EI tried to get rid of this imposition, but it was only when real pressure was applied by other (external) carriers that were operating to Ireland that it was eventually relaxed, and finally stopped, and we are now at last seeing the benefit of the sense, there are massively more flights to and from the States operated by both EI and other carriers as a result, from both Shannon AND Dublin, and they are now competitive price wise with flights from other countries or airports.

In the absence of real information, we don't know what the exact issue with the G4 is. It could be corrosion, or it could be something as simple as a failed seal, but to fix some seals, the entire landing gear leg has to come off the aircraft, and that's not as simple as changing a car tyre.

Given the age of the aircraft, there are almost certainly also upgrades to avionics required to meet the latest specs for trans atlantic operations, and for operations at high levels over Europe, and in the nature of these things, such upgrades are not cheap, even if they are relatively simple, but for safety and economy, they are needed, the safety side is to allow more aircraft to operate in the same space with less physical separation, the economy is that the G4 cruises best at high levels, and to do that now, the latest equipment is required in order to get there through the more congested lower levels that the large commercial jets operate at. There's no radar over the Atlantic, so things have to be done differently. and with the ever increasing pressure for slots across to America, the separations have to be closer than they used to be, and that means higher spec equipment on the aircraft to facilitate it. There are other upgrades, even things like radios are now having to be changed to make more channels available to avoid confusion to airborne aircraft, at one time, it was common to have several airports all using the same frequency for some services, but as things have got busier, there are problems at the aircraft end with confusion as to which controller is talking, and who the information relates to, so more channels have had to be made available. At one time, it was only commercial jets that needed that upgrade, but now, even light aircraft operating at low levels are having to be upgraded with newer options, and it ain't cheap. That's progress, one way to look at it is that Ireland gets huge income to the IAA for overflights, so some of that has to be diverted to another area of the state to keep the state aircraft flying. In the overall scale of the state budget, it's really not a big deal, if we had politicians with some cop on and cojones, it would not have been an issue, but that's a theme for another place and another thread,

cerastes

Tenger wrote: »

I think the onus on proving this point lies with you, afterall you made the claim first.

Who (apart from you) is claiming that the aircraft has been "operated outside it use expected by the manufacture"?

Like every aircraft, unforeseen problem crop up. The solution is to fund the repair or replace the aircraft, whichever is more cost effective for the customer.

I dont really want to have to reply with this but, others too I believe, I didnt mention it first recently, it has been mentioned in thread before, besides
BMJD mentioned it and correctly so, you replied, then me. Post 296, 298, 299, in that order.
I didnt claim, I am suggesting it was, something is wrong with it anyway.

Tenger wrote: »

I stand corrected. Well proven. I made an assumption of "2-3 times" I never claimed this was a definitive number.


Actually it was you who made the assertion first, you were the one to mention it. I offered an alternative guess which was since disproven by BMJD.

Back pedal much?

BMJD wrote: »

My guesswork is that flying from Baldonnel to Dublin Airport so that Bertie got an extra 10 minutes kip before heading on to Cork to open a new Spar or whatever has come back to bite the GIV on the ass.

This seems to have been what it was used as, when a limo could have brought said person to Baldonnel, not good enough for them.

Bertie openely admitted he preferred to land in Dublin, (I dont think he admitted he preferred to leave from their either, basically he didnt care so long as it was handy) regardless that the aircraft had to then go to its base in Baldonnel after dropping him off. At the time, the G4 then ended up being practivall based in Dublin for a time due to this.

Tenger wrote: »

Not relevant to discussions over repair costs and has been addressed already.
This happened on 2-3 occasions so statistically irrelevant.

You went from saying "This happened on 2-3 occasions" to "I made an assumpttion"

Anyway, thats it, Im out

I didnt appreciate the sniping when someone said there should be an idiot filter, referring to other posters that way is just stooping to some level to shut them down, instead of discussing it and accepting different people have different views.

Tenger

I wasn't backpedalling, I was admitting I was wrong. There is a difference.

man98

You're assuming just because it lands at DUB, that the flight is to Baldonnel. Of course, you may prefer that the G4 overruns the Baldonnel runway because of the weight onboard. Not all of these flights were unnecessary...

Preset No.3

cerastes wrote: »

I didnt appreciate the sniping when someone said there should be an idiot filter, referring to other posters that way is just stooping to some level to shut them down, instead of discussing it and accepting different people have different views.

I said there should be an idiot filter and I stand by that comment. I am concerned that you are trolling an anti government agenda. You are very concerned at what take-offs and landings have been made by past governments and the inefficient use of the GIV. Fine, it happened, accepted, move on.

We, as in the regular aviation users here tend to leave politics at the door, and there is forums for that if you want to have a moan about government policy, the rest of really only have a love of aviation, in all its forms.

smurfjed

You're assuming just because it lands at DUB, that the flight is to Baldonnel.

Good point. The usable lengths for RWY 11/29 is 5407 feet and for RWY 05/23 is 4797 feet. The chart below shows the planned landing weights, our airplanes weigh in around 44,000 lbs with crew and lets say around 4,000 for alternate (DUB) and holding fuel.



So you can see that even at light weights the aircraft may have had to land in Dublin.

The minima for most of the runways in BAL is also a lot higher than DUB, so once again they may not have had any options but to land in DUB.

So to get any meaning out of the number of times that the aircraft landed in DUB, one would have to know if it could have legally landed in BAL with the payload onboard and with the weather on the day.

But i have to admit that my comments are based on corporate aviation rules, I don't know if the IAC follow the same rules.

Savage93

smurfjed wrote: »

Good point. The usable lengths for RWY 11/29 is 5407 feet and for RWY 05/23 is 4797 feet. The chart below shows the planned landing weights, our airplanes weigh in around 44,000 lbs with crew and lets say around 4,000 for alternate (DUB) and holding fuel.



So you can see that even at light weights the aircraft may have had to land in Dublin.

The takeoff weights would also be severely limited, they wouldnt be operating to the USA from BAL.

The minima for most of the runways in BAL is also a lot higher than DUB, so once again they may not have had any options but to land in DUB.

So to get any meaning out of the number of times that the aircraft landed in DUB, one would have to know if it could have legally landed in BAL with the payload onboard and with the weather on the day.

But i have to admit that my comments are based on corporate aviation rules, I don't know if the IAC follow the same rules.

Good post but may I ask the question " what twonk approved the purchase of an aircraft that couldn't safely operate from the IAC base ". I apologise in advance for my lack of aviation expertise .

Savage93

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Can you prove that it did happen a lot or are you just throwing wild accusations about to disprove Tenger?

Innocent until proven guilty is generally how things work.

Incidentally, the dauphins were totally rebuilt by the new owner before being sold to the Chileans. The dauphins have been shown to be totally inadequate aircraft for the purpose that they were needed for. I presumed that anyone with a passing interest in aviation was aware of the issues surrounding these helos.

May I ask why the Dauphins were totally inadequate for the purpose that they were needed for when they are used worldwide as SAR craft very successfully, I assume (again forgive my ignorance) that the Dauphin was what the AC requested and ordered for the purpose and ,if they were inadequate, it brings into question the whole procurement process matching needs with purchases. Again I am ignorant of the issues surrounding the Dauphins and apologise for this.

smurfjed

what twonk approved the purchase of an aircraft that couldn't safely operate from the IAC base

I didn't say that it couldn't operate safely, my point was that it couldn't operate to its full potential.
It is more common than you might think in the corporate world, its free to park the aircraft in BAL, and easy to jump across to Dublin in order to operate longer flights or carry large payloads.

Preset No.3

Savage93 wrote: »

May I ask why the Dauphins were totally inadequate for the purpose that they were needed for when they are used worldwide as SAR craft very successfully, I assume (again forgive my ignorance) that the Dauphin was what the AC requested and ordered for the purpose and ,if they were inadequate, it brings into question the whole procurement process matching needs with purchases. Again I am ignorant of the issues surrounding the Dauphins and apologise for this.

Honestly I can't remember. I just remember an article that came out, probably around the time of the crash in Wexford in 1999. It had something to do with the spec ordered was unsuitable for what they needed or wanted. Someone with a better memory can correct me.

L1011

Savage93 wrote: »

Good post but may I ask the question " what twonk approved the purchase of an aircraft that couldn't safely operate from the IAC base ". I apologise in advance for my lack of aviation expertise .

There definitely wasn't and likely still isn't a bizjet that could make the states off BALs runway. This isn't a procurement error.

EchoIndia

L1011 wrote: »

There definitely wasn't and likely still isn't a bizjet that could make the states off BALs runway. This isn't a procurement error.

You'd better tell the Air Corps that, as the G-IV has operated flights fom Baldonnel to the US East coast on many occasions. I know people who have been pax on such flights.

L1011

EchoIndia wrote: »

You'd better tell the Air Corps that, as the G-IV has operated flights fom Baldonnel to the US East coast on many occasions. I know people who have been pax on such flights.

Probably should have said "full range". The G4 wasn't bought with the east coast as its intended maximum range. Its not going to get to SFO or anywhere close.

EchoIndia

The US East Coast (Washington and New York) would be the primary destinations so the ability to make it to SFO direct would be largely irrelevant.

L1011

EchoIndia wrote: »

The US East Coast (Washington and New York) would be the primary destinations so the ability to make it to SFO direct would be largely irrelevant.

If it was largely irrelevant, we wouldn't need a G4 in the first place.

The range is deemed important, and BAL isn't able to handle it at the limits. Which was the original point you seem determined to argue against.

smurfjed

Sorry i started this thing about range, and I was wrong. The aircraft can achieve MTOW off the longer runway at colder temperatures.

L1011

smurfjed wrote: »

Sorry i started this thing about range, and I was wrong. The aircraft can achieve MTOW off the longer runway at colder temperatures.

Still means there's times it may have to use DUB - which was the only original point before we got in to a side argument about procurement and copters

EchoIndia

If you cast your mind back to when the G-IV was purchased, it was one of the few long-range bizjets (with the Falcon 900 and CL601, I think) and it was deemed the most suitable for the Air Corps on the basis that it could generally reach the US East Coast from Baldonnel, against the prevailing winds. There may have been rare occasions when flights were mounted from DUB to obtain maximum range but, if so, they have been few and far between.

EchoIndia

EchoIndia wrote: »

If you cast your mind back to when the G-IV was purchased, it was one of the few long-range bizjets (with the Falcon 900 and CL601, I think) and it was deemed the most suitable for the Air Corps on the basis that it could generally reach the US East Coast from Baldonnel, against the prevailing winds. There may have been rare occasions when flights were mounted from DUB to obtain maximum range but, if so, they have been few and far between.

Well said, most flights in my time have been out of Baldonnel only on the odd occasion over the years did they operate out of Dublin.

NewSigGuy

smurfjed wrote: »

Sorry i started this thing about range, and I was wrong. The aircraft can achieve MTOW off the longer runway at colder temperatures.

As far as I know the 251 never had any issues with MTOW out of Bal, the aircraft went to Dub for Pax reasons and not for perf.. The G-IV(251) an early build aircraft does not have the range for the US west coast. Despite what the brochure might say westerly across the pond into the prevailing winds east coast was the limit. Eastbound from the states different story..

There were also never any issues with regards to landing weight into Bal either.

Preset No.3

I was speaking to a 'source'. There was an evaluation in 2008 to replace the GIV with another 2nd hand bird for about $15m but it was deemed to in just a bad condition as the government jet so that was binned. When asked about the current situation, I was told 'it was fxxked, full stop'!!!!!

NewSigGuy

Preset No.3 wrote: »

I was speaking to a 'source'. There was an evaluation in 2008 to replace the GIV with another 2nd hand bird for about $15m but it was deemed to in just a bad condition as the government jet so that was binned. When asked about the current situation, I was told 'it was fxxked, full stop'!!!!!

Sounds like a highly technical "Source"

Preset No.3

I didn't want to go and start a new thread. Not asking specifics but how is Enda heading to DC next week? Commercial, Private or the LJ45 on a couple of fuel stops?