Air Corps SAR

roadmaster

MAULBROOK wrote: »

medium-lift helicopters would be required to augment the current fleet, at a cost of some €17.5 million each.

What medium-lift helicopter would you get for 17.5 mill. AW101 are kicking of at $28 million.

AW139 IS Classified as a medium lift and is around €17 million and also in use as a SAR helicopter

Fritzbox

roadmaster wrote: »

AW139 IS Classified as a medium lift and is around €17 million and also in use as a SAR helicopter

AW139 would be fine for providing SAR on the east coast, it wouldn't be so good for the west coast, the north Atlantic.

roadmaster

In the article it says east coast only. Is it Medium-lift? Technically maybe.

If you where the air corps trying to sale this to government its a good fit. As you can say we have the trained pilots ,crew and Mechanics as we already have them working on the existing fleet . All we need is more money so we can train extra personal and buy new aircraft and that's it. The only problem is APs. But I am sure existing paramedics could be trained up to be APs and sent out to NAS & DFB to keep current. If they have also said they need 2 years to get ready. Can it be done? It's only matter of money!

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

In the article it says east coast only. Is it Medium-lift? Technically maybe.

If you where the air corps trying to sale this to government its a good fit. As you can say we have the trained pilots ,crew and Mechanics as we already have them working on the existing fleet . All we need is more money so we can train extra personal and buy new aircraft and that's it. The only problem is APs. But I am sure existing paramedics could be trained up to be APs and sent out to NAS & DFB to keep current. If they have also said they need 2 years to get ready. Can it be done? It's only matter of money!

We had the DOD turn down another PC12 as "there wasn't enough space on the ramp", you think DOD is going to support 2-3 new medium lift helo's and the upswing in the AC needed to support 24/7 operations even for just the East coast?


We are struggling still to support the Air Ambulance even without 24/7, 2 years isn't enough time to expand the AC to be able to do this.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

We had the DOD turn down another PC12 as "there wasn't enough space on the ramp", you think DOD is going to support 2-3 new medium lift helo's and the upswing in the AC needed to support 24/7 operations even for just the East coast?


We are struggling still to support the Air Ambulance even without 24/7, 2 years isn't enough time to expand the AC to be able to do this.

The difference here is the Dept of Transport hold the purse strings. Not the Dept of Defence.

You can accomplish anything if you throw enough money at it.

Larbre34

It makes absolutely zero sense for integration and redundancy reasons to have two entities, one military and one civilian contract, providing SAR in a small Country like Ireland.

I can understand the ACs desire to expand its roles to retain investment, profile, capacity etc etc, but in any sort of realistic assessment, this proposal should be drowned at birth.

roadmaster

@ Negative_G is there an actual push within in the Air Corps to get back in SAR or is it just media talk?

roadmaster

I wonder CHC employes actually getting worried the air corps may get the east coast which would result in the closure of there dublin base and job losses hence why unions are getting involved

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/tensions-rise-over-air-corps-bid-for-search-and-rescue-contract-3f63b460

Larbre34

That may be their underlying motivation, but they are correct in the substantive point they are making.

punchdrunk

Would love to know how many remaining Air Corps crew have any SAR experience? Can’t be many left since they haven’t done it in seventeen years?
How many advanced paramedics have they got?

punchdrunk

Dohvolle wrote: »

Anyone who was P1 or P2 in a Dauphin deployed on SAR should be at least 50 by now, and if they were not promoted above a grade that kept them pilot (Lt/Capt/Commandant) would have had to retire on age grounds.
You may still have a few old Sgts and Cpls who once worked in a Dauphin door, but very few, and less of them still actively flying.
Look at the age profile of the Air Ambulance crew. The Aircrew were still in nappies last time the Air Corps did SAR.
If the DF has any APs, they would have been reassigned to Medical Corps long ago. Definitely wouldn't be left loiter in the Don in the off chance they would be needed on the ramp.

My apologies, I was being slightly facetious here as I knew that was the answer already! Just trying to make those advocating for the change to think!
my Dad would have trained the vast majority of those Dauphin aircrew before he “defected”!

wotswattage

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

Larbre34

wotswattage wrote: »

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

It is a talking down of the Air Corps. Or more correctly, a talking down of those that make policy for and resource the Air Corps, or rather don't resource them.

Let me illustrate. Last Monday evening, an Air Corps Captain (man, I forget his name) was interviewed on RTÉ Radio Drivetime, about the emergency services response to the various wildfires on the island over the preceding few days.

The Captain explained that on Monday, there were 3 Air Corps helos engaged in dampening down operations at Killarney. The interview also covered the fact that an AC helo was tasked to assist with the fire on the Cooley Peninsula over the weekend, but was diverted to Killarney when that event was getting out of control.

When asked by the interviewer, Cormac Ó hEadhra, why other units were not tasked to go North, or to bolster the operation at the devastating Killarney fire, the Captain replied something along the lines of 'well, we had the Athlone EAS and Garda ASUs to crew as well, so there wasn't the manpower available for another aircraft'

Now, I could start a whole bloody thread about the nonsensical situation illustrated by that response alone, but suffice to say in this case, thats all the evidence you need for why the Air Corps cannot take over some or all of the 24/7 SAR tasks currently performed under contract by CHC.

Now, I don't care if CHC do it, or if they get Fozzie Bear Air in from Timbuktu to do it, all I want is to see a top class and integrated service remain in place and I know that without serious systemic and operational investment, the Air Corps CANNOT do it.

punchdrunk

wotswattage wrote: »

I'm seeing lots of Pro CHC spin lately on social media lately mostly centered around the carrying capacity of the S92. How great it is to have such high capacity etc. etc.
You could say its a form of passive aggressive talking down of the Air Corps by those with a vested interest in CHC retaining all 4 bases :pac::pac:

Is it spin or cold hard facts?
The reality is the east coast has quite a lot of Ferry traffic, in the event of another Zeebrugge disaster would a couple of 139s be up to the job?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise

If I recall correctly the Belgians burned out the winches on the choppers from over use, hence the development of the dual hoist, such as on the S-92, is there a dual hoist available for the 139?

EDIT: there is a dual hoist available for the 139 ðŸ‘ðŸ»

Negative_G

punchdrunk wrote: »

Is it spin or cold hard facts?
The reality is the east coast has quite a lot of Ferry traffic, in the event of another Zeebrugge disaster would a couple of 139s be up to the job?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise

If I recall correctly the Belgians burned out the winches on the choppers from over use, hence the development of the dual hoist, such as on the S-92, is there a dual hoist available for the 139?

This is a complete straw man argument.

Mass casualty maritime emergencies are (thankfully) an extremely rate occurance. You've referred to an accident that happened over thirty years ago. The incident you refer to is vastly different to the "mass casualty" event which CHC were lauding over on social media. I guess people will cling to anything if their job is on the line.

A mass casualty event calls on every resource available. Every single asset, including those of our neighbours are called in. The carrying capacity between a 139 and s92 in this instance is really clutching at straws.

Their is a concerted effort on social media to try and discredit the Air Corps in this debate. These "sockpuppet" accounts, the vast majority of whom are former enlisted personnel know full well that their "assertions" and opinions can't be debated by serving DF members. So in effect, its like an echo chamber.

When I saw someone try and use "service to the state" and "saving lives" as the primary consideration for continuing the CHC contract I knew that CHC personnel were rattled.

Let's call a spade a spade, these employees, like anyone else, are staring down the barrel of losing a job which is extremely well paid. A CHC captain earns in the region of 200k a year. Rear crew close to 100k.

Fear of losing that sort of an income is what's driving the social media mud slinging. Unfortunately, that's the private sector for you.

Absolutely no decision should be taken until the R116 report is published in full.

But surprise, surprise, it keeps being delayed through legal challenges. Very small pool of stakeholders who are involved.

punchdrunk

Negative_G wrote: »

This is a complete straw man argument.

Mass casualty maritime emergencies are (thankfully) an extremely rate occurance. You've referred to an accident that happened over thirty years ago. The incident you refer to is vastly different to the "mass casualty" event which CHC were lauding over on social media. I guess people will cling to anything if their job is on the line.

A mass casualty event calls on every resource available. Every single asset, including those of our neighbours are called in. The carrying capacity between a 139 and s92 in this instance is really clutching at straws.

Their is a concerted effort on social media to try and discredit the Air Corps in this debate. These "sockpuppet" accounts, the vast majority of whom are former enlisted personnel know full well that their "assertions" and opinions can't be debated by serving DF members. So in effect, its like an echo chamber.

When I saw someone try and use "service to the state" and "saving lives" as the primary consideration for continuing the CHC contract I knew that CHC personnel were rattled.

Let's call a spade a spade, these employees, like anyone else, are staring down the barrel of losing a job which is extremely well paid. A CHC captain earns in the region of 200k a year. Rear crew close to 100k.

Fear of losing that sort of an income is what's driving the social media mud slinging. Unfortunately, that's the private sector for you.

Absolutely no decision should be taken until the R116 report is published in full.

But surprise, surprise, it keeps being delayed through legal challenges. Very small pool of stakeholders who are involved.

I never compared those posts to the Zeebrugge incident the like of which yes, are thankfully very rare- but my point stands; they can happen and should be planned for. The cost of waiting on two west coast S-92s to arrive on scene or the UK coastguard to pitch in could make all the difference in a mass casualty event, should it be the only consideration in any contract? Of course not but it does highlight the capability difference and a potential pitfall of trying to cut corners.

Negative_G

punchdrunk wrote: »

I never compared those posts to the Zeebrugge incident the like of which yes, are thankfully very rare- but my point stands; they can happen and should be planned for. The cost of waiting on two west coast S-92s to arrive on scene or the UK coastguard to pitch in could make all the difference in a mass casualty event, should it be the only consideration in any contract? Of course not but it does highlight the capability difference and a potential pitfall of trying to cut corners.

Of course it should be considered but statistics and the occurances of such events have to be considered. There is a balance to be met.

In every scenario there is risk, you put in place mitigation to reduce the consequences of that risk if it comes to fruition.

Do you happen to know the statistics of how many flight hours were spent on on island or inshore operations by R115 and R117 over the last decade?

The simple reality is the east coast does not require the capability of an S92. Its completely overkill.

As regards cutting corners, have you read the Air Corps submission? Or are you basing your opinion on your own conclusions and the emotional prerogative that is being broadcast by sock puppet accounts on social media who are by all accounts CHC emoloyees slinging mud because they are in fear of losing their job.

do you have an opinion on the R116 report and the delays it has experienced? Do you perhaps have an opinion of the situation regarding the use of Night vision equipment by CHC and purchase of same?

For the record. I'd rather see AC assets deployed overseas but the lack of political will isn't there. If it can be proven that an additional service can be adequately staffed and provided in the domestic setting, I'd settle for that. I'd rather see a portion of a €1 billion contract go to the defence forces than CHC.

There are a number of easy incentives (cash is king) which can be introduced to remedy the HR issues which are consistently referred to.

I note IALPA had an article published today supporting their CHC members. It would be interesting to see which side of the line they would fall when there are a number of Aer Lingus pilots who have returned to the Air Corps due to COVID, who would be in line to be involved in a potential SAR service.

Negative_G

Dohvolle wrote: »

Presumably when they return to flying for the DF, where representation (Other than RACO) is illegal, they Leave IALPA?

Doubt it.

wotswattage

Negative_G wrote: »

Of course it should be considered but statistics and the occurances of such events have to be considered. There is a balance to be met.

In every scenario there is risk, you put in place mitigation to reduce the consequences of that risk if it comes to fruition.

Do you happen to know the statistics of how many flight hours were spent on on island or inshore operations by R115 and R117 over the last decade?

The simple reality is the east coast does not require the capability of an S92. Its completely overkill.

As regards cutting corners, have you read the Air Corps submission? Or are you basing your opinion on your own conclusions and the emotional prerogative that is being broadcast by sock puppet accounts on social media who are by all accounts CHC emoloyees slinging mud because they are in fear of losing their job.

do you have an opinion on the R116 report and the delays it has experienced? Do you perhaps have an opinion of the situation regarding the use of Night vision equipment by CHC and purchase of same?

For the record. I'd rather see AC assets deployed overseas but the lack of political will isn't there. If it can be proven that an additional service can be adequately staffed and provided in the domestic setting, I'd settle for that. I'd rather see a portion of a €1 billion contract go to the defence forces than CHC.

There are a number of easy incentives (cash is king) which can be introduced to remedy the HR issues which are consistently referred to.

I note IALPA had an article published today supporting their CHC members. It would be interesting to see which side of the line they would fall when there are a number of Aer Lingus pilots who have returned to the Air Corps due to COVID, who would be in line to be involved in a potential SAR service.

Have you read the Air Corps submission? Is it in the public domain?
I feel its not fair to comment at all unless we can see what has been put on the table.

For what its worth I don't think CHC have covered themselves in glory over the course of this contract, though I'd be very wary of the capability the Air Corps would be able to provide given the historic manpower issues and complete lack of experience in SAR lately.

Negative_G

wotswattage wrote: »

Have you read the Air Corps submission? Is it in the public domain?
I feel its not fair to comment at all unless we can see what has been put on the table.

For what its worth I don't think CHC have covered themselves in glory over the course of this contract, though I'd be very wary of the capability the Air Corps would be able to provide given the historic manpower issues and complete lack of experience in SAR lately.

I haven't read the Air Corps submission. I haven't read the CHC proposal either which will have to likely deal with the top cover issue aswell.

Like any commercial proposal, these documents aren't supposed to be in the public domain. They're presented to the decision makers and while the government has a less than stellar history of making good sound decisions, you would hope that the best option(s) will be chosen and value for money will have to be considered.

If the AC submission is released, then every operator should be required to publish theirs including full costings.

Media today leading with the state purchasing NVG equipment for CHC back in 2013 and training only commenced in 2018 at a cost of €7.5 million. Good value for money?

SAR isn't rocket science. Can it be learned overnight? No. But with a reasonable lead in time it an approproate level of service can be provided. R116 & R117 both spend much of their time involved in onshore and coastal missions and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but let's be reasonable. Not every tasking is 150nm off the coast in gale force winds at night. It's a discipline that can be learned with proper resourcing and time. It's not some sort of dark art that can only be provided by CHC which ironically is the narrative being pushed all over social media by CHC employees.

Larbre34

If you think their angle is to promote CHC and denigrate the Air Corps, then whats your angle?

Negative_G

Larbre34 wrote: »

If you think their angle is to promote CHC and denigrate the Air Corps, then whats your angle?

I've already said previously that I believe the Air Corps should be striving to send aircraft overseas but regardless of HR and aircraft constraints that is a government decision. The Air Corps dont have any real experience in deploying and sustaining an aircraft overseas for a prolonged period and it's unlikely that'll happen in the short to medium term.

If the AC is to be tasked with purely domestic functions only as seems to be the case, then everything is up for discussion. EAS fell upon the AC as a result of a regional hospital being closed and while it had teething problems, it is now a well established service. There's a lot of people out there who are alive only for this service and while HEMS is a generally a civilian function, I'd argue that its highly rewarding work which aids with retention of skilled personnel and also a good use of tax payers money.

Your post seems a little confrontational and I can't understand why. There is an active campaign of misinformation and denigration ongoing across social media (I suspect a few new accounts will be open here shortly) and it doesn't take a genius to see what the agenda is.

This is being driven by people fearful that they are staring down the barrel of a P45, and that is understandable to a point. However, the contract wont be decided on the input of anonymous social media accounts. It doesn't help that serving members of the DF are precluded from engaging in the discussion.

It also doesnt help when the head of the IRCG is putting out very close to what could be considered slanderous tweets about this whole discussion. The same individual only recently made a tweet and as good as said that the R116 incident was entirely the Air Corps fault. When another twitter user suggested that the lack of NVG equipment *may* have *contributed* to the accident, he was shut down out of "respect for the families". The accident has been weaponised by some for a specific purpose. Cynical commentary might suggest that the delay in publishing the report is tactical as some of the findings may be unfavorable towards certain stakeholders involved. But until it is published, it will remain to be seen.

This behaviour is unbecoming of someone holding the postion of head of the IRCG which is likely why it seems to be open season for other CHC enployees to do similar.

What's my angle? I'd like to see a mature discussion had which results in a contract and service which provides a properly resourced and professional SAR service.

If that means a mix of purely civil or part civil/part military I don't really care but it is tax payers money being used to pay for it and if there is scope for the state to save potentially hundreds of millions of euros then all options must be carefully considered.

roadmaster

The mentioned article about the NVGs

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/government-spend-75million-helicopters-night-20514497.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16201296192468&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

speedbird777

Air corps unlikely to get any role in new contract. Can barely manage what they have yet alone a dedicated sar unit.

Also left it to late to start this campaign. Should of started 10 years ago to begin training crewmen up and get them up to paramedic level. Some of them are emts for the air ambulance based in athlone and that had to be done outside by ESTI because the army wouldn't run an emt course.

No helicopters either capable of sar. Would need to buy 2, train pilots, recruit and train more mechanics etc, which inevitable would leave for chc because conditions are much better.

Maybe when they get laughed out of the tender discussions they'll focus on the the next 10 years to be in a better position to bid.

Psychlops

speedbird777 wrote: »

Air corps unlikely to get any role in new contract. Can barely manage what they have yet alone a dedicated sar unit.

Also if you are in the SAR game its SAR 24/7/365 its not cargo slinging on Monday, PC9 on Tuesday, SAR on Wednesday, Casa on Thursday, this would have to be a 100% dedicated thing which means any asset declared for SAR does exactly that & not one thing else.


I read over on another forum that when SAR was for the IAC that the Army very rarely got any rotary assets due to the AC being so small that they couldnt give any airfrrame over, yet when they lost SAR suddenly all these assets became available even to the FCA/RDF.



https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/forum/defence-forces/air-corps/28274-no-role-for-the-air-corps-says-minister-for-defence-in-sar?p=685105#post685105





It cant be like that pulling resources by robbing Peter to pay Paul for the future, if something is a declared asset as SAR then it stays that way until its time to buy a new Helicopter.





Have a read of this thread below, some are ex IAC I would imagine, either way in my mind just leave the Military to do the Military stuff & leave the Civvies to SAR.


https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/forum/defence-forces/air-corps/28274-no-role-for-the-air-corps-says-minister-for-defence-in-sar

speedbird777

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Ac dont care your sar crew. Your a number, a number needed for gaurd of honors, barrack duties, ranges, fitness test, promotion the list goes on and on as to why you would not be left to be dedicated sar.

Let alone keep there current commitments to eas, gasu, arw ect...

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the Air Corps can do SAR need only look at the Dh248 accident report, the recommendations and wonder how many were implemented.

Like the Air Ambulanc operation, the State will utilise the DF and the Air Corps, not because it is the best use of assets, but because the DF will do it on the cheap.
Do you think a civvy operator would be keeping an aircraft in a tent? Even the Charity operation in North Cork keeps their A109 in a hangar.

100%.
If they were serious about that gig, it would be a DF ap in the back too.
Just a box ticker for the pilots that's all that is. Flying all day every day no questions asked. Building hours.
If there was no air ambulance theyd still be flying around with no purpose just hard to justify when asked.

Psychlops

What sickens me is year on year (dont get me wrong I am a huge fan of the PDF especially IAC) but they (DoD) constantly are the only branch of the Govt to hand money back every year & play it off as a saving to the state when in fact they should never be handing it back, it should be used, Ships laid up, Poor Troop accommodation etc, in fact they should be asking for more money.

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

What sickens me is year on year (dont get me wrong I am a huge fan of the PDF especially IAC) but they (DoD) constantly are the only branch of the Govt to hand money back every year & play it off as a saving to the state when in fact they should never be handing it back, it should be used, Ships laid up, Poor Troop accommodation etc, in fact they should be asking for more money.

For the DOD, as long as they handle themselves, then they don't care about the DF... Short of gutting the Department and starting again I don't see how that mindset is going to change...

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade, these employees, like anyone else, are staring down the barrel of losing a job which is extremely well paid. A CHC captain earns in the region of 200k a year. Rear crew close to 100k.

Fear of losing that sort of an income is what's driving the social media mud slinging. Unfortunately, that's the private sector for you.

Absolutely no decision should be taken until the R116 report is published in full.

But surprise, surprise, it keeps being delayed through legal challenges. Very small pool of stakeholders who are involved.

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

speedbird777

Alkers wrote: »

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

If chc loose it, and another commercial company gets it, it would merely be a change in uniforms and logos.
The latter would never happen. Not in our life times anyway

Alkers

speedbird777 wrote: »

If chc loose it, and another commercial company gets it, it would merely be a change in uniforms and logos.
The latter would never happen. Not in our life times anyway

But that diminishes the argument of all this ac bashing being a result of people being afraid for their jobs

Negative_G

Alkers wrote: »

If CHC were to lose this contract to another commercial entity, the existing employees would likely have Tupe rights to continue their employment with the new contractor. I wonder how that would work for it going to a state asset

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Possibly they aren't aware of their rights?

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=208

Commonly known as Tupe regulations, if a government contract is awarded to another entity, the individual employees are legally entitled to remain in their employment with the entity awarded the contract, at the same (or better) terms and conditions (excluding pension iirc).

Negative_G

Alkers wrote: »

Possibly they aren't aware of their rights?

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=208

Commonly known as Tupe regulations, if a government contract is awarded to another entity, the individual employees are legally entitled to remain in their employment with the entity awarded the contract, at the same (or better) terms and conditions (excluding pension iirc).

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

Alkers

Negative_G wrote: »

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

Yes I'm very unsure how it works if a state body assumes a function that it wasn't undertaking previously. The legislation envisages cleaners or lorry drivers but when it comes to specialisms such as pilots which are type rated to certain aircraft this might further complicate things also

speedbird777

Negative_G wrote: »

Every day is a school day. You would imagine their unions are providing them with this advice if not already. IALPA have publically stated their concerns over the loss of their members jobs.

I imagine the issue is here is that Dept of Transport (Government) can elect to task the Air Corps with whatever area of responsibility they wish and provide additional resources etc so therefore the new contract, when it is published, may only seek to fulfil two bases and maintain perhaps 3 S-92s. In this instance, it isn't a like for like contract and therefore the "tupe regulations" wouldn't apply. Unless I'm mistaken, the government can tailor any contract they wish to fulfill their obligations.

As a state body, the AC don't have to "tender" as such. I assume that whatever submission was put forward will be scrutanised to ascertain how much additional resources will be required to provide the same level of service that currently exists. If that can be achieved and the AC proposal is significantly cheaper then it's a value for money consideration.

I'm under no illusion that if the AC are successful that they will face massive pressure to ensure the integrity of any service provided. This will likely mean additional commitment schemes and significant extra allowances for aircrew and techs and probably contracting out maintenance to civilian contractors as is currently the case with the GASU helicopters.

They will have to tender. That's what's happening at the minute. Dept of transport are not goina give ac money to fund there little project of east coast sar and still fund 3 other bases. 3 civilian and one military base on a small island isn't going to work.

speedbird777

Negative_G wrote: »

If this is the case then why are there numerous CHC enployees on twitter and elsewhere bemoaning the potential loss of employment?

If another operator is awarded the contract, there is no guarantee that aircraft will be leased and existing personnel retained.

The type of companies involved in this type of service are monstrous and can draw on a massive pool of people and resources.

Itll come down to what makes fiscal sense.

Unfortunately theres no cheap way of running sar. I duno how the ac think they can do it cheaper.

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

They did before.
I'm sure some desk pilot has his eye on some second hand RAF Sea Kings that can be bought for a song..
And then, just like the Air Ambulance, air corps pilots can fly the sea kings, and they can hire the former CHC AP/Winchmen to work out the back.
And the crew deployed to Shannon can live in the nearby Caravan Park in Lahinch, the Sligo Crew can kip in Finner, and now that Waterford Airport is quiet, the crew there can sleep on Kipmats in the old terminal.
Of course they wouldn't be paid MSA because it's a civvy job they are doing so more money saved...

Yep. Available 24/7
Monday to Friday
Until 5pm

Markcheese

speedbird777 wrote: »

Unfortunately theres no cheap way of running sar. I duno how the ac think they can do it cheaper.

Maybe it's not to do with cheaper - retained capability - competition, there could be many reasons other than price ,
And the air corp taking over the east coast , and providing 2 dedicated helicopters is unlikely to save anything anyway ,
2 organisations, more aircraft overall ,
Not to say that it couldn't be a worthwhile excercise , ( might force a more realistic restructuring of the air corp and military in general )

speedbird777

Markcheese wrote: »

Maybe it's not to do with cheaper - retained capability - competition, there could be many reasons other than price ,
And the air corp taking over the east coast , and providing 2 dedicated helicopters is unlikely to save anything anyway ,
2 organisations, more aircraft overall ,
Not to say that it couldn't be a worthwhile excercise , ( might force a more realistic restructuring of the air corp and military in general )

Stick to there primary role - support the army
Leave the coast gaurd to do SAR

If the AC need more money, theres other ways to go about it...not bidding of the sar contract and comming up miles short.

I'm speaking only of helicopter sar btw. Maybe there is a fixed wing element they could take up.

speedbird777

Dohvolle wrote: »

Taking on SAR will drag the Air Corps further from any military role.
Better off getting some useful asset such as military transport aircraft. Embarrassing seeing Volga-Dnepr collect our emergency aid for India while the rest of Europe have military transport aircraft doing the job.

Yeah absolutely that would be ideal.
I was only saying sar because its 24/7 so alot of ppl get a bump in wages. You need the base to be 24/7. Everything from atc, fire, cooks, etc they all need to be on duty pay. Where as atm very little is 24/7 bar the barrack security.

Larbre34

speedbird777 wrote: »

Stick to there primary role - support the army
Leave the coast gaurd to do SAR

If the AC need more money, theres other ways to go about it...not bidding of the sar contract and comming up miles short.

I'm speaking only of helicopter sar btw. Maybe there is a fixed wing element they could take up.

The arrival of the 295s will certainly mean an increase in capacity to provide reserve top cover, but really it should only be limited to relief / reserve. The PC-12s are not suitable aircraft to loiter offshore.

roadmaster

At least we are start to be honest now

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/air-corps-bid-for-search-and-rescue-services-would-result-in-job-losses-union-warns-1.4558591?mode=amp

Psychlops

roadmaster wrote: »

At least we are start to be honest now

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/air-corps-bid-for-search-and-rescue-services-would-result-in-job-losses-union-warns-1.4558591?mode=amp

Because they cant, look I love the IAC & will champion them to the end of the earth but SAR is not for them.



Leave the Military to the Military taskings & SAR to the SAR Professionals, also while were at it, take the GASU fleet & let AGS fly it & free up those Mil pilots flying them back to actual Military tasks.

roadmaster

I see this morning on IRCG facebook pages tgey are sharing a statment from the Irish Mountain Rescue over a submission they made that was leaked. Has this anything to with the SAR or whats it all about?

punchdrunk

roadmaster wrote: »

I see this morning on IRCG facebook pages tgey are sharing a statment from the Irish Mountain Rescue over a submission they made that was leaked. Has this anything to with the SAR or whats it all about?

They’re pissed because an internal technical document between themselves and the Irish coastguard is being erroneously politicised by that Gob****e Craughwell in his crusade to set SAR back twenty years by giving it back to the IAC

punchdrunk

Dohvolle wrote: »

Tell us how you really feel.

Am I wrong? Sergeant Wikipedia would be dangerous if the senate actually ever did anything of use

speedbird777

That senator is just a clown representing an organisation of clowns. Seen half the iac fleet flying round Europe last week, not on missions or training, but to be serviced because they dont have the skill set any more to do there own.

They cant even do right what they have atm, let alone introduce a full time sar...but yeah let's give them a billion euro and see what they can muster up.

speedbird777

The fact you think it's about equipment leads me to believe you have no idea.

It's not about helis. It's about employment. Its the same reason weve brand new navy ships sitting in the naval base.

The equipment is only as good as the people using it. And until they fix wages, contracts, pensions then its doomed to fail.

And changing these conditions for everyone post 2013 when the contracts got real bad for new entrants, and bare in mind you'll have to change it for all defence forces personnel, you'll see how quickly eats into your "600 million".