Irish Air Corps

Maskhadov

I meant why doesnt the UK allow mainland Europe provide its aircover ??

€3 or €4bn would more than plenty for 22 Eurofighters. We can send all of our pilots to another country to train (we currently have mexicans over here training on the PC9). The costs invovled arent much. If you divide €4bn by 30 years you see how cheap the aircraft really are.

Yes I agree we need more helicopters, transport planes and maritime patrol aircraft. If we spent the same on defence as the rest of europe then we would have a good defence forces.

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote:

Well can you give an example since 1945 when we have needed them to defend the State?

There was the occasional Canberra overflight in the 60s or 70s, wasn't there?

When's the last time Ireland needed field artillery units to defend the State? You have those.

NTM

patbundy

Manic Moran wrote:

There was the occasional Canberra overflight in the 60s or 70s, wasn't there?

When's the last time Ireland needed field artillery units to defend the State? You have those.

NTM

true,when was the irish goverment was used aswell

FiSe

Oh yea, artillery pieces, lovely polished and paraded in front of general Irish public. Beautiful museum pieces

Anyway, this discussion isn't about money, or is it? If yes, so how come, that Czech AF has few brand new Grippens, some ALCA trainers and their Police are getting 8 new Eurocopters 135's, them "poor eastern europian" bastards now will have 12 of these for police and medical use only, plus some Bells 412... I am not talking about their military 'copters now... Country about the same size like Ireland.

My point is:
- money is not a mater here, there're millions wasted every month
- military / fighter jets aren't so important at this stage
- IAC should have at least some jets for training and keep pilots up-to-date with this type of aircrafts
- if the need/will for fighter jets arise, it would be much easier and cheaper to pay for them and for any/or additional crew training


Oh, by the way, Irish Fougas are silver overall, this paint gets dirty and very "tired" as times go by. But it's silver really

komsomol

theres only one fogua left in ireland, and it doesn't have a jet engine. Air Corps canibalised them all ages ago. Same with most of our aircraft, they dont even have the proper funding for spare parts.

bit of unless topical information there for ya.

FiSe

komsomol wrote:

theres only one fogua left in ireland, and it doesn't have a jet engine. Air Corps canibalised them all ages ago. Same with most of our aircraft, they dont even have the proper funding for spare parts.

bit of unless topical information there for ya.

You've heard it somewhere? If yes, so don't trust everything you hear...

cushtac

Maskhadov wrote:

€3 or €4bn would more than plenty for 22 Eurofighters. We can send all of our pilots to another country to train (we currently have mexicans over here training on the PC9). The costs invovled arent much. If you divide €4bn by 30 years you see how cheap the aircraft really are.

Where are you getting these figures? Are you factoring in the cost of future upgrades for all the equipment involved? And training abroad isn't cheap, especially the kind of training needed for fighters. The reason the Mexicans are training here is because Pilatus arranged it as part of a plane buy, the Air Corp is getting a few rather expensive smoke pods out it.

Maskhadov wrote:

Yes I agree we need more helicopters, transport planes and maritime patrol aircraft. If we spent the same on defence as the rest of europe then we would have a good defence forces.

We have a good Defence Force, but even if we spent percentage of GDP on as the rest of Europe we couldn't afford all of the above. If a choice has to be made the kit that will be of the most use should be bought.

FiSe wrote:

Oh yea, artillery pieces, lovely polished and paraded in front of general Irish public. Beautiful museum pieces

The DF actually has modern & useful 105mm light guns, as used by both the US, Australian & British armed forces.

FiSe wrote:

Anyway, this discussion isn't about money, or is it? If yes, so how come, that Czech AF has few brand new Grippens, some ALCA trainers and their Police are getting 8 new Eurocopters 135's, them "poor eastern europian" bastards now will have 12 of these for police and medical use only, plus some Bells 412... I am not talking about their military 'copters now... Country about the same size like Ireland.

Firstly the Czechs joined NATO, requiring them to modernise their armed forces. As a result they've spent an average of 2% of GDP on defence since 1993. Secondly their police helicopters would not be included in the defence budget.

FiSe wrote:

- money is not a mater here, there're millions wasted every month
- military / fighter jets aren't so important at this stage
- IAC should have at least some jets for training and keep pilots up-to-date with this type of aircrafts
- if the need/will for fighter jets arise, it would be much easier and cheaper to pay for them and for any/or additional crew training

- money does matter here, there may be millions getting wasted every month but that doesn't mean the public are going to want to see it getting spent on a massive jump in defence spending.
- agreed.
- the AC doesn't need jet trainers, it has the PC-9M.
- it doesn't work like that, using fighters effectively means hundreds of hours training for all involved with the equipment they'd be using.

FiSe

Firstly the Czechs joined NATO, requiring them to modernise their armed forces. As a result they've spent an average of 2% of GDP on defence since 1993.

But, is there something about jet fighters? I mean, Czechs could have some type of agreement with Slovaks - MiG29's, or Poles - F16's or Germans. But, they've decieded to go this way instead...

Secondly their police helicopters would not be included in the defence budget.

I haven't said that, but this is was one more point about the money issue... Their EC135's costs 3,5 - 4 mil euro each, roughly, so don't quote me on that. Which, probably goes from Department of Justice - Police - pocket and, back on island soil, this is "nothing" in Irish budget, so one more time, is it really about money?
Garda doesn't have their own pilots, no matter the name of GASU stand for, and all three 'planes have IAC -military?- numbers. But it doesn't matter here.

The point is, again, how come, that some, in our eyes, poor nation can afford to buy jets and helicopters, pay for their pilots and mechanics, their training, their excercise? Now they are in Sweden on shooting practice...
With, I have to say, public on "their" side, the only discussion was and still is Grippens or F16's?
Czechs don't need jets, but they have them, do Belgians need jets? Portugees? Dutch? I don't think so, but they have them as well...
I don't want to be smart arse here or stir water, I just want to know why some people out there fighting against fighters so hard?
Just give me one more reason, no money, no public, no hypothetical agression, no "need for other equipment" frase and I will say: "Ireland is better off without jets..."

cushtac

FiSe wrote:

But, is there something about jet fighters? I mean, Czechs could have some type of agreement with Slovaks - MiG29's, or Poles - F16's or Germans. But, they've decieded to go this way instead...

They wanted to join NATO, which meant they had to contribute to the collective air power somehow. They decided to get modern fighters, which insn't surprising since they already had fighters from the Warsaw Pact days.

FiSe wrote:

I haven't said that, but this is was one more point about the money issue... Their EC135's costs 3,5 - 4 mil euro each, roughly, so don't quote me on that. Which, probably goes from Department of Justice - Police - pocket and, back on island soil, this is "nothing" in Irish budget, so one more time, is it really about money?

How much do you think fighters cost?

FiSe wrote:

Garda doesn't have their own pilots, no matter the name of GASU stand for, and all three 'planes have IAC -military?- numbers. But it doesn't matter here.

The GASU aircraft are flown by the Air Corp because the law prohibits state aircraft being flown by civilians, so they were entered on the military register. The planes were bought by the Gardaí and all the costs are covered by the Gardaí, so they're definitely not military assets.

FiSe wrote:

The point is, again, how come, that some, in our eyes, poor nation can afford to buy jets and helicopters, pay for their pilots and mechanics, their training, their excercise? Now they are in Sweden on shooting practice....

Are we sure they're that poor? But let's assume they are, how do we know they can afford it? How do we know they're not skimping on some other area of public spending in order to afford this kit?

FiSe wrote:

With, I have to say, public on "their" side, the only discussion was and still is Grippens or F16's?

The public is on their side because they went through years of Soviet oppression & they are determined that it won't happen again.

FiSe wrote:

Czechs don't need jets, but they have them, do Belgians need jets? Portugees? Dutch? I don't think so, but they have them as well...

The Czechs, Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese all fear or feared Russian agression and feel they need them. The Czechs, Belgians and the Dutch have all suffered invasion & oppression within living memory, it's as good a reason as any to protect yourself.

FiSe wrote:

I don't want to be smart arse here or stir water, I just want to know why some people out there fighting against fighters so hard?
Just give me one more reason, no money, no public, no hypothetical agression, no "need for other equipment" frase and I will say: "Ireland is better off without jets..."

It's not that Ireland is better off without jets, it's that Ireland is better off getting other stuff first.

I'm not against fighters, but you have to look at this realistically. Defence is not an important issue with the voting public, therefore it's not an important consideration for the politicians. We didn't have the money or the inclination to fund defence on the scale that was needed, this has gone on so long that this idea has become ingrained. If we strike oil big time & the dosh comes flooding in, then we can buy them. But until then the government of the day will always find something better to spend the cash on.

Manic Moran

I believe the Czechs don't need to fund a Naval Service at 30 million per yacht, plus expenses.

NTM

FiSe

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe the Czechs don't need to fund a Naval Service at 30 million per yacht, plus expenses.

NTM

No they don't, but they have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, small scale contingents, but it cost something as well and they never got a tram for "well a few" millions over budget niether...
Not a fair point, but let's not mix two different things togheter, shall we? :rolleyes:

komsomol

FiSe wrote:

You've heard it somewhere? If yes, so don't trust everything you hear...

I spent two weeks in baldonnel. If that isn't a direct source of confirmed information then i dont know what is.

FiSe

komsomol wrote:

I spent two weeks in baldonnel. If that isn't a direct source of confirmed information then i dont know what is.

There's two of them in there

BrianD

FiSe wrote:

The point is, again, how come, that some, in our eyes, poor nation can afford to buy jets and helicopters, pay for their pilots and mechanics, their training, their excercise? Now they are in Sweden on shooting practice...
With, I have to say, public on "their" side, the only discussion was and still is Grippens or F16's?
Czechs don't need jets, but they have them, do Belgians need jets? Portugees? Dutch? I don't think so, but they have them as well...
I don't want to be smart arse here or stir water, I just want to know why some people out there fighting against fighters so hard?
Just give me one more reason, no money, no public, no hypothetical agression, no "need for other equipment" frase and I will say: "Ireland is better off without jets..."

The North koreans have an extensive military of all arms and have just developed and tested a nuclear device yet 2 million of their population died of starvation last year and many face the same fate this year.

Many of these countries have a military mindset that has developed over centuries and less than 80 years ago most were at war with each other. This is why they develope their armed forces.

Ireland can afford these jets but doesn;t require them. I'm sure we could also afford to buy tactical ground to ground missiles and maybe our own nuclear programme. Why bother with jets when our own missiles (and a nuke) would be much better?

TempestSabre

I don't see the point in buying anything beyond hawks myself, but since people are happy for the govt to spend a billion plus on decentralisation to gain a few votes why not on jets. I'd prefer it was all spent on health but obviously this govt isn't going to sort that mess out. If a finance minister doesn't have a bank account what hope is there...:eek:

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote:

Why bother with jets when our own missiles (and a nuke) would be much better?

Nukes are highly cost-effective, but for some reason, people seem more worried about pontificating about moral high grounds, and whatnot, as opposed to a sensible strategy.

NTM

TempestSabre

Manic Moran wrote:

Nukes are highly cost-effective, but for some reason, people seem more worried about pontificating about moral high grounds, and whatnot, as opposed to a sensible strategy.

NTM

We can't build a tunnel to the airport or a national aquactic center, but we'd be fine with nuclear weapons.

Dub13

I think I would leave Europe if our Government ever got its hands on nuclear weapons.

rushbrooke

The 2001 International Team Report on the crash of the Aer Lingus Viiscount on the 24th of March 1968 contains the following:
"The alledged statement of an Irish Air Corps member that the solution should be "closer to home"..."
Whats all this about does anybody know ?

Steyr

More or less means that it could have been a missile from the UK.

rushbrooke

Steyr wrote:

More or less means that it could have been a missile from the UK.

Thats not very close to home

Steyr

Its our closest neighbour....duh. It was rumoured to be a missile from either an RAF AC or RN Vessel.

rushbrooke

Steyr wrote:

Its our closest neighbour....duh. It was rumoured to be a missile from either an RAF AC or RN Vessel.

Pelican may have something to say about that !!

rushbrooke

ambro25 wrote:

I believe Fougas were French, and Potez was (is still?) a French aircraft manufacturer.

Wiki'ed Fouga Magister which features a linkie to the wiki'ed Irish Air Corps

Google is your best friend (maybe even Google.fr - give me a pm'd shout if you want a quick translation of anything you find).

As for what jets to equip the Irish Air Force with, I only just noticed in late August that the Belgians (:eek: ) have a sh*tpot full of F-16s, and now at least a couple of Warts (A-10s) (anyone flying to Brussels South with Ryanair, look out the hangars right of the terminal building if/whenever doors are left open ).

... come to think of it, a few A-10s kinda sense: built like brick sh*thouses, relatively simple and cheap to run, very polyvalent platforms. Not to mention the "don't f*ck with me" factor that immediately attaches to them

Thanks for the info and offer of help....still struggling to get info...will keep trying to get info on Potez.

Manic Moran

and now at least a couple of Warts (A-10s) (anyone flying to Brussels South with Ryanair, look out the hangars right of the terminal building if/whenever doors are left open ).

First I've heard of it, and I've found no infrmation on the net about Belgium buying any. Are you sure they weren't just American ones passing through, partaking in exercises, or staging for the Charleroi Air Show?

NTM

Gablin

klong wrote:

Also, wandering off the topic title a slight bit, does anybody think we should get a small aircraft carrier, pop a few Ospreys [if they ever get built] on it and use it for the fisheries patrol and UN mission reinforcement roles? Thinking about, it could also be a useful recruiting tool for the defence forces.

I'm sorry if this hasn't been said before, but........................

I don't see that happening. Ever.

If I wasn't the nice person I am, I'd be typing "BAAHAHAHAHA....."

But I'm not someone who'd do that.

Simply put, there is no requirement for a carrier when modern land-based aircraft can do the jobs required of the Irish Defence Forces just as well.

Steyr

Those A10's are USAFE ( UNITED STATES AIR FORCE in EUROPE ) mostly based at Spangdahlem AB in Germany.

rushbrooke

ButcherOfNog wrote: »

Hi rushbrooke,

One hell of an old topic you brought up there

We now have a Military forum for discussing these topics, I'm moving the thread there, the guys there can probably help you out if anyone can.

Just wondering why Threads dealing with the Viscount 1968 crash are all closed...any reason ?
Best regards

OS119

rushbrooke wrote: »

Just wondering why Threads dealing with the Viscount 1968 crash are all closed...any reason ?
Best regards

because the answers are the same on every thread on every internet board that the question is asked on - the official, professional report carried out at the time found no evidence whatsoever of any 'foreign body' in the wreckage. it crashed for all the normal reasons that aircraft crash for - there was no evidence of any dirty deeds or cover-up, it just crashed without any help from anyone else.

the questions also get asked in the same way - a casual request for vague information of geekish historical unimportance, rising to the normal accusations that either an IAC aircraft or an RAF or RN missile shot it down for some unfathomable reason and without any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the inquiry should have gone in that direction. all very obvious and all very predictable - seen it on polly.ie, here and IMO so far...

punchdrunk

because of the way they invariably end up,the Walter Mitty forum would be embarrassed by them tbh...

muppet01

According to ths months Air Forces Monthly the RAF currently has 38 Hawks in storage.Probably ideal for the IAC as they dont have the infrastructure to support anything bigger at the moment.All those rumours regarding the Tornado are just that, rumours.The only Eurofighter in IAC colours wwe will ever see will be an Airfix kit im afraid:rolleyes:

punchdrunk

muppet01 wrote: »

According to ths months Air Forces Monthly the RAF currently has 38 Hawks in storage.Probably ideal for the IAC as they dont have the infrastructure to support anything bigger at the moment.All those rumours regarding the Tornado are just that, rumours.The only Eurofighter in IAC colours wwe will ever see will be an Airfix kit im afraid:rolleyes:

Hawks?
Tornados?
Eurofighters?

if we asked really,really,really nice we might get these

muppet01

haha!!

There is also a rumour of a squadron of mig 21's fresh from ebay.....

concussion

The RAF T1's are only training aircraft while the upgraded T1A's, while fitted for 2xSidewinder and 1x30 mm pod, lack a radar and need to be directed to their targets via radio by an external radar.

rushbrooke

punchdrunk wrote: »

because of the way they invariably end up,the Walter Mitty forum would be embarrassed by them tbh...

Viscount Crash
Viscount Crash

On the 24th of March 1968 an Aer Lingus Viscount aircraft crashed off Tuskar Rock on the south east coast of Ireland. All 61 persons on board perished.

An investigation was immediately initiated and a report was published in 1970. This Report concluded amongst other things that the presence of a second aircraft in the vicinity on that day was “inescapable” but was not positively identified. This aircraft was described by 4 witnesses as having very red colour on wings and tail and was not green or white . This sighting took place at Fethard county Wexford around noon . The Viscount crashed at 1210 approx.

The 1970 Investigation states “…….It was thought that perhaps some of these witnesses had observed the flight of one of the search aeroplanes, a Dove of the Air Corps, which is coloured silver grey, with bright red/orange “dayglo” paint on the extremities, but the Dove aircraft in the vicinity that day did not arrive there until after 1.45 hrs. local time”.


On the following day, the 25th of March , an RAF Shackleton, which was searching for the missing Viscount, reported the presence of a jet aircraft with “definite Irish markings” in the search area .
A letter recently received from a crew member of this Shackleton reported thus

“We did our search as briefed and at some time around lunchtime some hooligan from the Irish Air Force in a Venom suddenly appeared in our area,**You will appreciate that with everyone's eyes*searching downwards to the sea for survivors it is very dangerous to have another aircraft even remotely nearby. Much choice words from the Skipper but then to aggravate things further some other clown had hired another Viscount, filled it with journalists, and it also*appeared in our area. I believe the Skipper threatened to return to base if the other aircraft were not shifted away from the Datum and this seemed to happen.”

This crew member when questioned re. the identity of the aircraft replied

“ Venom vs Vampire, don't know ; they are very similar so best go with what you know. As to markings all I can remember is that we were all happy at the time it was in Irish Air Force livery.

Irish Vampire jets livery is silver grey with red wing tips nose and tail. British Authorities, who were coordinating the search for the missing Viscount at the time reported to the Irish Marine Coordination Center that this aircraft was “ hampering the search” . MRCC made enquiries from the Aer Corps regarding the identity of this Vampire. The IAC reported that there were no Irish military aircraft in the air at that time.
In addition the IAC movement logs published in the 2002 International Study (Appendix 5.2i ) did not record any Vampire jet in the air on the 25th of March. These logs were omitted from the main report until 5 years after its publication and then only after the AAIU were informed of there omissions by Alan McCormick whose brother was killed in the crash. It took 6 months to find them. It is interesting to note that the authors of the 2002 report cast doubt over there veracity. The report refers to the logs thus “ It is noted that this is an operational statement and so, questionable” .
It should be noted that the 1970 Investigation concluded that the proximity of a second aircraft could have caused the Viscount to make an evasive manoeuvre resulting in a spin or spiral dive. The Investigation also reported “There have been several accounts of “upsets” of aircraft being caused by such factors as…..evasive manoeuvres to avoid collision with another aircraft or wake turbulence from another aircraft.”

punchdrunk

look this is Horse**** TBH

eyewitness reports with NO physical evidence don't mean a thing!

my father signed up very soon after the event early in "73 if I remember correctly

there's no way in hell he wouldn't have found out in those years very soon after the event if they're had been some cover up,do you honestly think a tiny force of Irish lads could keep this 100% under wraps?

there was no cover-up or conspiracy,there's no way the loss of an airframe
or more importantly the people involved could have been hushed up

show us the registration of a Vampire that we can't account for?
show us me the names of airmen that we can't account for?

caused by proximity of another airframe?
there's no evidence of this at all

punchdrunk

concussion wrote: »

The RAF T1's are only training aircraft while the upgraded T1A's, while fitted for 2xSidewinder and 1x30 mm pod, lack a radar and need to be directed to their targets via radio by an external radar.

and the sidewinder gives us coverage about as useful as a Meteor phone on a rainy day! :pac:

rushbrooke

Just trying to ascertain the identity of the second aircraft which may not have been involved in any way with the accident.

punchdrunk

well if the observer in the shack can't tell the difference between a vampire (no wingtip tanks) and a venom (wing tip tanks) then I think you can justifiably call his whole account into question

rushbrooke

The AAIU have confirmed that there was a Vampire on site at the time.

punchdrunk

rushbrooke wrote: »

The AAIU have confirmed that there was a Vampire on site at the time.

actually after reading several pages of reports,I can find no reference to this

punchdrunk

"Madam, - The Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) would like to offer some clarification in response to Lorna Siggins's report on March 23rd, "Tuskar Rock crash caused by collision - RAF man".

The report states that Squadron Leader E Evers (RAF, retired) has established that the Aer Lingus Viscount which crashed on the March 24th, 1968 with the loss of 61 people was struck accidentally while a Fouga Magister training aircraft from the Air Corps was responding to a request from the Viscount to check its undercarriage. Such a statement is entirely unfounded.

The Fouga Magister trainer came into service with the Air Corps only in 1976, a full eight years after the tragedy at Tuskar Rock. The six Fouga aircraft (since retired, and none of which were equipped with ejection seats) had an illustrious career with the Air Corps with no hull or pilot loss during their entire service. Moreover, records provided by the Air Corps during the course of the investigation clearly show that the only aircraft to fly from Baldonnel on that fateful day were a Dove and an Allouette III, which were responding in a search and rescue role to the reported loss of the Viscount.

Inaccurate statements such as this are unhelpful and indeed must be distressing for the families who gathered in Cobh, Co Cork on Saturday to remember the loss of their loved ones. May they rest in peace. - Yours, etc,

JURGEN WHYTE, Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, Air Accident Investigation Unit, Department of Transport, Dublin 2. "

rushbrooke

Yesterdays posting DTG 061139 is 100% accurate. The identity of the aeroplane sighted by four witnesses on the 24th March in the Fethard-On-Sea area between 1145 and 1215 has not been ascertained. The following day, the 25th, an IAC Vampire was sighted in the area. This Vampire was sighted by a Shackleton and the AAIU confirmed (by telecon.) that there was an unauthorised flight by an IAC Vampire on that day. The IAC informed MRCC based in Haulbowline that there was no IAC aircraft in the area at the time that this Vampire was sighted. The log sheets provided by the IAC to the International Team also indicate no Vampire flights on this day. The Study published in Nov. 2001 questioned the veracity of these log sheets see 5.2.3.2.2 Assesment. This study also noted "the alleged statement of an Irish Air Corps member that the solution should be "closer to home". Finally the Review of Files carried out in 2000 has the following entry "It should be noted that even if the presence of another flying object in the area were proven there is still no evidence to show that it might have had any connection with the accident to EI-AOM."

punchdrunk

Rush brooke it's impossible to quote you when you throw up a huge block of text

you haven't countered anything I've posted?

the most obvious flaw in this conspiracy theory is simple
if you were familiar with the workings of the IAC you'd know that a flight by a Vampire pre-lunch time on a Sunday back in the 60's was about as likely as Ireland attempting to join the space race

punchdrunk

DTG 071139

what does this even mean?



"It should be noted that even if the presence of another flying object in the area were proven there is still no evidence to show that it might have had any connection with the accident to EI-AOM.

to me that's the proof...there's ZERO evidence that the IAC had anything to do with this
or are you calling into question Mr Whyte's character? if so that's slander! likewise questioning the logs held by the IAC with no evidence is slanderous


infact I'd hazard a guess that "closer to home" is in reference to Aer Lingus
you see statements like that,when they are un-credited are simply hearsay,
they can be twisted to suit just about any agenda....what's yours???

rushbrooke

DTG = Date Time Group !! Were unauthorised flights common in the good old days ?

punchdrunk

rushbrooke wrote: »

DTG = Date Time Group !! Were unauthorised flights common in the good old days ?

why are you using DTG on a public discussion board? it's not something most civvies's like myself are familiar with

I've no idea about unauthorised flights,you'd have to ask a vamp pilot about that

punchdrunk

lets stick to FACTS

it was the 70th crash of a Viscount

Aer Lingus's 2nd fatal Viscount crash within a year

over a quarter of all Viscounts crashed

Of that relatively large number of 445 aircraft there have been over 150 accidents and incidents, including 144 hull losses

rushbrooke

The object of all the research is to try and identify the aircraft which was sighted over Fethard at noon approx on 24th March 1968. It is suggested that this is a legitimate exercise. Do you ?. This aircraft was seen coming from the northwest and described as having "very red colour on wings and tail".
The Air Corps log sheets are not correct...this a fact. An Aer Corps Vampire was sighted "hampering the search" on the 25th of March 1968. The presence of this aircraft was denied by an Aer Corps Lt. Col. (name witheld) when contacted at the time by MRCC. Log sheets provided by the Aer Corps and which are available for perusal on the net do not log any Vampire in the air on the 25th. Before you accuse someone of slander you should be sure of your facts. The head of the AAIU has been extremely helpful and patient in dealing with all queries relating to this tragic accident.

airvan

I'm afraid this sums it up.

if you were familiar with the workings of the IAC you'd know that a flight by a Vampire pre-lunch time on a Sunday back in the 60's was about as likely as Ireland attempting to join the space race

While it's entirely plausible that a Vampire might have hampered the search by getting in the way of the Shack and then be denied by an embarrassed Air Corps the following day. It is difficult to believe that an unauthorised flight was made on Sunday without someone being aware of it. You cannot simply arrive and jump in a Vampire. You need ground crew etc. The Air Corps is tiny. If something like that happened the whole Corps would know about it. It would be impossible to cover it up. Everyone on the base that day would be aware of the flight. It was a jet after all. The whole of Ireland would know it by now. It's not like the RAF which is big enough and active enough to make it plausible.

So here's another suspect. Based out of RAF Valley, note the red scheme. It's more plausible frankly becase it's entirely possible that the RAF would have had aircraft in the air on a Sunday. Valley is effectively closer than Baldonnel and the Gnat is a lot faster. Have you ever considered that possibility? On the point of an RAF aircraft overflying Ireland. Well it wouldn't have been the first time. Perhaps the pilot was Irish overflying his house??? Has anyone checked No 4FTS records for that morning?


On the other hand I have read all the reports and am convinced that the problem was with the Viscount itself and that probably the crew were having problems for a while before they crashed.