Ten new pilots to be commissioned by Aer Corps

Typedef

Besides...isnt this a "feature" of large governments that youre completely opposed to anyway?

That's a very subjective question.

If I were an American would I be so opposed to American foreign policy?

Most likely not. So logically if Ireland were more militarily active as an Irish person I imagine I would make allowences (and think those allowences quite logical and proper).
Or more cynically again, maybe I wouldn't think the militaristic polices so laudable, but, would agree nonetheless on the premis that 'What is 'good' for Ireland is 'good' for me', or more simply put I would support Irish militarism out of selfishness.

Is that too honest?

Victor

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I think when you spend a few million you can expect a longer lifespan then the usual 10yrs for a car! 20-30 yr old life spans are not unusual for aircraft.

Statisticly (hours flown) all 9 Allouettes should have been written off at least 3 times already.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Did he give any reason why he won't fly in one?

He's afraid of being involved in a crash like the one in Waterford.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Victor
Statisticly (hours flown) all 9 Allouettes should have been written off at least 3 times already.

Stop confusing the issues. What has that got to do with the fixed wing aircraft. We all think they should have new helicopters, and pilots for them. Its the fixed wing aircraft and the expense of them which is a joke. I could understand even having a hercules or something like that, or even a executive jet. But a bunch of prop trainers? Makes no sense.

Victor

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Stop confusing the issues.

I'm not.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
We all think they should have new helicopters, and pilots for them.

Indeed.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
What has that got to do with the fixed wing aircraft. .... Its the fixed wing aircraft and the expense of them which is a joke. ... But a bunch of prop trainers? Makes no sense.

Well basic training for most aircraft (whether fixed or rotary-wing, single or multi-engined) is started on prop trainers, as it is the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it. Just shows how much you know.

Rather it is like a builder owning a bunch of Porsches / Mercedes, but no JCBs.

RicardoSmith

The cheapest way is to send them off to flight school and then bring them back when then they have converted to type. Not buy run and maintain advanced prop aircraft that are no good for anything other than training. I mean are these to be working aircraft or are they running a training school. Besides no one learns to fly in a Marchettis its usually used as a advanced trainer before moving to jets. (or light attack - yeah right) So suggesting that they need such aircraft to learn to fly helicopters is absurd. If it was the cheapest way to do it the comerical airlines would do it and they don't.

Anyway the point is that they don't need these aircraft as they are not suited to this countries requirements. Thus training pilots for them is also a huge waste of time and resources. What they need is helicopters and a marine patrol aircraft. End of story. We don't need light attack aircraft, or trainers as we don't run a training school or do any light attacking.

Originally posted by Victor
Just shows how much your know.

Its "you're" (check with your teacher tomorrow). If you're going to get a "dig" in at least spell it correctly. Has more ooompph.

bonkey

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Its "you're" (check with your teacher tomorrow). If you're going to get a "dig" in at least spell it correctly. Has more ooompph.

Its "you". If you're going to correct someone's grammar, then do it correctly.

Ideally, though, I'd prefer if you grew up and tried staying on topic please. Stop inviting a flame-war.

jc

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by bonkey
Its "you". If you're going to correct someone's grammar, then do it correctly.

Ideally, though, I'd prefer if you grew up and tried staying on topic please. Stop inviting a flame-war.

jc

I'll got my cooat....

Victor

Sorry for dragging up an old post, but:

The bertie jet from a hundred miles up.

commie comrade

Plus, if you want to be really cynical about it, if Ireland spent monies on building up it's military, said military could be used to further Irish economic interests under the banner of (whatever), just like every other country does

why? they all ready gain econimically by fighting under the banner of the un. if they build a bigger army it would cost more to uphold and there econmic status is quite good, one of the reasons it is thought the americans are embarking on this war is oil, though there economic system is failing slowly, so why build a greater aremy if the rebublic of ireland are sitting pretty? there is no need to

RicardoSmith

No point wasting money (though they do it) on token jestures.

commie comrade

what do you mean, elaborate please.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by commie comrade
what do you mean, elaborate please.

What do you mean by "what do you mean" and who are you asking the question? Me? If its me, I don''t see the point in buying a bunch of advanced trainers like this and training pilots to fly them. They serve no practical purpose unless its toyz for the boyz. But I thought that was obvious. Its not part and parcel of helicopter training either, thats just smoke and mirrors.

commie comrade

i thought you were referring to my post. i did not understand what you meant, if you dont want to be asked questions dont say anything.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by commie comrade
i thought you were referring to my post. i did not understand what you meant, if you dont want to be asked questions dont say anything.

Well I was agreeing with you, but ditto