Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

PC9s are used as primary fixed wing training aircraft and also Token Point Air Defence.

Aermaccis?

Cynics may suggest the reason we went with the PC12 as a C172 replacement was it is the most popular aircraft used in private aviation and Air Ambulance in other English Speaking countries. Being current on the NG when you leave the Air Corps is a golden ticket for a move down under. Far more useful on your logbook in civvy world than something like a cessna caravan or Islander. Same could be said for the EC135 and AW139 instead of the More military H145 or S70. Apart from the C295 the selection is based purely on giving pilots a decent shot at civvy flying for when they inevitably leave.

As for the PC9, it was the ABSOLUTE bare minimum the government could provide in terms of an armed aircraft. It serves no purpose in advanced flight training, as no matter what direction you go, a pilot will progress to a Dual seat, not Tandem seat aircraft, and will need neither G Suit not oxygen mask. The money would be better spent on a Grob or other Tandem Trainer. We had it with the Siai-Marchetti A fine aircraft, and armed not unlike the PC9, with unguided rockets or a maching gun pod. (please don't call the 12.7mm a cannon) We should have replaced it with a TP version (Valmet were making them too) and removed the pretence. We still would have been able to manage the fancy formation flypasts, and possibly trailed smoke.

The Only logic for having a trainer like the PC9M is you expect a large majority of your trainee pilots to progress to another single, or tandem seat aircraft. I thought the L-159 plans were well dead by the time the Pilatus got here.

I think you might be suprised

C172 was NEVER used for pilot training in Irish service. Pilots only sat behind the wheel once they had their wings course complete. Originally after the Fouga. Later on After the PC9M. Short conversion course and away they went, clocking up hours counting seals on the Shannon estuary, top cover for CIT, Army Parachuting, towing the Drogue for the Ack Ack and anything else the army needed them for.

But never pilot training.

As I say, no obvious need to replace like for like unless we intend going fast jet, and it would still make more sense to contract out BFTS and LIFT. If the NS can learn to drive ships in a civvy school, then surely the Air Corps can do likewise when it comes to learning to fly. There are a number of private flight schools in the state providing pilots for the industry.

The Air Corps justification is much of their Basic flying hours are done on the simulator, where those without the necessary skills are screened before burning turbine hours.

Indeed, since the kingairs retired, the Air Corps has no aircraft for multi-engine training. This is why some of its pilots recently ended up in Australia training on their Kingairs.

I dont think the outsourcing has anything to do with funding it more to do for operational reasons that there is not enoght manpower to train Cadets.

Training for Rotary may be sorted with the recent deployment of cadets to the UK Military flying school. They have over capcity so i could see us sending cadets there for the next few years.

Only the Air Corps would train greenhorns on an F-104 or an F-4E and then say 'congratulations, you have proven yourself worthy of a chance to pilot the Reims Rocket 172.'

Regarding the trip to Oz for King Air training, was it organised by RTE through the Barter Account? Surely there were multiple options for twin engine training much closer to home. The mind boggles.

Think they were offering it for free, wonder if anyone else did, not too mention of course the fact that the next door neighbour's pipeline is an utter mess. And yeah there's the better conditions Australia would offer.

Oh Willie Willie