Hi Taj,
I have no problem with the boys and girls in the Air Corps requiring time to get up and running but how long does it take.
You assert that the AIII provided for Croagh Patrick was a fully SAR winching capable machine with a crew trained as such. Somehow I doubt it. The fact that an old single engine helicopter was replaced (one of the major issues being safety of SE ops) and then remains on active duty says everything. It shouldnt be there end of!
Tell me, when were the EC135s delivered, what about the AB139s. Are you telling me that if the AIII had a fully trained SAR crew they could not do an aircraft conversion in that length of time? Perhaps somebody could confirm this but I suspect the aircraft left Bal with 1 pilot and 1 standard crewman to do medivac missions from predetermined LZs on Croagh Patrick. If so, in my opinion, it was negligent of the Air Corps to send it instead of a twin.
Aircraft underutilisation:
GIV and Learjet: These machines bearly do enough hours per year between them to be in the same category as a civil business jet. I can understand the requirement for one but not for two. Short range missions around Europe do not require the benefits estolled by the Irish callsign and could as easily be operated by corproate charter companies leaving just the GIV to be government operated.
SKA200: possibly the hardest working aircraft in the fleet. Due to its multitasking on training, service support and some VIP ops.
CASA: The Casa, a twin turbine airline class aircraft, provide maritime surviellance. These are long flight hour ,low cycle missions that should allow for huge hours each year yet they get about 800Hrs per year per airframe. With an average mission of 6 hours that means each aircraft only flys 133 missions a year. The total coverage is about 266 missions in a 365 day year!
As I have said before, this isnt rocket sicence, a civil canadian company provides over 5000hrs of maritime surviellance with 3 smaller aircraft. Thats 1 aircraft doing the total CASA fleets hours per year.
Its also not only in flight hours but as standby that they are underutilised. Since arrival in 1994(?) the CASAs have not spent one day on 24hr call. This with aircraft fitted out for SAR tasks both day or night, Why? And how often do the CASAs now carry flares and SAR packs on all flights?
PC9s: Eight PC9s were purchased with the intention of providing better, faster training then the SF260WEs, fair enough cant argue with that. However the aircraft are , I believe, on power by the hour schemes which the tax payer pay for wheather hours are flown or not. I believe that this figure was for around 600hrs per year per airframe, i.e. 4800 hrs per year. Considering that they have just passed 5000hrs I call that underutilisation OR we already have too many PC9s, take your pick.
On the contract front take 10 students per year and send them on an ab initio course to an airforce of your choice. At 5% the interest alone on the PC9s purchase price would provide €3.5 mil towards this training not to mention the lack of operational and service support costs. 8 standalone PC9s purchased, operated and all ancillary services included cheaper then to send 10 trainiees per year to a forgien course, I dont think so.
C172s: For old workhorses they do there job very well and consistant fly good hours each year, I just wonder at the percentage of these that are operationaly based but who cares as the junior pilots need to cut their teeth anyway.
Helis: I take your point on the 135s and 139s and will reserve judgement but the AIII saga paints a bad picture for me at least. I would say that this is the unit with a history of 24hr ops and it is likely to continue however relection on the past fleet have shown serious problems. The Dauphins were sold with about 5500hrs per airframe after 15 years of ops, thats a little over 300hrs per year. 5 airframes were required to provide 1 SAR base yet the ICG provide 4 bases with 5 (becoming 6) 1960s aircraft and fly about 700hrs per year per airframe. How come the ICG can do it but the AC couldnt. I hope it gets better with low maintenance machines but continuing to allow technician number to drop will just cause the same problem again.
Finally Taj, dont think I am getting at the men and women of the Air Corps here. I am purely pointing out problems that I see in the current system. Ones which I believe can only be sorted out from on high not with more money or more equipment.
ST