https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...rity-pp0rlkk0q
‘Not enough military pilots’ to maintain airborne security
The Department of Defence has been told that the number of pilots available in the Air Corps is below the “critical mass” needed for airborne security, new records show.
Eight Irish pilots are being trained with the US military in Alabama, as the Defence Forces warned that premature retirements from the Air Corps had reached a “critical level”.
A record released under a freedom of information request revealed that a business case prepared for the Department of Defence said the number of pilots available in the Air Corps had fallen below “the critical mass required to sustain the provision of airborne defence and security operations”.
The record — which was released with redactions for security reasons — warns that “immediate remedial action” was required to rebuild available manpower.
It said that outsourced training would be crucial “to restore the provision of adequate airborne defence and security services”.
The defence forces and the Department of Defence declined to confirm how much the training was going to cost the taxpayer. However, internal records from the department give an estimate of €650,000 to €850,000 for the training of four pilots.
The business case said that the Air Corps had been hit by a wave of “premature voluntary retirements”, including the short-notice departure of one senior pilot. It said that there was a global shortage of pilots, and that these were being felt particularly “acutely” in military air forces. “The consequence of this is that there is very limited, if any, military pilot training capacity in external air terms,” it said.
It added that the Air Corps had looked at alternative training options in UK joint military and civilian flight schools, but that there was no availability due to “national shortages” there. The business case said that training for specific military skills such as formation flying, low-level flight operations, tactical flying, and air firing, meant that market options were limited.
The Air Corps had engaged with the military in the UK and the US “at a very senior level” to discuss training options. “Only the US has indicated that they have the capacity to deal with a military pilot training request,” the document read.
The business case provided further background on just how short-handed the Air Corps had become, with retirements leaving them at a “culmination point”. Staffing levels of experienced pilots, especially helicopter commanders, were below critical mass, which had a knock-on effect on training.
It added: “Following a research visit to the US Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama to assess the viability of helicopter training, the US have offered military pilot training capacity. The training aircraft being offered are similar to [our] aircraft in terms of size, performance, and training output; necessitating minimal ‘differences’ on return … while maintaining training standards and timelines.”
The defence forces also prepared a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on the move. It said that it would alleviate pressures on the Air Corps, and increase available resources. However, it added that the Air Corps would no longer have “direct and exclusive supervision” of trainees and that the costs involved were “unavoidable”.
Separately, Department of Defence records also warned of “organisational risk” if steps were not taken to manage the loss of experienced pilots.
A strategic review marked “confidential” stated: “Such a training surge, which is envisaged will last four years, would reduce the overall training pressures on the flying training school; shorten Air Corps cadetships to two years, qualify more pilot officers sooner, and mitigate training pressures risk.”
Asked for comment on the records, the defence forces said that they had nothing to add.