Originally Posted by
Declan275
I’ve mostly tried to stay out of the ongoing SAR debate except to try to clear up points that I can on a different Twitter thread, mostly relating to the fit of the current 139s. I’ve done so because I have friends on both sides of the argument and on one hand don’t want to see anyone having to relocate for work and on the other hand would want to see it happen for the people I know in Bal. Either way, discussions about SAR in Ireland rarely end well.
I think the remarks above are not entirely fair to the organisation or the people in it. Some of the issues raised are from well before my time, so you’re talking quarter of a century plus. I’m sure all can recognise that a legal team acting on behalf of the department are not going to be representative of the culture of the Air Corps itself. The Casa incident and the AW139 delivery flight are both used as CRM case studies internally, my understanding is that the 139 one also has an Italian incident report but I could be wrong on that. The Cessna accident in Clonbollogue is notable, because it marked the last nail in the coffin of the ‘pre Flight Safety section’ culture in the Air Corps, and that was already very much in its last legs. The AIII that was lost had a control issue not an engine failure, but again that was before my time so🤷♂️.
It’s worth saying that the culture and practices described above don’t match at all what I experienced in over twenty years in the place. ‘Give it a go’ and ‘cover ups’ would just have been impossible given the regulations and organisational structures in place, even if any rogue operator had been of a mind to try it.
For clarity, I do believe that either organisation be it CHC or the Air Corps have the requisite skill sets to carry out SAR on the East coast. I’m sure the Air Corps must have a sustainability plan for it because I simply can’t see the proposal getting passed the GOC otherwise. That will be a policy decision by Govt though, no doubt influenced by the Commission on Defence, not anyone in the AC.
Where all of us have more or less gone wrong though is to see this as a binary thing - Air Corps or CHC. If the AC are told no, you’re not involved in RW SAR and it goes to tender, another operator may win and they may make their case on the basis of a 139 or 189 ( or anything else), especially if the price tag is weight heavily in the final decision. If they then hoover up a bunch of AC guys to staff it, what then? Are they still not up to scratch?
I’ll bow out at that, but I think going back over such a long period of time and imagining things are the same now doesn’t help anyone and it reduces public trust in a potential provider. There’s some good cases being made about a civilian run SAR, but they're being done by putting a positive case forward, not slating the Air Corps for stuff that happened before most of the current members joined.
There is no need for anyone in Balldonnell to relocate if the Air Corps should not get a SAR base. The Air Corps already have a staffing issue to cover the roles they are obligated to provide, this has been well documented over the last number of years.
The incidents and accidents that were previously mentioned may or may not be factual but outside of the Air Corps we will never know, as the Air Corps is not subject to EASA regulation or Accident or Incident investigation by the AAIU.
The Air Corps have not conducted AWSAR for 20 years so the Air Corps should make public there reasoning where they state they have the prerequisite skills required in order to conduct AWSAR.
Regarding a sustainability plan, how many staff members will leave again once commercial air travel restarts. What sustainability plan had the Air Corps in place when the EAS had staffing issues, or was it a case of just let CHCI & Medevac 112 clean up the mess?
Should the Air Corps believe they have the required skill set, let them enter a competitive tender process along with any of the other operators competing for the contract, however they should be required to hold an AOC & Part 145 so they are subject to regulation and oversight as any other operator.
The questions people should be asking is why are the Air Corps so he’ll bent on regaining SAR, when they do not provide the service the should be providing to the Army or Navy.
Why they could only initially provide one helicopter for the wild fires last weekend, where two private helicopters were made available almost immediately.
Why a top cover aircraft was not available the night of the R116 crash.
Where is the coat analysis to show that military SAR is allegedly cheaper?