|
Irish Air Corps SAR bid machine costs
The Irish Air Corps are plotting a return to military SAR on Ireland's east coast. The Air Corps released details to the Irish Times of a deal they're believed to have agreed with Leonardo, to provide two fully SAR equipped 189's at a cost of 17.5 million euro each for the first two and 14 million euro for a third.
The big question is, are they getting a good deal? |
Depends on spec of course but assuming it's Leonardo baseline SAR config with FLIR, belly tanks, hoists etc and not a light SAR spec, I'd say that price of 17.5m EUR is exactly where it should be if not a bit on the cheaper side. Depends what LH have included in their numbers though, they could be making their money on the training and through life support.
14m EUR for a SAR 189 is crazy low. |
It does seem surprisingly cheap!
They also appear to have agreed the price without having to go to a public tender, although this may be because they already have 6x 139s. It will be quite an achievement for them to get back into SAR, as they have virtually zero operational experience, having had SAR removed from them nearly 20 years ago. They have 2 or 3 pilots with previous SAR experience and the current winchcrew have zero, with all of them being recently trained. They're also short of engineers so a lot of the maintenance will have to be contracted out. Fun times ahead! |
Is there a news article?
|
Originally Posted by Lurching
(Post 11030501)
Is there a news article?
|
|
You sure they are AW189s? Sounds more like AW139 pricing which would make sense for the East Coast bases...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...oast-1.4531109 |
They are concerned the UK may be a security risk |
Have they got enough people to provide 24/7 cover?
|
Pretty sure they are referring to SAR kitted AW139’s. It does not make sense to have another type added to the fleet when they are already short of staff etc.
|
Originally Posted by Glevum
(Post 11030890)
Have they got enough people to provide 24/7 cover?
|
I really wonder how this will do any good to taxpayer and to persons in need of SAR. Have watched this outfit for a while and also was involved for years in similar operations and am in serious doubt this will be better arrangement than current one-both for taxpayers and those in need.
But, well, maybe I will be positivelly surprised... |
I know that it is frowned upon these days to look back more than 12 months but is anyone familiar with the history of Waterford SAR?
|
Originally Posted by Same again
(Post 11035566)
I know that it is frowned upon these days to look back more than 12 months but is anyone familiar with the history of Waterford SAR?
|
Yes - and the Sligo debacle that finally convinced the Irish Government to give the contract to a private operator.
|
Originally Posted by Same again
(Post 11036112)
Yes - and the Sligo debacle that finally convinced the Irish Government to give the contract to a private operator.
|
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
(Post 11036130)
Which incident was that?
There seems to be a proliferation of ex IAC crew claiming SAR experience on AW139 and EC135, both types introduced since the above removal of the IAC from all SAR duties. Some of these crew are pilots in Qatari military or crewmen with a Canadian company contracting in Yemen all claiming SAR experience they don’t have. Sadly employers cannot do enough of a background check to discover they lack said experience. Given that’s the case then a local government being lobbied heavily is only going to be swayed more and more by a false belief of capability and no understanding of methods, recency, training and knowledge. The IAC have been criticised for lack of oversight before but has the culture changed? The give-it-a-go attitude appears to prevail. Surely it will just be another avenue to better paid civilian jobs for those who man a military SAR asset as used to be the case back in Irish S61 SAR days. There still exists a cover up culture. The Irish Dept of defence attempted to slur the innocent student pilot in the Pc9 crash a few years back in open court in front of his still grieving family. Only after they damaged the 139 lifting some of the wreckage off the mountains and never reported it. What about the unusual attitude incident during the initial aw139 delivery in 2006. The AS365 sent to Marignane for rebuild many years before on a low loader that was never reported. The CN235 that landed at base with foliage in the landing gear. The Alouette written off claiming an engine failure when the video camera at the wedding nearby confirmed unauthorised whazzing. The video of the FR172 crash that was never publicised and the AAIB report never published. Or the CHC s61 with a smashed tailwheel when 2 IAC pilots during the work up to Sligo in 2002 attempted to lift to hover with engines at idle. Does anyone in their right mind want that for a state SAR setup in modern times? |
That just about sums it up. Now they want to operate SAR again? Frightening....
|
stuff that happened before most of the current members joined |
The question is - What SAR experience exists in the Irish Air Corps now?
Anyone can call themselves SAR qualified and experienced and a number of 'wide-boys' do exactly that with no real-world experience. Doing a bit of SAR training in nice weather does not make you SAR qualified - it's one of those 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' scenarios where the unknown unknowns come and bite you in the a&se because you thought it was all easy-peasy. Flying an aircraft into the ground on a coastal letdown in dodgy weather is typical of the 'We can do this, we are SAR and anything goes' mentality - amateurish and dangerous. East Coast irish SAR might not be as challenging as the West Coast on a regular basis but there are plenty of situations where the unwary could easily get caught out. Modern SAR is no place for amateurs or turf wars. |
“ SAR is no place for amateurs or turf wars”
Thats this whole discussion in a nut shell. What has developed is a concerted effort by the retired Officer Corp to push an agenda with the political backing of like minded public representative. Enough said |
Originally Posted by Declan275
(Post 11036445)
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. 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? |
So how often have the IAC been requested for SAR top cover and how often have then been able to respond? When they did not what were the given reasons? Top cover is also a matter they are pushing forcefully where the U.K., Spain and Netherlands all have coast guard top cover as opposed to military.
Also with reference to requirement for an AOC ATO etc they are required by law, debated here before, to have exactly those functions for HEMS. German Bundespolizei have all EASA functions in place and licensed crew as they will tell you under EU law it is required. But this then begs a question as to how the authority in Ireland allow this to continue? If the IAC wish to resume SAR it will cost more than a civilian provider already approved as there cannot be anyone still flying with SAR experience after all they do not do SAR and are not a declared asset. To train new crew in all weather SAR to cover the task takes time under training and mentorship which cannot come internally as a result. Who will be captain as nobody would meet civilian SAR or even oil and gas command criteria experience wise. There is a reason for that. To be a civilian SAR captain requires several years as a copilot learning all weather SAR. We all know Leonardo are great at sales, so believing their pitch for cost is naive. Ask how much the FISAR and UKSAR 189’s actually cost... Crewing issues mentioned, quite publicly the charity funded hems operation stepped in at some time not too long ago. So as mentioned they won’t have the capacity to man a 24 hour SAR operation even if there is a significant recruitment drive. |
AWSAR will give Junior Air Corps pilots flying experience.
AWSAR will give Junior Air Corps pilots the required experience they need to deploy overseas, is one avenue they are pushing as justification to try and get AWSAR back.
Has anyone told them that AWSAR flying is one of the most demanding roles a pilot can do in a helicopter, and they are using it as some kind of stepping stone for Junior Pilots (majority of whom have less than 500hrs) to gain flying experience to deploy overseas. |
Originally Posted by Northernstar
(Post 11036600)
So how often have the IAC been requested for SAR top cover and how often have then been able to respond? When they did not what were the given reasons?.
Rarely available! It’s only provided on an as available basis! Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm! |
What overseas deployments do the IAC have?
|
To answer the obvious question about staffing any potential detachment, I think the game changer that has yet to make its results apparent is the use of foreign military ab initio training. Turn the taps on with that and you can provide the service with junior members at a much increased rate. |
Where is that ab initio training going to take place and what will be the quality of it?
|
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11036922)
Where is that ab initio training going to take place and what will be the quality of it?
That’s in Rucker, as far as I know, for the RW guys. There’s a few on exchange with the RAAF for FW multi engine instructor courses and the first batch of FW an initio students either are or soon will be going to the USAF for the Texan course. |
I'm not sure that the vast, highly structured sausage machine that is Rucker will produce what you want or need in the IAC, especially when it comes to SAR potential.
You want pilots who think for themselves and can manage weather, not automatons who can talk a good flight. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11036970)
I'm not sure that the vast, highly structured sausage machine that is Rucker will produce what you want or need in the IAC, especially when it comes to SAR potential.
You want pilots who think for themselves and can manage weather, not automatons who can talk a good flight. |
External influence.
A certain UK based training provider, a company set up by ex CHC employees and a Canadian based training provider currently supplying services to the Air Corps may possibly have something to do with the drive for the Air Corps to take over Irish SAR.
These three companies have a vested interest €€€. A number of people on various different social media platforms have stated that CHCI are a Canadian based company and that large quantities of money are leaving the state under the current contract. CHCI are an Irish based company paying tax in Ireland, with Employees working and residing in Ireland paying tax. The UK based training provider (ex British armed forces - yet Air Corp personnel talk about sovereignty) will pay no tax in Ireland. The Canadian based company currently providing training services to the Air Corps pay no tax in Ireland on a contract they received with no tender (Oversight of government money?). Instead of the Public Accounts Committee investigating the current contract, should they not turn their attention to the lack of services provided by the Air Corps for the money that they receive. Top Cover - rarely available. PC9’s purchased for basic training - IAC do not have jets (PC9 lead in trainer for jets). Cadets sent to CAE US, Fort Rucker US and Australia to receive flight training. Not able to provide 24hr coverage for fixed wing air ambulance. Wildfires routinely covered by PDG and Executive Helicopters despite 6 x AW139’s in Balldonnell. Not able to provide AW139’s to Army (reason they were purchased) The list goes on! |
Is this the same canadian company employing ex IAC tech crew who claim SAR experience despite their entire service being post 2003 when the IAC stopped doing SAR? Also the company operating S61’s on NVIS in Yemen where ex IAC crew are contracted?
Slight thread drift but did CHCI not hand out an NVIS training programme to a non Irish company without a tender using public contract money? And would the company set up by ex CHC employees be a consultancy claiming to provide expertise in AWSAR which requires knowledge and flight experience of modern 4 axis glass cockpit all weather types such as those in use yet those ex chc employees don’t have such experience? Tantamount to fraud. |
By 2022 Ireland will have paid €630million to foreign helicopter firm CHC to operate
|
Rather making a sensible decision to mitigate risk I would have thought.
|
Agreed, that extra 140 million would quickly be used up in training the inexperienced IAC crews up to a safe level in all weather SAR.
|
Why dont the gov buy the choppers and then outsource the operation and crew it with a mix of experienced civil crews and IAC :-)
|
Originally Posted by Koalatiger
(Post 11043440)
Why dont the gov buy the choppers and then outsource the operation and crew it with a mix of experienced civil crews and IAC :-)
This is a ludicrous proposal any way you look at it and I suspect it is being pushed by a cadre of officers trying to justify their existence, and maybe jack up the ‘retention bonuses’ they will surely seek to keep them in the service. All the maritime SAR experienced pilots the Air Corps had in the past are either employed with the current service provider or occupying crew seats with Ryanair. |
Originally Posted by donner89
(Post 11043611)
A CRM and SMS nightmare in the offing.....
This is a ludicrous proposal any way you look at it and I suspect it is being pushed by a cadre of officers trying to justify their existence, and maybe jack up the ‘retention bonuses’ they will surely seek to keep them in the service. All the maritime SAR experienced pilots the Air Corps had in the past are either employed with the current service provider or occupying crew seats with Ryanair. |
Originally Posted by Koalatiger
(Post 11043440)
Why dont the gov buy the choppers and then outsource the operation and crew it with a mix of experienced civil crews and IAC :-)
Do the IAC have an AOC? Do the IAC have a EASA Part 145? Do the IAC have a EASA Part CAMO? Your suggestion is to outsource it, is it to outsource it to a IAA EASA AOC holder, if so then how do you suggest IAC pilots operate civilian registered aircraft. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.