Minister Dempsey "refused to discuss way of cutting €500m rescue contract"

  • Thread starter MrFunkyBoogaloo
  • Start date

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
And it greases a few donors palms.

It is always good to create a middle man when paying a bill with other peoples money, especially when the middle man has a reason to pay you commission for his slice of the action.
It doesn't really matter what's going on with you does it, you're going to find some way of being suspicious and casting doubts, but of course without any reason let alone proof.

A wink here, a nod there, you know what's going on.

Sure you do.
 


M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

In one letter to Mr Dempsey, Brig Gen O'Brien said the Air Corps' existing AW139 helicopters could, with a small amount of modification, be upgraded to a 24-hour capability.

He also suggested another cheaper option -- splitting the search and rescue service between the Air Corps and CHC.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
They could be upgraded to 24 hour capacity, without doubt, but nothing would give them the range or endurance of the tendered aircraft. To actually compete with CRC, as like for like, they would have to buy or lease new aircraft. Presumably he means the Air Corp would do the mountain rescue/inland stuff that CRC presently do.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
It doesn't really matter what's going on with you does it, you're going to find some way of being suspicious and casting doubts, but of course without any reason let alone proof.

A wink here, a nod there, you know what's going on.

Sure you do.
It was you that said that their was a premium to pay for leasing rather than buying.

I just wondered, who was receiving the Premium?

After all, it is our money.

We deserve to know, do we not. Or would you prefer that it was declared a State Secret?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
It was you that said that their was a premium to pay for leasing rather than buying.

I just wondered, who was receiving the Premium?

After all, it is our money.

We deserve to know, do we not. Or would you prefer that it was declared a State Secret?
I said slightly higher overall cost, but for stated benefits.

This is not a matter of knowledge, there is no secret, but it is one of understanding and no one can make you do that except yourself.
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

They could be upgraded to 24 hour capacity, without doubt, but nothing would give them the range or endurance of the tendered aircraft. To actually compete with CRC, as like for like, they would have to buy or lease new aircraft. Presumably he means the Air Corp would do the mountain rescue/inland stuff that CRC presently do.
Perhaps?

We're spending $21million each for 6 AW139s - A bit of foresight, considering the Air Corps began taking delivery of them in 2007, would have meant that the State might have bought 6 S92s (CHC's new helicopter) for $15.3million each, saving us over $34million dollars.

Instead we pay $126,000,000 for 6 helicopters and then leasing fees for 6 other helicopters ?? Why not use the ones we've already paid top dollar for?
 

Ultor

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
144
Explained by new aircraft mostly methinks.

A few other points.

1. The Air Corp have NOTHING like the aircraft to be used by the contracted company, either in endurance or reliability. They would have to purchase or lease them.

2. The Air Corp have insufficient pilots to keep the service operational as envisaged in the contract. They would have to recruit. They, at present, cant even provide top cover 24hr's for the air/sea rescue helicopters.

3. The Air Corp pilots have NO hours flight time in long distance aircraft, nor have their crews, anymore, experience in night time and endurance flights. One of the pilots now crewing for the air/sea rescue has the MOST amount of flight hours in type in the whole of Europe. It would take YEARS of flying to get them up to a proper level of experience.


Can someone explain to me, practically, both in flight hours and equipment, how the Air Corp proposed to actually do this?
Ok

1. Correct the AW139 is not suitable for extra long range SAR as the S92 is. No question. (Anyone remember the c0ck up with the S92 procurement in the early 2000's?) The AW139 was purchased after a tender process however it was not tendered for as a long range SAR heli. The AW139 could be used for inshore or Irish Sea SAR with the CHC S92 for Long Range Offshore surely saving a few bob. However the AC would need new heli's if the were to take over Long Range SAR but at least the GOVT would own them not have paid for them and then given them to CHC.

2. The Air Corps have approximately 120 Pilots, they would not have to recruit, just shift some pilots from desk flying to real flying. The Air Corps can provide a 24hr call out top cover service if they were ever asked to but they have not been asked, it is not in any SLA and consequently it is not provided. All it takes is one little vote in the Dáil to change that. (By the way I firmly believe that the AC should be providing this service)

3. Long Distance Aircraft? Fixed Wing, CASA maritime patrol aircraft have an endurance of up to 9 hours (more than any helicopter, anywhere including the s92 S-92 SAR) and have often been 300nm+ off the coast. Many pilots have upwards of 3000 flying hours, day and night, long and short flights. The skill set for SAR is very specific and challenging, if that's what you're trying to get at, but not outside the realm of training programs that exist all over the world.

So, any other reasons why the AC should not have some hand act or part in SAR?
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
Ok

1. Correct the AW139 is not suitable for extra long range SAR as the S92 is. No question. (Anyone remember the c0ck up with the S92 procurement in the early 2000's?) The AW139 was purchased after a tender process however it was not tendered for as a long range SAR heli. The AW139 could be used for inshore or Irish Sea SAR with the CHC S92 for Long Range Offshore surely saving a few bob. However the AC would need new heli's if the were to take over Long Range SAR but at least the GOVT would own them not have paid for them and then given them to CHC.

2. The Air Corps have approximately 120 Pilots, they would not have to recruit, just shift some pilots from desk flying to real flying. The Air Corps can provide a 24hr call out top cover service if they were ever asked to but they have not been asked, it is not in any SLA and consequently it is not provided. All it takes is one little vote in the Dáil to change that. (By the way I firmly believe that the AC should be providing this service)

3. Long Distance Aircraft? Fixed Wing, CASA maritime patrol aircraft have an endurance of up to 9 hours (more than any helicopter, anywhere including the s92 S-92 SAR) and have often been 300nm+ off the coast. Many pilots have upwards of 3000 flying hours, day and night, long and short flights. The skill set for SAR is very specific and challenging, if that's what you're trying to get at, but not outside the realm of training programs that exist all over the world.

So, any other reasons why the AC should not have some hand act or part in SAR?
In relation to point 3, the point I was trying to make is that NONE Of the helicopter pilots have experience in type. They would have to do prober SAR training and then gain relevant experience in type to be safe and effective, no? Not something they could do within a year even. More like two.

In relation to the number of pilots, do you know the breakdown of helicopter v fixed wing trained?

In relation to owning v leasing, I am not too sure of the relative economics of buying them for our, small, own Air Corp. If we bought them it would be the Aleuette (sic) ?? story all over again. Keep them and canabalise them for years. And they don't make them like that anymore.
 

Ultor

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
144
In relation to point 3, the point I was trying to make is that NONE Of the helicopter pilots have experience in type. They would have to do prober SAR training and then gain relevant experience in type to be safe and effective, no? Not something they could do within a year even. More like two.

In relation to the number of pilots, do you know the breakdown of helicopter v fixed wing trained?

In relation to owning v leasing, I am not too sure of the relative economics of buying them for our, small, own Air Corp. If we bought them it would be the Aleuette (sic) ?? story all over again. Keep them and canabalise them for years. And they don't make them like that anymore.
Ok, fair point re point 3, but the S-92 is a fairly new aircraft requiring type conversion training for all pilots. CHC has had a head start on this to be fair (entered service in 2004. S-92 / S-92A ) but the introduction of any new aircraft requires a lead in time.

Relevant experience is also a fair point too. 2003 was the last time the AC worked SAR. Some of the pilots who did it remain in place. But I imagine if it got the go ahead tomorrow it could conceivably take 12 months at least to get crews up and running.

Heli v fixed wing pilots..... Haven't got the exact break down but it's something like 50 heli, 60 fixed wing and 10 PC-9 instructors (I don't know why I separated them but anyway)

In relation to owning v leasing, the leasing is only for 10 years, the life span of aircraft, even those working in a maritime environment is more like 20 years+.

Also to be fair to the alouettes they were fantastic they served for 40 years, way above and beyond what was expected of them.

As an aside the radius of action for the s-92 is 250 nm and for the aw139 is 200 according to the CHC website (obviously these figures are accurate only for the specific CHC operated aircraft)
 

Biffomania

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
788
Before there is a rush to condemn Dempsey for what, to the little people who don't know how their FF betters perform their fiduciary duties and to whom, on the face of it, what looks looks like a rushed covert deal open to an avalanche of brown envelope excesses, one must dispassionately look back at Mr. Dempsey's track record on matters of value for money on subjects ranging from e-voting computers, to St. Patrick's Day junkets in the US, to the use of the government jet for internal flights within Ireland to staying in luxury London hotels rather than using the Irish embassy. If Mr. Demsey's track record in terms of always achieving value for taxpayers' money is squeaky clean, then we must not rush to judge him before all of the facts are known. On the other hand, if Mr. Demsey's track record is one of waste, profligacy and near-criminal self-indulgence then it is perfectly reasonable to ask: what was in this deal for Mr. Demsey personally, and/or for FF, given the patent non-commercial approach to the contract by the said Mr. Dempsey?
 

maxthedog

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
1,078
CHC gets about 150 callouts per year from its' Dublin, Shannon, Sligo and Waterford bases. Yet in the states' perilous financial position Minister Dempsey refused to enter discussions to save the state money. Instead he increased it. ??
You cannot trust the PS to deliver on infrastructure projects over a full year.

The Air-Corp would start off with great intentions and would soon revert too PS type aand then we the taxpayer would be paying for two Rescue contarcts.

The PS contract and the same private contracter, who would be called in every time a PS helicopter would be grounded due to a myraid of excuses.

Giving the private contacter the job has saved us millions.

Now lets get some of the Johnny Yachtyyy types to pay up, when they get stuck on a rock in Howth.
 

Tommythecommy

Active member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
197
The Air Corp have faster helicopters with a longer range than CHC

They could be upgraded to 24 hour capacity, without doubt, but nothing would give them the range or endurance of the tendered aircraft. To actually compete with CRC, as like for like, they would have to buy or lease new aircraft. Presumably he means the Air Corp would do the mountain rescue/inland stuff that CRC presently do.

The Air Corp have faster helicopters with a longer range than CHC

six of them

Defence Forces - Air Corps Fleet - Agusta Westland AW139
 

Tommythecommy

Active member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
197
We are paying thousands of defence forces personel

We are paying thousands of defence forces personnel. Is it not possible that this talented cohort to be able to fly and maintain them 24/7/365?
 
Last edited:

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,368
But would they fly on a Monday morning. ?
Wow max! I think you are confusing the public service with the civil service. Army/aircorps/police/fire are working 24/7/365. When your eating your turkey and ham at christmas they are working. When your on the piss on a saturday night they are working.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
Wow max! I think you are confusing the public service with the civil service. Army/aircorps/police/fire are working 24/7/365. When your eating your turkey and ham at christmas they are working. When your on the piss on a saturday night they are working.
Is that not dangerous?

When do they sleep?
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
But would they fly on a Monday morning. ?
PS the endurance of the Agusta is only similar to the CRC aircraft when carrying extra fuel aboard which would then make it impossible for it rescue anyone. No space/weight restrictions. The Agusta simply is not a suitable aircraft for long distance search and rescue.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
PS the endurance of the Agusta is only similar to the CRC aircraft when carrying extra fuel aboard which would then make it impossible for it rescue anyone. No space/weight restrictions. The Agusta simply is not a suitable aircraft for long distance search and rescue.
You know that irrespective of what ever figures you come up with there will be people complaining that IAC could do it cheaper ignoring the fact that the associated training, leasing servicing etc are someone elses responsibility.

If one goes tech then responsibility of provider to get a replacement there quickly.

The claim that because the RAF intergrate their SAR capability means Ireland should do so as well, not with standing the fact that RAF capability is designed primarily for rescuing UK forces personnel from hostile environments and not picking up stray boaters or mountaineers.

Faced with option of giving it to a small core group of people who would have to retrain / requip at considerable expense or a company which is one of the world leaders then this is one where the correct decision has been made.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top