Messages

1

Irish Air Corps / Best replacement for the Alouette

« on: December 10, 2003, 04:56:54 pm »

The key to this thread is whether any new helicopter will be bought to replace the roles of the Alouette 3, rather than the Alouette 3 itself. When that is decided, a choice can be made. My own view is that no new model helicopter could replace the Alouette, as there are no similar aircraft on the market today.

If any could, it would be something like the EC 145. It could provide similar capacity in troop movements, ambulance, winch capability, and single pilot operation.

Imshi refers to the DoD and the EC 135. Have a look at the inutile pleasure craft here. http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ec_135/  .
I believe that "inutile" is not an accurate description of that aircraft. I agree however, that neither it, nor the military version are a runner in duplicating the role of the Alouette 3.

2

Irish Air Corps / Military Parades.

« on: June 11, 2003, 09:28:16 pm »

John K, FF would'nt have done basic training, thats unless he "came up the ranks"! He flies GIV you know!

As for you, definitely not a techie, basic doesnt happen in the Hostel!   Now I can have a look at the picture in the School next time I am in the Don. Not too many non techs in that one!! I'm not even in it meself! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3

Irish Air Corps / Best Loved Air Corps Helicopter

« on: September 24, 2003, 07:47:37 pm »

The Alouette has my vote (of the four Air Corps Helicopters listed) The other three are owned by Garda and Dept of Marine respectively!

4

Irish Air Corps / Best Loved Air Corps Helicopter

« on: September 30, 2003, 08:54:13 pm »

CH, I cant say that any Air Corps Helicopter was military. The most armament I ever saw was :::::::: well, I wont go into it here, but you know as well as me. The only military aspect of any of them was how many soldiers you could carry for the occasional drop into C****s  I****d.

5

Irish Air Corps / Sikorsky S-92 in the Don

« on: June 29, 2003, 12:21:53 am »

Hi JK, good comments about the ARW, but shitheads like the one you met let the professional ones down a lot in the eyes of the public, and the media. I have met a number of that unit, and it must be said that they are a professional, discreet, and media aware mob! If the one you referred to had just turned his head away, the Air Corps could have got good press! Did the Alouette have missiles on it or what?

By the way, I am annoyed that I am not in the Apprentice School Puma photo with you. I think I was on A/L that day!
Maybe I met you last in the reunion in the NCO's mess some years ago.  

Lurk

6

Irish Air Corps / New Moderator

« on: November 16, 2003, 05:18:47 pm »

Silver, you will bring great experience and diplomacy to the board. Good decision Frank, and best wishes Silver.

Lurk.

7

Irish Air Corps / Alouette commemorative patch

« on: October 02, 2003, 09:55:02 pm »

Sorry to put a damper on this issue! The Alouette deserves nothing. Simple as that.

However, the people who maintained, and crewed them over the 40 year period do deserve thanks and recognition. Patches are great, but a good night out, and a reunion of all Flying Wing / No 3 Support,  current and ex, would do a world of good. Maybe a momento of the occasion could be the patch!

8

Irish Air Corps / GOC, The Air Corps

« on: October 02, 2003, 09:47:53 pm »

Personally, he probably doesn't, but I reckon he reads appropriate transcripts given to him.  After that, he has people who can probably find out the source of each post if it warrants it!

9

Irish Air Corps / Alternate force structure

« on: July 31, 2003, 07:53:54 pm »

Great thought put into the post, fair play to you.
One flaw is that of substituting aircraft for actual road transport. Weather alone would cause any operation to be lost if aircraft were grounded as a result of poor conditions.

Due to the above, any cost saving as a result of needing less road / offroad resources is not really there.

10

Irish Air Corps / 212 the Savior?

« on: November 26, 2003, 12:08:47 am »

Hi John.

I agree that field maintenance has been done on some necessary occasions, and that gearboxes etc have been done. The normal requirement was only a DI during exercises, and that would not really be considered "real" field maintenance.

I question whether the AC could operate from base, without  the usual complement of an AE Officer, Avionics Tech, Engineering officer, Inspector, Tech crews, Storemen, Firemen, Refuellers etc being available.  Realistically, to operate even one A3 in another country would take incredible resources under the current Air Corps system.

11

Irish Air Corps / 212 the Savior?

« on: November 25, 2003, 08:08:18 pm »

As usual, Imshi has a great insight into requirements, and of course, the issue of morale. Personally, I can never see his suggestions in this case mature to reality.
My understanding of the Price Waterhouse report, is that a severe downsizing of technical staff is recommended. The PW suggested staff could not sustain the maintenance on a fleet of 212's. Additionally, the air corps can barely keep one aircraft at an off base location, as they have no field maintenance ability or experience. Overseas is only a pipe dream.
The other issue raised was the interchangeability of the PT6 engine with other aircraft. This may not be possible, as rotary wing engines are sometimes inverse from the same type used on fixed.

12

Irish Air Corps / Rare Sight

« on: April 10, 2003, 10:09:51 pm »

Possibly a little practice for the send off due on Saturday, for a rumoured commemmorative Bremen flight from Bal, to follow the route originally flown.

13

Irish Air Corps / Security at Bal

« on: April 09, 2003, 07:55:48 pm »

All credit to your legal advisor, however the written law is specific. It states in my previous post what the specifics are. Any person means just that.  Permission is required, and the law can be applied if it is not. It can be dealt with not just under this section of the Defence Act 1954, but under another all encompassing section of the same Act.

Your quasi legal advice is dangerous advice to give to anyone, who as a result could be convicted of an offence. The State Solicitor and the DPP deal with offences after they have been committed, and not before.

On the subject of Airshows, there is an implied permission in law that allows a person to take photographs etc of aircraft that are provided for display. You will notice that on many occasions, Baldonnel Military Base itself, is isolated from the area to which the public have access. Perhaps your other half thought the issue related to airshows, and not the private facilities of the Air Corps?

The issue of Naval Ships is included under Government property occupied by the Defence Forces!

14

Irish Air Corps / Security at Bal

« on: April 07, 2003, 08:38:02 pm »

I dont want to be a spoil sport, and I beleive there is no harm in having photos available to supporters of the Air Corps, and enthusiasts. In saying that, the following is the law, whether we like it or not. It is an extract from the Defence Acts 1954, the governing legislation up to the present day.

268.—(1) If any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, paintings, models and notes and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

     (2) If any person, without lawful authority, enters or approaches any fort, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property, occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, with sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling materials or apparatus in his possession, with the intention of committing an offence under subsection (1) of this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, and all tools and materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

     (3) If any person trespasses on any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot, vessel or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof or any land reserved for or forming part thereof, whether any erection, fort, fortification or work of any kind is thereon or not, or any building or land reserved or set apart or used in connection with the administration, accommodation or training of any part of the Defence Forces, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.

     (4) Any member of the Defence Forces or of the Garda Síochána may without warrant arrest any person who he has reasonable grounds to believe has committed an offence under this section and bring him before a Justice of the District Court to be dealt with according to law.

15

Irish Air Corps / Security at Bal

« on: April 06, 2003, 07:19:55 pm »

Should we be concerned about security? It appears that some of the new images on the site are taken inside hangars at Baldonnel. As far as I know it is illegal to take photographs within a military property without the permission of Defence Forces. I doubt if the Air Corps or Garda authorities have sanctioned these photos.

Just concerned.