Flying In The Arctic

[hybrid]

no arguments required, yet i'd still trust a manufacturers propaganda over a nobody's opinion on a forum.

there's no question they have some issues. 98% isn't perfect, nor will any manufacturer with pockets lined with gold ever even achieve perfection. thats a pipe dream we shall leave to the snowboard crowd at whistler smoking the best bud BC has to offer.

 

 

 

http://www.canada.com/news/Somnia/4141907/story.html

 

Perhaps this article might enlighten you over a "nobody's", opinion?

[SuddenStop]

you should try and pick a better article.

 

it lists two issues, windscreens and T/R cracks as reasons for not flying around ontario?? Like wow, shouldn't ontario feel special now. Otherwise they just list parts supply and mechanical issues in general. Hello, this is aviation, deal with it.

 

I think the problems lie internally with national defence and not with the aircaft, much like low time sea kings were rat bagged POS, and equivalant civilian machines with tons more hours were flying pristine.

They changed the iron and threw into into the same pile of nothing, thats where the problem lies.

[Jamhands]

 

I think the problems lie internally with national defence and not with the aircaft, much like low time sea kings were rat bagged POS, and equivalant civilian machines with tons more hours were flying pristine.

 

Glad I'm not the only one that thought this.

[hybrid]

you should try and pick a better article.

 

it lists two issues, windscreens and T/R cracks as reasons for not flying around ontario?? Like wow, shouldn't ontario feel special now. Otherwise they just list parts supply and mechanical issues in general. Hello, this is aviation, deal with it.

 

I think the problems lie internally with national defence and not with the aircaft, much like low time sea kings were rat bagged POS, and equivalant civilian machines with tons more hours were flying pristine.

They changed the iron and threw into into the same pile of nothing, thats where the problem lies.

 

You made the claim that the Cormorant had a 98% dispatch rate.............

 

This article disputes that, for the same reasons you stated above. No question that any report by the Canadian press is often full of holes, but in this case I think it is fairly accurate. If you read the article you would have observed that coverage affected a huge part of the arctic, not just Ontario.

 

I think if you do a little more research, you will find that there is several problems regarding SAR and the Cormorant in the Arctic. But you are right, it is the infrastructure that is the problem not necessarily the aircraft itself.

[SuddenStop]

the manufacturer made the 98% claim not me.

 

and if you do some fat easy math, lets use the 40000 hours flown, average 4 hours per mission, thats 10000 missions. 98% of that leaves approximately 200 aborted missions.

 

200 hundred sounds like alot. but it isn't really when spread over a dozen or so aircraft over a good number of years in service. I highly doubt they've had a combination of cracked windshields and T/R's to the tune of 200.

 

When your personal logbook hits 40000 hours, please tell me how many times your jetbox/a-star/212 etc failed to get airborn or had to land early because of a defect. keep in mind the military has a far different standard when it comes to grounding their aircraft.

[hybrid]

the manufacturer made the 98% claim not me.

 

and if you do some fat easy math, lets use the 40000 hours flown, average 4 hours per mission, thats 10000 missions. 98% of that leaves approximately 200 aborted missions.

 

200 hundred sounds like alot. but it isn't really when spread over a dozen or so aircraft over a good number of years in service. I highly doubt they've had a combination of cracked windshields and T/R's to the tune of 200.

 

When your personal logbook hits 40000 hours, please tell me how many times your jetbox/a-star/212 etc failed to get airborn or had to land early because of a defect. keep in mind the military has a far different standard when it comes to grounding their aircraft.

 

All I know is that on 2 occasions I have run into Cormorants in the arctic in the last 1.5 years, both times they were replacing a grounded one. Also on both occasions the replacement Cormorant was grounded itself.................. I think that would put the dispatch rate in the negative numbers.

 

Would really like to hear from someone that actually knows what the problems really are. I never asked why they were grounded, I am just wondering what our chances of a timely rescue would be out of Gander or Comox if we were in Sumspot north of 60?

[Blackmac]

SuddenStop; from a "nobody". I wonder what that makes you other than a SMART ARSE. at least I'm not anonymous.

 

You seem to have all the negative solutions with very little input.

 

Hears a song just for you, enjoy.

 

 

http://www.johnnyrei...te/sections/263 On the track list play 02 "Today I'm Gonna Try and Change the World" . It will probably keep you busy.

[SuddenStop]

as far as i am concerned, you are a nobody...just a name with no credentials attached, and comments rarely backed up with published facts expecting people to accept them as such.

 

From my understanding you're retired. Why do you bother poking your nose into an industry you are no longer active in?

 

 

Your opinion and past experiences have their place, but not everyone needs to embrace it as gold.

[skullcap]

Nobody: Definition: No person; no one; not anybody

 

Does not sound like Don to me!!

 

Perhaps it is the anonymous one who is searching to be somebody but alas;(

[deuce bigalow]

as far as i am concerned, you are a nobody...just a name with no credentials attached, and comments rarely backed up with published facts expecting people to accept them as such.

 

From my understanding you're retired. Why do you bother poking your nose into an industry you are no longer active in?

 

 

Your opinion and past experiences have their place, but not everyone needs to embrace it as gold.

 

 

Moderator???? It's time to moderate.