ChkHandleDn Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Try millions... I see it every year in the acq bussiness. Ahem...BILLIONS in the ICBM world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparky Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 "He also flies civilian airliners, which don't have parachutes" How many times have you seen that airliner flying within a few feet of other aircraft taking thousands of pounds of gas. Yeah...tankers/receivers have never rubbed paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 As a tanker AC (on a leave of absense for another mission/plane) I can think of times when the tanker would be controllable in the air to allow for a bailout, but not safe to land. In that case, I would bail out. And a receive in contact can cause such scenarios. Its all gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mjk5401 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I see it from both points of view. Talking with an A3 exec, they saw the figures of amount saved and it is a lot. Between mx on the chutes and lbs eliminated on every flight, it makes sense (primarily from a mx / life support point). The constant up keep is astonishing $$$. I agree though, there is just something about feeling a little bit more safer a chute onboard. Granted the only time I would use it is if I ran out of gas over the ocean. Sure the rest of the crew could bail out if an uncontrollable situation happened, but as the pilot, I plan on trying to keep it under control as long as possible and make an attempt to land. What I worry about is the day when big blue has a scale at base ops and requires us to weigh progear or worse, require aircrew to be under a certain weight (~U28s) all in the name of saving money. I can think of other ways to save money with out reducing quality of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I honestly don't see the big deal from a personal standpoint. But then again, both aircraft I've crewed in my career were not parachute-equipped. Blue-water ops off the boat, in a helicopter, has a way of resigning you to your fate if the fuel-to-noise converters fail all at once. BUT... From a professional standpoint, I find it quite troubling that Big Blue has decided that safety gear (whether recently used or unused) is fair-game in the cost-savings game they're playing. Makes me wonder what's gonna come off the -10... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xtndr50boom Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 From a professional standpoint, I find it quite troubling that Big Blue has decided that safety gear (whether recently used or unused) is fair-game in the cost-savings game they're playing. Makes me wonder what's gonna come off the -10... Probably the escape slides: "You know those are only used once or twice a year, and you could probably use the ropes instead....Passengers? Well, you get what you pay for." Realistically, the AF can't take much off the 10 if they want it to remain FAA certified. So we've got that going for us...... Which is nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now