A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world
turkey in the air, princess in the hanger
No, it's okay. We just won't fly it over the Arctic, because it would be too expensive to lose one. That way, we save on operating costs, too!I love the government's spin. "The engine shutdowns don't count because they were precautionary in nature." Such precuations will never be necessary with the F-35 because...?Just this morning I threw some stuff out of my fridge that was well past its expiry date. But that was just a precaution. Ergo, expiry dates don't matter.
" love the government's spin. "The engine shutdowns don't count because they were precautionary in nature."Really? You mean to say they expect us to believe that that in over thirty years service, never once did an F-18 engine cease operation, in how can I say this? In an Non-Optional manner, just crapped out in other words?I know the military doesn't (yet) outsource their maintenance of the squadrons to Guatemala, but hell, a bird musta flown into one, or an oil line broke, or sumthing where leaving the engine running WAS NOT an option.
Hmm, a suppose the difference between a precautionary single engine shutdown in a twin-engine plane and the same in a single is the difference between a Pan Pan and a Mayday call. Scratch that, the difference between a Pan Pan and an ejection followed by loss of aircraft.
I assume DND's explanation, Boris, is that they were all false alarms and consequently it won't matter that there will be no need for a precautionary engine shutdown.After all, the Defence Minister's car doesn't have a second engine in case of failure, and nobody seems to mind that. I'm sure in some minds there is a precise parallel.
Early shut-down probably kept a fair number from grenading. Which means they're probably re-buildable, too.We need some Super Hornets.
5th estate is doing the F35 tonite.http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/28/f-35-canada-air-force_n_1922113.html
Post a Comment