- Reaction score
- 28,886
- Points
- 1,090
No coffee? Isn't that what you have ACSOs with a jetboil for?
OCdt Speaks at Freedom Rally
- Thread starter goldwing
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,821
- Points
- 1,160
Used my jetboil when we're without power here for about a week or so. Awesome piece of kit to have.
- Reaction score
- 20,099
- Points
- 1,280
The thing that definitely shouldn't be used onboard aircraft? Sounds about right.
And most civilized aircraft have something called "electric outlets" for "kettles"
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
The thing that definitely shouldn't be used onboard aircraft? Sounds about right.
And most civilized aircraft have something called "electric outlets" for "kettles"
Hot cups!! Kenco 3-in-1s!
- Reaction score
- 2,546
- Points
- 1,190
Just use the RCAF's catering budget and go the route of the USAF:Hot cups!! Kenco 3-in-1s!
Lawmaker Chides Air Force for Buying Expensive Coffee Cups
Lawmaker Chides Air Force for Buying Expensive Coffee CupsA better title would be “Lawmaker doesn’t know what a hot cup is but he’s mad about it”. It’s not a coffee cup, it’s a device for heating water that’s certified for use on the aircraft. Sure, you can make coffee with it, or soup, or anything requiring boiling water.
- Reaction score
- 2,546
- Points
- 1,190
Forgive my ignorance, but why doesn't a normal $15 Walmart electric kettle work on a pressurized aircraft?
It’s not certified. And when you turn and it falls over and pours water onto some other electrical device it’s bad news bears. This thing attaches to the wall as it’s plugged in.
- Reaction score
- 17,936
- Points
- 1,010
Airworthiness approval.
How much money do you save if that $15 Walmart kettle catches fires inflight and destroys an $80 million dollar aircraft, plus crew?
- Reaction score
- 6,519
- Points
- 1,040
How much do you save on not doing maintenance on a multi-billion dollar ship and deploying it below commercial standards?
We don't know and we're going to pretend things are fine! Relax with your air worthiness guy! Adequate crewing levels is for risk adverse losers, and if things go wrong we'll just bury any reports and learn nothing.
- Reaction score
- 17,936
- Points
- 1,010
I have tried to sell every Naval Officer that I have come into contact with on the long term benefits of a similar “sea worthiness“ program for the Navy. So far, without much luck.
- Reaction score
- 2,546
- Points
- 1,190
They've gone the opposite direction. The Navy now have MBS 'Lite'.
The navy will continue putting ships to sea until one blows up or a bunch of people.
I don't know if I shared this anecdote before, but one of my Engineers was part of a working group of NTOs that was assigned to figure out how they could get the CPFs to last until... some year in the future, I can't remember, 2040?
Anyways, they did a lot of research and analysis and did their due diligence and came back with a report that said in order to get the CPFs to last that long, they would need to tie-up two CPFs now and take the maintenance budget and hours that they would have incurred and spread it out throughout the rest of the remaining CPFs.
Apparently the response was "Thank you, that is not happening. Now, take that brain power and figure out how to force generate an extra high-readiness CPF on each coast every year, because that is happening."
- Reaction score
- 6,519
- Points
- 1,040
We have had one for over a decade (with something less formal in place for decades before that), they just ignore it when it's inconvenient.
There is a whole 'Naval Material Management' programme, with the ship standards defined in the 'Material Baseline Standard' NAVORD (that we've been trying to get updated for over a year), which is basically intended to get ships to meet the same functional requirements as SOLAS (ie safe to go from point A to B). Doesn't meet additional requirements for a combatant, just a basic safety standard.
We routinely sail ships below that, and don't necessarily even risk assess the defects that fall below the SOLAS standard. Or look at multiple defects together to see if there is a cumulative impact. Or consider contextual things like crew levels or training (unless it's to mitigate things broken).
Don't try and tell them we should probably exceed that standard for ships going to warzones though, and that maybe wifi and crew comfort isn't your biggest priority.
- Reaction score
- 6,799
- Points
- 1,360
Seriously time for a crew to do a work stoppage......standing on the dock while the ship should be leaving port.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,683
- Points
- 960
But,you don't understand you've saved the taxpayer 15 whole dollars ! Now that's something you turn into a viable headline .
And is something you can turn into votes
Who cares about something that might happen , beside if an aircraft goes down.
Then, then you can blame the military for that .
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,821
- Points
- 1,160
Wait, are we still talking about a COATS OCdt who's in trouble? 
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,990
- Points
- 1,260
I believe that's called a mutiny.
- Reaction score
- 22,991
- Points
- 1,360
That’s a serious leadership failure.
To not have a seaworthiness program (or whatever the correct term is), is one thing.
To HAVE a seaworthiness program, and disregard it is an entirely different issue.
Folks can dis the airworthiness (operational, technical, investigative) program(s), but it’s borne of blood, and to its credit, the RCAF takes few things, if anything, more seriously.
- Reaction score
- 6,799
- Points
- 1,360
Call it a rose if you wish.....right is right
Similar threads
