• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

OCdt Speaks at Freedom Rally

The thing that definitely shouldn't be used onboard aircraft? Sounds about right.

And most civilized aircraft have something called "electric outlets" for "kettles" :sneaky:

Hot cups!! Kenco 3-in-1s!

I Love You GIF
 
Just use the RCAF's catering budget and go the route of the USAF:

Lawmaker Chides Air Force for Buying Expensive Coffee Cups​

Lawmaker Chides Air Force for Buying Expensive Coffee Cups
A 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.
 
A 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.
Forgive my ignorance, but why doesn't a normal $15 Walmart electric kettle work on a pressurized aircraft?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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."
 
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.
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.
 
Seriously time for a crew to do a work stoppage......standing on the dock while the ship should be leaving port.
 
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?
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 .
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top