Re: What could replace the P-3?

Date:         26 Apr 98 03:44:35 
From:         Matt Clonfero <Matt@aetherem.demon.co.uk>
Organization: rest
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:

>Why make that assumption?  As long as you can get to a safe landing spot
>before the other engine fails, it doesn't much matter whether you're
>spending your many flying hours over open seas following a great circle
>path from point A to point B or doing lazy circles in the vicinity of
>point C.  Commercial requirements are, if anything, more stringent than
>military, since the military has greater risk-tolerance.

Not necessarily true. Civil air has a lot fewer problems to think about
- no-one shoots at them; they rarely plan to shut down an engine to
conserve fuel at the patrol area (you want to deliberately shut down one
engine on a twin?); and if you have to divert to the nearest airfield in
an airliner it's just an embuggerance that customer care sorts out. It
doesn't leave a hole in your carefully planned maritime recce planning.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
Matt Clonfero: Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk  | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them.   |   -- Anon, ETPS