Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

robbreid · Post by **robbreid** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:55 am

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA4720 Ilyushin Il-76

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ADB1854 Antonov AN-124

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ADB1948 Antonov AN-124

Can't happen to notice all these aircraft movements out of Trenton,
I thought that is what our C-17's that don't like appearing at
airshows are for???

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:03 am

I'm not in the military anymore, but my guess is the military's airlift requirement far exceeds what our limited number of C-17's, A310's and C-130's can handle. Since civilian airlift cannot be counted on to go places where they might get shot at, and some of what the military does has sensitive security implications, they reserve that kind of stuff for the military equipment and people.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:06 am

Rockie has it right. There are only 4 C-17s on the inventory.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:22 am

*** edited ***

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:29 am

I'm sure it has something to do with lack of viable alternatives Hedley. Also the military can do things the civilian side of the house can't, and they are operating on a very strict budget.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:34 am

*** edited ***

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:39 am

I guess they don't care what sort of risk they put the military in as long as the job gets done. No argument from me there. But at the risk of igniting the gun registry debate again, past criminally negligent mismanagement of money does not justify current or future mismanagement.

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:58 am

As the military is an all volunteer force the politicians may be applying the maxim:
Volenti non fit injuria
"to one who is willing there is no injury"
Although one does wonder what the excuse they will use if one of these Soviet era(pronounced error) built behemoths crashes in a populated area ,that might be quite entertaining to see what possible justification they come up with.

CelBatrin · Post by **CelBatrin** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:07 am

When your that pretty looking, you don't actually have to do any work.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:13 am

Hedley wrote:
lack of viable alternatives ... very strict budget
So, the government is doing something that it says is dangerous
and "not in the public interest" to save money, so it can spend
two billion dollars on the gun registry?

Canada is insane.

Hedley, stop being ridiculous.

#1) You know damn well the military operates outside of regulation by Transport, which is the "government" you are referring to in your previous post in this thread. They are not subject to the CARs, and they have their own policies on things like procurement.

#2) There is no possible link whatsoever in your logic between Alan Rock's decision to fund the gun registry (FIVE federal governments ago, I might add) and today's decision by the military to contract Russian airlift.

You sound like a crazy old man on a porch somewhere, yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. Try at least using some coherent arguments that might at least remotely support your bitterness at being banned from airshows.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:20 am

*** edited ***

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Hedley wrote:
lack of viable alternatives ... very strict budget
So, the government is doing something that it says is dangerous
and "not in the public interest" to save money, so it can spend
two billion dollars on the gun registry?

Canada is insane.

Hedley,

The gun registry is only there if you don't ignore it....

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:10 pm

It only took 5 posts to get from the C-17s to the gun registry. I think we should all get together and write an episode of the Simpsons.

crazy_aviator · Post by **crazy_aviator** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:56 pm

Hmmm, let me think if there is any comparison with the gun registry fiasco and the use of foreign heavy-lift aircraft .

Positive comparables

1 Waste of taxpayers $$
2 Strong arm approach in its implementation
3 misdirection of funds
4 failure to see the root problems- fighting someone elses war/ legislating the good guy through registration of guns
5 Saying soviet a/c are unsafe then using them compared to requiring safe citizens to register THEN failing to stiffen criminal offence penalties, free up the court system,
6 Lack of long-term planning- Dealing with root crime causes as compared to providing long term military procurement AND getting the hell out of countries we have NO right to be in !!!
7 Guns dont kill people,,,,people kill people ,,,,, Solviet planes dont kill people ,,,ill equipped pilots and poor maintenance on solviet planes kill people

HMM,, No comparison at all LOL

Expat · Post by **Expat** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:19 am

2R wrote:Although one does wonder what the excuse they will use if one of these Soviet era(pronounced error) built behemoths crashes in a populated area ,that might be quite entertaining to see what possible justification they come up with.

You can say anything you want about them Soviet planes, but they are the ones keeping the supplies running, here in Af. I have pictures of Antonovs delivering whole loads of palletized Dr. Pepper and Coke Cola from Europe! What a waste!!!
There is a Coke factory in Kabul!!! They sell Merinda for 25 cents a can at the market!

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:16 am

*** edited ***

Youngback · Post by **Youngback** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:27 am

I can say that while Russian aircraft are built like tanks, sometimes the aircrews themselves aren't up to the job. There is an IL-76 in the water off the departure end of the airstrip I am currently flying out of. It wasn't the first one to wind up there either, the previous one being a "lets just duck under MDA and take a peek". A lot of times they just load up and go, temperature, weight and performance charts be damned. A lot of Russian crews may be competent but after seeing some of what I've seen, I think they have a much higher percentage of cowboys. The cargo can go with the foreign heavy lifters but I'm betting the stuff that has to be done 100% right or where passengers are involved are done by the C-17s

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:45 am

Youngback wrote:I can say that while Russian aircraft are built like tanks, sometimes the aircrews themselves aren't up to the job. There is an IL-76 in the water off the departure end of the airstrip I am currently flying out of. It wasn't the first one to wind up there either, the previous one being a "lets just duck under MDA and take a peek". A lot of times they just load up and go, temperature, weight and performance charts be damned. A lot of Russian crews may be competent but after seeing some of what I've seen, I think they have a much higher percentage of cowboys. The cargo can go with the foreign heavy lifters but I'm betting the stuff that has to be done 100% right or where passengers are involved are done by the C-17s

I agree. Russians build good, tough airplanes. The human factor is the weak link as you say, but it isn't limited to the aircrew. People are also in charge of maintenance and operational policies which greatly exacerbates the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMNg8FrVYM

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:50 am

*** edited ***

trampbike · Post by **trampbike** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:02 am

crazy_aviator wrote: 7 Guns dont kill people,,,,people kill people ,,,,, Solviet planes dont kill people ,,,ill equipped pilots and poor maintenance on solviet planes kill people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

2R · Post by 2R » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:20 am

I think we should all get together and write an episode of the Simpsons

Naw, Family Guy. The problem would be the huge fight between
all the ATC who would want to play Meg

[/quote]

Gigity gigity gigity......

niss · Post by **niss** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:34 am

In Soviet Russia....Planes crash you!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:00 am

Don't forget that when Diavik needed some cement moved quickly a couple years ago that russian aircraft were rubber stamped to operate out of YZF. Granted the MI-26 was doing some work that nothing else could, but the AN-12 work could have been done by canadian aircraft/crews, which ultimately would have cost more money for the mine.

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:01 pm

Youngback wrote: but I'm betting the stuff that has to be done 100% right or where passengers are involved are done by the C-17s

CF personnel are not permitted to travel aboard any ex-Soviet aircraft. Primarily for safety reasons.

Stories of Antonov's attempting to taxi for takeoff with ice all over their wings at Trenton have proven that these crews are substandard at best.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:55 pm

SAR_YQQ wrote:CF personnel are not permitted to travel aboard any ex-Soviet aircraft. Primarily for safety reasons.

Stories of Antonov's attempting to taxi for takeoff with ice all over their wings at Trenton have proven that these crews are substandard at best.

So if they managed to crash with cargo only, but taking out civilians and their property that would be ok?

Only our gov't and military would alllow such a thing...

Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??

Re: Canada's C-17's . . . what do they do??