Meanwhile, in Canada

[james_davis_nicoll]

Canada to replace helicopters unfit for service with helicopters unfit for service.

The important thing is the people making money from this transaction won't have to fly in the new helicopters.

Comments

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

Some years ago, Halliburton approached my city with an offer to replace a somewhat too-small bridge with what would have been, upon examination, a substantially identical bridge. And for only several billion dollars! Their offer was declined.

Is there a reason Canada shouldn't keep using the Sea King until an actually better helicopter shows up?

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

We have, for fifty years now. The Sea Kings are flying on good intentions and prayer, held together with duct tape and fishing line. (Because baling wire's too heavy.)

-- Steve thinks they're past the 24 hrs of maintenance for every hour in the air now.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Thirty hours plus was the last report, and even then emergency landings are a common occurrence.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

It sounds as if the "buy new Sea Kings to replace the old ones" plan is quite off the table, then. I can't criticize Canada; the same point comes up every time someone tries to replace the aging B-52 fleet...

Come to think of it, I heard something similar from old timers about replacing the DC-3.

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

Maintenance requirements go up for multiple reasons. One of them is the steady accretion of advanced technologies retrofitted into the aircraft, which means suboptimal wiring paths, adding ballast to maintain CoG, etc. So if you ordered some new Sea Kings or B-52s from the factory, would you want them built to 1960 spec, or with all the improvements added? If you get them with the improvements, then congrats, you're still stuck with piles of maintenance.