wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:58 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
...
They use helicopters with a purchase cost of at least $2 or 3M, and a
flying cost upwards of $2K/hour. The purchase cost is baked in but
the flying costs are not.

I live right next to a CG base and they fly their helicopters
virtually continuously. I guess they send air assets to a distress
call less than once a month. Is it really better to pay them to check
out the bikinis on Waikiki than it is to have them saving some
lives?

Training, training, training. Whether skimming the surf on Waikiki or
the Bearing Sea its all good practice.

On Jan 3, 1:37 pm, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:58 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
...
They use helicopters with a purchase cost of at least $2 or 3M, and a
flying cost upwards of $2K/hour. The purchase cost is baked in but
the flying costs are not.

I live right next to a CG base and they fly their helicopters
virtually continuously. ...

Training, training, training. Whether skimming the surf on Waikiki or
the Bearing Sea its all good practice.

I don't doubt it and no criticism was intended. I was just suggesting
that the flying costs may well be built in too.

-- Tom.

This thread sure went to hell in a hurry. But then, this is a NG...what
else should I expect?
--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...35630&cat=1304

Dave,
If they aren't out doing the rescue they'd be running an exercise of the
rescue or just flat-assed burning hours to make their flight
requirements for the month.

Difference in the cost to the taxpayer is practically nil.

From someone who worked at the Comptrollers Office on an Air Force Base
once upon a time.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:23:21 -0500, wrote:

They use helicopters with a purchase cost of at least $2 or 3M, and a
flying cost upwards of $2K/hour. The purchase cost is baked in but
the flying costs are not.

Oh, so you think they only fly when there is a rescue operation? Guess again!

I know they do lots of training time in the choppers, as well they
should. The real question, and I don't know the answer, is whether or
not they shorten up training hours as a result of unscheduled mission
time. If not, they do fly more hours when on a rescue.

The other issue is risk. They almost certainly incur more risk to
personnel and equipment on a bad weather offshore rescue than on a
fair weather training flight.

Steve Thrasher wrote in news:477daa04
@news.acsalaska.net:

Difference in the cost to the taxpayer is practically nil.

From someone who worked at the Comptrollers Office on an Air Force Base
once upon a time.



My point, EXACTLY. They would have spent the same money, one way or the
other.

Remember the first rule of a government budget:

USE IT OR LOSE IT!

I wasn't a Charleston Naval Shipyard GS-11 for nothing!...(c;
The trick is to run the budget to 0 on the day before the forced Xmas
vacation that lasted to Jan 02... THAT took a great bureaucrat with
excellent planning!


Larry
--
Next time some broker tells you what a great investment he's selling,
ask him about Rhodium, a shiny metal used in Catalytic Converters.
Jan 1st 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rhodium $452 $1341 $3006 $5339 $6775 PER OUNCE!
How much longer can we pay for new cars at this rate?
Feb '97 it was $182/oz

On Jan 2, 7:21*am, "Roger Long" wrote:

The buoy reports for the area don't show the winds so bad that a vessel like
Red Cloud with a master as experienced as Joe should have gone down unless
there was a flooding problem.
Roger Long

Hi Roger:

Would yo care to comment on your earlier words below from NOvember 10,
2007:

"...For the record, just in case you get abducted by aliens or have
some other
mishap, I did not provide you with a formula to determine how much
cargo you
can safely carry. I did give you a way to make a rough estimate of
how much
your draft will change with the addition of weight. Whether your
vessel is
"safe" at *any* particular draft is a very different question.

Even when I do a complete stability analysis, stability test,
computer
model, Coast Guard stability criteria, loading conditions, righting
arms,
wind heel area, etc., safety has little to do with it. The boiler
plate in
the letter that accompanies such reports states that I am not
expressing any
opinion about the vessel's safety or seaworthiness. I perform
standard
calculations in accordance with a recognized methodology to determine
certain characteristics. International research and conventions has
produced a consensus that certain measures of these characteristics
are
associated with vessels that have a reasonable chance of surviving
the
effects of weather. Some of these measures have been turned into
regulation. It is the comparison of the characteristics found by the
calculations I perform with numbers determined by IMO, USCG, and
other
organizations that makes the determination of safety, not my
opinion. ...."

What was your opinion????????????

Bob

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:43:28 -0500, wrote:

Well, some rescues are in fair weather and some training missions are in bad
weather. You don't think they only practice in good weather, do you?

I only see them training in good weather. There are reasons for
that. :-)

On 3 Jan 2008 16:54:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:42:15 -0600, cavelamb himself
said:

The cost of the rescue was Zero because we ALREADY planned
to pay the crew, maintenance, CG budget even if they never rescued Joe.


And the cost of driving a Ferrari 15 miles is about $4.00, right?


What is your problem, Dave?

I'm surprised I have to explain it to you. And apparently you're not alone.

Larry makes the common error of equating "cost" with marginal cost. You
might use only $4.00 of gas to drive the Ferrari 15 miles, but only a fool
would say that the costs of driving a Ferrari are just $.27 a mile. Fully
allocated costs of rescues would be enormous.

The point you seem to be missing is that the Coast Guard has an annual
budget, which I can assure you that they spend. Now, whether some
portion of the budget is used to rescue someone or to make training
cruises is immaterial - the money is used. So "allocating" some
portion of the Coast Guard's budget to a rescue and then saying "the
rescue cost "X" dollars" is not accurate.

If, for example, the C.G. is out on a "training cruise" to burn up
their diesel budget (and I can assure you that the various members of
the US Government do strive mightily to use ALL their budget) and
diverts to rescue someone the C.G. does not immediately apply for
additional budget to cover the cost of the rescue. Therefore there is
not additional cost to the US Government and the Taxpayer.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:06:23 -0500, wrote:

I only see them training in good weather. There are reasons for
that. :-)

So, you're afraid to get wet. Not at all surprising.

So how long have you been a twit ?