Sailor Reported Lost Found In Gulf Of Mexico Adrift

[letsgetsailing3]

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet on the subject, and it's likely no amount of relating personal experiences and detailed knowledge of actual practices are going to persuade you that your agenda-driven left wing journalist hacks are wrong.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet, just having a hard time swallowing what someone posts with no proof. Meanwhile, I can give sources for my info, including the military itself, in terms of what aircraft it has.


So you just go on through life being wrong on this.

That's just it, not only do I know I'm right, I formed the opinion AFTER seeing the evidence. I can provide the evidence. So far, no one with an opposing view can provide anything except personal anecdotes, but they seem to clash with the evidence.

------------------------------------------

In fact, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet on this issue. You've posted on this subject several times, always using a few anecdotes and a couple of observations to prove a general point.

The main line seems to always be that if the military doesn't spend money on one thing, they'll waste it somewhere else, so any extra expenditure is "free". That's not true, and repeating it often doesn't make it true.

Military training isn't just taking vessels or aircraft off base and driving around in circles. While some of the training seems a bit like that, it's generally structured pretty well, and has a purpose -- to keep our military trained to the point that they can effectively provide security for the United States. You can argue that the military is bigger that what you want, but if you can figure out a way to make it more efficient then the military is willing to entertain your ideas.

Turns out that any organization that size is going to have some inefficiencies, though if you are informed about them, they'll seem a lot less to you.

Regardless, if a military organization undertakes a mission, that mission does have a cost, whether it's a budget line item or not.

[rognvald]

I don't understand why so many are bashing Socaldmax for his well presented arguments. He has sufficiently substantiated his claims with factual evidence that any reasonable person could understand. If there are facts to the contrary that discredit his assertions, why not state them? It is amazing to me that some so carelessly dismiss the expenditures of our government when we are still in the midst of a recession(yes, the recovery is still a myth to most small businesses and working Americans) and our national debt as of March 2015 is an unbelievable 18 plus trillion dollars. So, when some of us complain about the money spent on CG rescues and airplanes for our generals, it not because we are retrogressive in our thinking but rather as a call for good, sound economic policy in regards to expenditures based on real need-- a perspective that many Americans simply don't understand. And, if there is one subject of which the average American is completely ignorant, it is the most basic understanding of Economics. So, when voices of reason call for a sound fiscal policy and a curb on government spending, there are 18 Trillion reasons why.

[darylat8750]

I have a friend who flew the C9 (military version of the DC9). Many of his missions had the back filled with litters and medical personnel. One misson that stood out in his memory was a team of quiet guys that needed to get "someplace else" in a hurry. When they are good at their job and luck doesn't go against them they don't make the "news hour".

I agree that transportation airplanes are tools. Like any tool they can be used inefficiently or even misused. When someone misuses their position we usually hear about it. When the President's child took an international vacation with some friends to the tune of millions of taxpayer's dollars even the drive by media at least mentioned it. If a general did that the media would scream bloody murder.

I have personally witnessed a one star with a seat in first class trade seats with a corporal so the guy on his way home from the sand box could sit in first class.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Adodero

I get agitated when people view private aircraft as some sort of symbol of extravagance.

For some, sure, they are. I saw pictures of Jordan's Gulfstream a few days ago. I doubt he gets the full "business benefit" of having a ~$25m jet and it is a luxury item. He can afford it and good for him.

For those operating businesses, it's a tool, and a valuable one that allows business to operate more efficiently.

For example, I worked at a company that owned a small jet, it required a crew of two and carried 8 people. The operating cost was roughly $3,500 per hour.

Most of the people who flew on the airplane made regular multi-destination stops, often having to leave at the last minute. Access to an aircraft allowed them to leave on a moments notice, without spending hours at the airport (which saved the company money), and the operating costs weren't that far off from what you'd pay with an airline ticket on the same timeframe (in some cases it was less). Further, getting 5 or 6 people to a single destination on a tight timeframe via airline travel can be near impossible. In some cases, it is impossible.

In some cases, the business hinged on the success of the people flying in the airplane. In others, our customer's business did. Getting them all where they needed to be was very important and there was no other way to near-guarantee it was going to happen.

Many people saw this as an extravagance, but it wasn't, it was a necessity for our ~1000 person company. In many cases it was the C-level & VP level executives flying around, in others it was peons like me that just needed to be somewhere. There was a business need.

Was it nice? Sure it was, it's a luxury, but it also saved the company money in the long run in tax benefits, time saved, and allowing us to do business in ways we otherwise may not be able. It was a tool, tools cost money, but they make otherwise difficult jobs easier.

That said, I see these military officers as a sort of VP-level status within a very large organization. They have entourages, equipment, and obscure travel schedules. IMO, for many, it's a business necessity to have access to private aircraft and allows them a level of flexibility that increases efficiency and, as a result, decreases cost.

That's not to say some don't abuse the system, but I think that's a case for more accountability, not reduction of capabilities.

Was timing really that critical? I'm trying to imagine situations where business meetings aren't scheduled days or weeks in advance.

I was one of four members of a team and we were often told to book a flight within 4 hrs, I kept a go bag at work and my Pelican tool case was always ready to go. We'd get a call, our assistant would book the earliest commercial flight and I was usually in HI, VA, CT, etc within 6-8 hrs. Having a private jet might have shaved a couple of hours off of that, but it's difficult for me to imagine the need to get there that much faster.

Anyhow, that's another perspective, certainly a valid one. It seems to me that if they were simply a tool - transportation, then they would all look like larger versions of Cessna 152s on the inside, but they don't. As they go up the scale, they get far more luxurious, but I suppose there's a tool like reason for that as well. Possibly an incentive, "look what you might get to fly in more often if you bring in more business."

Are you sure there isn't just a tiny bit of bragging rights and wretched excess involved in buying a $67M jet as a tool, when you can get one that's nearly as good for under $2M? There's no shame in admitting it, I think it's great when people buy Paganis, Veyrons, McLarens, and other supercars, they're beautiful.

I just think it's a bit disingenuous, and possibly a little insulting when they try to pass them off as "just transportation." A Ford Focus is transportation, a Veyron is a statement.

Well, I certainly learned a lot. While the military does have a fleet of business class jets, at least it's not running a huge fleet of C-40s like I was originally led to believe. Just 25 of them, plus another 109 piddly Gulfstream, Learjet and Cessna business jets.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet on the subject, and it's likely no amount of relating personal experiences and detailed knowledge of actual practices are going to persuade you that your agenda-driven left wing journalist hacks are wrong.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet, just having a hard time swallowing what someone posts with no proof. Meanwhile, I can give sources for my info, including the military itself, in terms of what aircraft it has.


So you just go on through life being wrong on this.

That's just it, not only do I know I'm right, I formed the opinion AFTER seeing the evidence. I can provide the evidence. So far, no one with an opposing view can provide anything except personal anecdotes, but they seem to clash with the evidence.

------------------------------------------

In fact, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet on this issue. You've posted on this subject several times, always using a few anecdotes and a couple of observations to prove a general point.

The main line seems to always be that if the military doesn't spend money on one thing, they'll waste it somewhere else, so any extra expenditure is "free". That's not true, and repeating it often doesn't make it true.

Military training isn't just taking vessels or aircraft off base and driving around in circles. While some of the training seems a bit like that, it's generally structured pretty well, and has a purpose -- to keep our military trained to the point that they can effectively provide security for the United States. You can argue that the military is bigger that what you want, but if you can figure out a way to make it more efficient then the military is willing to entertain your ideas.

Turns out that any organization that size is going to have some inefficiencies, though if you are informed about them, they'll seem a lot less to you.

Regardless, if a military organization undertakes a mission, that mission does have a cost, whether it's a budget line item or not.

On this particular topic, I posted exact numbers, broken out by military branch and included photos of each type of plane, in case there was any confusion and to help people understand that these are not troop transports, or single engine Cessnas.


In regards to the "cost" of Coast Guard rescues that you refer to, I don't know how to explain it any better or whose word you would believe. In simple terms,each unit has a quarterly budget and they use it up by the end of the fiscal quarter. They go out training and patrolling as much as the budget will permit, and if a rescue opportunity comes up, they do it and chalk it up to a training exercise, probably videotaping it in the process and critiquing it for other personnel in terms of what went right and what went wrong, (if any.)

Would you be satisfied if I got an official statement from the local Coast Guard office? Would you believe their spokesperson?

Believe me, of all of the branches, I think the CG is still small enough that there is minimal waste, if any, and their budget and capabilities should be greatly increased. I think they should have drones for coastal surveillance and SAR, and I'd like to see a distributed computing project where people can use their PC's processing power including GPUs, to help find missing vessels from satellite photos.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

On this particular topic, I posted exact numbers, broken out by military branch and included photos of each type of plane, in case there was any confusion and to help people understand that these are not troop transports, or single engine Cessnas.


In regards to the "cost" of Coast Guard rescues that you refer to, I don't know how to explain it any better or whose word you would believe. In simple terms,each unit has a quarterly budget and they use it up by the end of the fiscal quarter. They go out training and patrolling as much as the budget will permit, and if a rescue opportunity comes up, they do it and chalk it up to a training exercise, probably videotaping it in the process and critiquing it for other personnel in terms of what went right and what went wrong, (if any.)

Would you be satisfied if I got an official statement from the local Coast Guard office? Would you believe their spokesperson?

Believe me, of all of the branches, I think the CG is still small enough that there is minimal waste, if any, and their budget and capabilities should be greatly increased. I think they should have drones for coastal surveillance and SAR, and I'd like to see a distributed computing project where people can use their PC's processing power including GPUs, to help find missing vessels from satellite photos.

Your data is fine; it's your conclusions that are incorrect.

I don't believe you'll find any representative of the Coast Guard who says that Searches and Rescues are free, or that if they didn't use resources doing searches and rescues that they'd just do some useless training, or that the Coast Guard, Air Force, or Navy just drives around in circles until they run out of money, if they're not applying those resources to Search and Rescue missions.

Sure, real rescues are training opportunities, and yes, these organizations are smart enough to use real world situations for future planning and training. None of that, however, supports your conclusion that Search and Rescue operations don't have a cost.

Would you prefer that they beat up people they rescue by pointing out the costs? They really are the good guys, and as professionals, part of that role is not beating up the victims they save by handing them a bill. But don't confuse that with the claim that rescues don't have a cost.

On the unrelated topic of military waste, I'm sure you have a point, but it has to be presented in context in order to be evaluated.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

I have a friend who flew the C9 (military version of the DC9). Many of his missions had the back filled with litters and medical personnel. One misson that stood out in his memory was a team of quiet guys that needed to get "someplace else" in a hurry. When they are good at their job and luck doesn't go against them they don't make the "news hour".

I agree that transportation airplanes are tools. Like any tool they can be used inefficiently or even misused.

Here's a pic of the interior of one Gulfstream V, or C-37A as the military calls them. While this is only one of a huge variety of interior designs, I'm sure you'll agree, this isn't just basic transportation, not by a long shot.




When someone misuses their position we usually hear about it. When the President's child took an international vacation with some friends to the tune of millions of taxpayer's dollars even the drive by media at least mentioned it. If a general did that the media would scream bloody murder.

In some cases they do, but when a 4 star general visits his mistress in FL with a huge motorcade, it really didn't make the news. They've become jaded to excess, as it seems the general public has.

I have personally witnessed a one star with a seat in first class trade seats with a corporal so the guy on his way home from the sand box could sit in first class.

Wait a minute... you're saying a 1 star general was flying in first class????

That is a direct contradiction to biscuitsjam's assertion that 1 and 2 star generals always fly economy and cram 4 people into a subcompact.

I go on the TDYs. We fly coach. The rental cars are the cheapest available - we'll pack 4 of us into a subcompact. A 24-hour trip to the other side of the country and back is not usually very much fun.

You all need to get your stories straight, somebody's done wandered off the reservation. Please stick to the script.*


* Just playing with you, I believe you. LOL

I'm glad to see he did that, it was a very generous thing to do. I don't begrudge him the the first class seat to begin with, maybe he saved up his frequent flyer miles, or got a free upgrade, who knows, it has happened to me.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with the fleet of business class jets pictured in the previous post. They exist, they cost a LOT of money to buy, and cost a lot of money to maintain. I just hope as taxpayers we're getting a good return on investment.

I distinctly remember hearing stories about parents of soldiers having to buy their son's body armor because there wasn't enough for all of them, and news stories about a shortage of armor plating for Humvees.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who serves on the Armed Services subcommittee, said she knows soldiers who were told by the military to buy body armor before leaving, rather than risk arriving with nothing but their shirts.

"We lagged far behind in making sure that our soldiers who are performing very difficult and dangerous missions had protective equipment," she said.

WASHINGTON - A shortage of "up-armored" Humvees in Iraq, highlighted Wednesday by a soldier's pointed question to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is a consequence of insurgent tactics the military didn't anticipate, the Pentagon's chief spokesman said.

A basic Gulfstream G550 costs $53.5M. You can buy a lot of body armor and armor plating for $53.5M. That would be a higher priority to me.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I don't understand why so many are bashing Socaldmax for his well presented arguments. He has sufficiently substantiated his claims with factual evidence that any reasonable person could understand. If there are facts to the contrary that discredit his assertions, why not state them? It is amazing to me that some so carelessly dismiss the expenditures of our government when we are still in the midst of a recession(yes, the recovery is still a myth to most small businesses and working Americans) and our national debt as of March 2015 is an unbelievable 18 plus trillion dollars. So, when some of us complain about the money spent on CG rescues and airplanes for our generals, it not because we are retrogressive in our thinking but rather as a call for good, sound economic policy in regards to expenditures based on real need-- a perspective that many Americans simply don't understand. And, if there is one subject of which the average American is completely ignorant, it is the most basic understanding of Economics. So, when voices of reason call for a sound fiscal policy and a curb on government spending, there are 18 Trillion reasons why.

Thank you for your observations.

It boggles my mind how people can refute everything and still not present a shred of evidence.

I've changed my opinion somewhat based on this thread, there are a lot fewer C-40s than I thought, which is good, but there are more Gulfstreams, Learjets etc, which is probably also good, since more smaller planes in different places is more efficient than firing up a 737 every time a 4 star wants to go somewhere.

That's still a pretty impressive fleet of luxury aircraft, but it's a little less than I was originally led to believe.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

Is there not a mod available to stop this nonsense? One guy with a grudge and some "facts" is ignoring half a dozen people with actual experience.. AND NONE OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE THREAD!

I'd like to hear more about the rescue etc... Or nothing if there's nothing left to say!

Hell, even rank speculation regarding the captain's preparation would be better!

I like how you put the quotes around "facts", now I'm sure they really aren't facts.

Looks like no news on the rescued guy, sorry.

If this bothers you so much, you can always click to another thread, this level of aggravation probably isn't good for your health. Nobody's forcing you to read this.

[avb3]

Thread closed. Completely off topic, and nothing to do with cruising or sailing.