Yeah Slezy you are correct, dragging it around a fix @ A050 with the boards out converting fuel to noise will work.

HOWEVER

When you read the contract and you are paid by the hour "Air Time" I'm sure the boss/board/shareholders would much prefer you get an extra 3hr of airtime.

Many things that pilots think are "the right thing to do" are sometimes significantly different to the company line. I worked for a wet lease operator at one stage that had a power by the hour contract, we regularly operated a 757 at M0.68, min cost (fuel) cruise.

Pilots are really good at perpetuating the myth that because they are at the pointy end with the big windows they know what the big picture is. The reality is usually somewhat different.

Out of interest and not meant as a stir, what was Product B?

Regardless of what the Company pockets, I was under the impression that the new contact did not include any additional flight pay for the crew? I highly doubt they will drag it around for an extra couple hours just so management can give themselves a pat on the back in between circle jerks.

Haha CJ, you're funny.......

I was going to say more but it would be a waste.

What about Fuel Dumping?
Any Aircraft with a ratio between MTOW and MLW greater than 105% have a Fuel Dump System.
Problem solved....no need to orbit for few hours with our tax money.

Fuel dumping for weight is prohibited. Only permitted to dump to control CoG.

Is that SOP's or Casa?
The only limitation I know is in the AIP and it's 6000ft mini and Clearance from the CTL.
I did a fair bit of Fuel Dumping in a previous life and it was always for reaching the MLW after a major problem at MTOW.

It's a flight manual limitation. I can't find the reference at the moment...

Even if you could dump for weight, you can only dump the tail tanks which are only a little over 3000lbs. They dump at an impressive rate of 100lbs a minute!!

Not the Douglas/Boeing 717. MLW 49895, MBRW 53524, ratio 107.3%, no fuel dump capacity.

So what is the performance like if/when the FLAP FAILs (its quite common) after the drop in the middle of nowhere. They can only be reset on the ground i believe...

Transit at flap 20 is gonna be an issue 🙄

The FLAPS FAIL issue is less of an issue these days, but certainly one to consider. I believe that the main culprit was "twist" over the length of the flexible drive shaft and that this has, on the whole, been addressed. FLAPS FAIL certainly happens more rarely.
Yes, the fix is generally easy - pull and reset the Flap CB - and yes, only "allowed" on the ground. But, if I was in the seat, and the option was to go for a swim in the Southern Ocean, you can guess what I'd do! :ok:

Surely all recoveries are planned with a flap fail taken into account! Worst case of single engine, DP or flaps down....

Aviation is about compromise and you rarely get everything you need in one package. My understanding is the jet was selected due to the range and speed capabilities, particularly when you consider the Mh 370 Sar. However the reality is that the 604 would still be lacking when it came to a search so far offshore, it is a very high level of difficulty to address that (hopefully) once a lifetime operation, as we saw it really becomes an international military problem to mount a capable response. On the other hand the vast majority of issues are a lot closer to land, or in fact over land where jet speed makes a different of only a few minutes, the critical element is to get stores to the survivors asap. The array of useful stores will be significantly smaller than present, with some of the current inventory not being able to be despatched easily or not at all.
I think the operators in the rescue centre are going to be shocked when they discover the shortfalls of this solution. Not Cobhams fault they are providing a service they have been contracted for.

Hey Darmah, some interesting points, I agree that solutions are often a compromise. It just depends what the future requirements will be. Perhaps guided stores. Maybe Cobham can swap three jets for three surveillance Dash 8s. Gives Customs faster patrol platforms and Amsa a bigger door:ok:

So what are we looking at here, another "Sea Sprite" debacle??

Let's have a quick look at it from a helicopter perspective .
Contract was for a maximum of $32.5 m Pa as stated by AMSA in the RFT
The Cobham contract is initially $53m PA for 12 years, according to press release.

The aircraft is a low wing jet which is extremely rare to be used in this low level surveillance environment.

The cargo door is not large enough to allow for despatch of all items in the current Amsa inventory, as specially stated in the RFT.

Observation windows are provided, but almost all of the field of view aft is obscured by the main plane. Any observer will tell you that sometimes a critical sighting is made when the aircraft passes over a small or semi submerged object due to changes in lighting and perspective.

The FLIR pod is aft which means looking forward the FOV is severely limited, with the radome also limiting the view.

Drop speed is greater than the design speed for the stores.

View from the cockpit is severely limited due to combing, nose and rake of the windscreen. Drops are usually called by the captain who maintains a view of the target.

All aircrew will be paid less than they have been for the last ten years while gaining first hand experience on Sar ops.

The weight of the aircraft and pcn limitations restrict where it can land, or how much useful fuel it can carry.

The list goes on.
This solution is significantly more expensive and less capable than the current aircraft, and basically the dedication and service of the current crew has been discarded as unimportant by AMSA and Cobham. The vast majority of these professionals will be out of work in order to provide an inferior service. Yep seasprite all over again, or perhaps a Robert Amann moment, for those of you who don't know, look it up.

"Robert Amann moment". Now there's a blast from the past! :D
At least the Amann debacle was rolled up, put aside and replaced with
a service fit for task. What chance of that with the SAR contract?

"This solution is significantly more expensive and less capable than the current aircraft, and basically the dedication and service of the current crew has been discarded as unimportant by AMSA and Cobham. The vast majority of these professionals will be out of work in order to provide an inferior service. Yep seasprite all over again, or perhaps a Robert Amann moment, for those of you who don't know, look it up."

Wonder how much in political "Donations" this little contract cost?

Remember there are two sides to every story...

I get the feeling some of those posting here are people who are losing jobs. I'm not suggesting they don't have a right to be angry but they may not be looking at this situation impartially.

I note you haven't rebutted any points, just used the " they aren't happy" argument. An alternative view might be there are a heap of professionals who are concerned what was offered is not what Australia will get, for more money. Feel free to address the points the previous poster made.