On 6/15/2010 10:36 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:20 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:46 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 3:45 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:

If the cost per taxpayer was unduly great I might agree with
that. But
come on, half a cent?

I'm the breadwinner for my 2 person household so it would be a
whole
penny for me.

Oh, booh hooh.

This half a cent figure is bogus, someone on the wreck just made
the
damned number up, and now it's quoted like a factoid? SAR costs
money
whether or not it is used. When it is used for real, it isn't used
for
practice, so the cost is not much more than if no rescue occurred.
Not
"much more" is of course, relative.

They charter airliners for practice missions?

I don't work for them and have no idea how they perform that
aspect of
training. However you might want to be aware that almost all civilian
flight training is done on rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.


But not the Military.

So what?


Wasn't the Australian mission a Navy SAR?

What ever gave you _that_ idea?


Correction AMSA.

And what does that organization say about the resources it will use at need?