I became an airline pilot because I like looking out the window.  Failed out of a lot of things because I was always looking out the window - as a pilot that's a big part of the job!

7 minutes ago, W5 said:

 

Yes, I could tell a lot of stories. However I don't think that they would be all that well received in today's environment.

 

Who cares about today's environment - tell us the stories!

Ain't nobody here but us chickens!

29 minutes ago, W5 said:

Way back in time, Simpson Air had placards on the dash in the aircraft:

"Pilot's Guarantee: If my ass gets there, so does yours"

I worked at a place that had this sign on the dash;

"To ensure proficiency please do not tip the pilot if you are not completely satisfied with the flight". 

Worked wonders - made lots of tips.

If anyone is having login or browser problems please send me a PM.

Missing from the story is that Klaus intended to file a lawsuit to recover the $19.99 that each of his party had  paid for the return flight.

59 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

why would they be looking up? more important to keep an eye on the fueling hose Fake or perhaps just something beyond retired personal experience? 

As Kip says - totally fake.  No downdraft and, I don't care who you are, if there's a helicopter hovering 6 feet above you - YOU'RE LOOKING UP!

25 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

 

The give away in the photo is that there doesn't appear to be any downwash....

That and the fact that not a single one of 6 dudes is looking up at the massive helicopter hovering 6 feet above their heads!

On 1/9/2024 at 2:59 PM, Malcolm said:

Peterborough store clerk charged after hitting robbery suspect in head with baseball bat

By Greg Davis  Global News

Posted January 9, 2024 11:06 am

 Updated January 9, 2024 11:34 am

Peterborough police charged a store clerk with assault following a robbery on Jan. 5, 2024. The robbery suspect sustained serious head injuries. Global News Peterborough file

LEAVE A COMMENTSHARE THIS ITEM ON FACEBOOKSHARE THIS ITEM ON TWITTERSEND THIS PAGE TO SOMEONE VIA EMAILSEE MORE SHARING OPTIONS

 

DESCREASE ARTICLE FONT SIZE

INCREASE ARTICLE FONT SIZE

A convenience store clerk in Peterborough, Ont., faces an assault charge after striking a robbery suspect with a baseball bat late last week.

 

According to the Peterborough Police Service, around 2:30 a.m. on Jan. 5, officers responded to a robbery reported at a store in the area of King and Bethune streets.

Officers learned a clerk was helping a customer when a man entered the store brandishing a baseball bat and demanding money.

Get the latest Calgary news. Sent to your email, every day.

“A struggle ensued and the clerk was struck with the bat before grabbing the bat away from the suspect,” police said.

The suspect fled out of the store. Police say the clerk followed the man outside and then struck him several times with the baseball bat along a nearby sidewalk.

Police on Tuesday reported the man is currently in a Toronto hospital with head injuries. The clerk was treated at the scene by paramedics.

Just a reminder - this thread is non-aviation and also non-political.  I realize that line is somewhat blurry at times but gender and trans issues definitely fall into the political category.

5 hours ago, J.O. said:

That's a little funnier than the presidential candidate who said climate change is causing more and stronger eclipses. 

 

Come on.  Really?  I'd get a t-shirt with that as a quote if true.

Best eclipse joke I heard:

The Sun was doing an impersonation of Justin Trudeau doing black-face!

Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners.  No takers and no project.  Even with current energy prices it's s no-go.  So, yeah, it works but isn't economical.

Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling.

Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects.

My point stands - it's not an economically viable.  BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas.  I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value.

27 minutes ago, deicer said:

 

You are both correct, and wrong.

Yes, that system was expensive, but it was the first of it's kind.  It was a bold step to take.

It doesn't state in the story what maintenance requirements it had, just that it had come to end of life.  Like anything, mechanical or human.

Yet like all ground breaking technology, refinements and improvements come fast and furious.  What would be the cost today?  Nowadays solar panels, and ground source heat pumps are within the financial reach of a lot of homeowners.  Just look at the improvements on heatpumps.  

Cars in the 70's got 15mpg, yet cars today that are twice the size get 40mpg.  Only if you maintain them though, and they too will eventually wear out.

You can post all the negatives you want, but the only constant is change.

Systems will change, systems will get more efficient, and I will throw in a big 'however'....

Corporations are addicted to profit so they don't want to make products that last forever.  Just like the freezer in my basement that was built in the mid 70's and is still going strong.  Compare that to appliances and cars built today.

The ability is there, it's just that big money is making too much money off not changing to instigate change.

 

Yeah, don't know if I'd call it "bold".  Centrally heating a number of buildings from a single main heating plant has been around since forever.  If anything I'd call it "derivative".

You are correct in that a modern system might be made better than this version but don't forget that everything else has improved too.  Natural gas heating systems have gone from 75% efficiency to 95% or 98%.  Insulation, heat recovery systems, argon filled windows - all improved.  I'd be willing to bet that a modern gas furnace in a modern home would cost significantly less to build and run than any hot water system.  If you really want efficiency you'd build homes with in-floor radiant heating electrically powered from the nearby modular nuclear plant.

One more point - if the system was so bold and forward-looking how many similar projects have been built since?  The article has this interesting statement:

"at one point welcomed guests from around the world to show off the groundbreaking technology. The international visitors wanted to see first-hand how energy from the hot summer sun could be collected and stored and then released in a harsh Canadian winter to heat the community's houses."

Great.  So how many of those international visitors went back home and built similar systems?  Zero, as far as I can tell.  Why?  Because it wasn't economical at all.

46 minutes ago, deicer said:

Not comparable.

The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work.  They did get 25 years of good service out of it.

Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object.  How well do airplanes work if not maintained?

It's not just about maintenance.  Take a look at the actual costs;  $15 million for the initial installation and services 52 homes for 25 years.  By my math that works out to $1000/month per home.  The system certainly didn't save any money.  The article states that the system provides for 90% of the heat with natural gas providing the rest so the true cost is even higher.

Did it produce less greenhouse gas?  Maybe, but you'd need to figure out how much was produced in the production and installation of the hugely complicated system.  The article above says that the homes were significantly more insulated and airtight than standard home construction and they are 1500-1700 sq feet which is smaller than the average.  With this in mind the heating cost should be significantly less than the average.

So, the state-of-the-art system managed to heat 52 homes are greater cost than a regular heating system.  But, it was a research project, right?  So now it could be rebuilt to be more efficient and lower cost, right?  I wouldn't bet on it.

1 hour ago, conehead said:

Surely there must be a manual deployment method of the anchor! Like an alternate landing gear extension in an aircraft, no power required. Kip?  (and don't call me surely! )

I'm certainly no expert on this but my recollection is that when the anchor is dropped that you need 4 to 5 times the lateral distance to depth.  Not only this but the anchor is not dropped while the ship is moving as you overrun it which causes all sorts of problems.  Basically you need to know which way the current is flowing, position the ship so that it's facing up current, stop it and release the anchor.  You can't just throw it out at any time - this would be the equivalent of a car getting in trouble and just grabbing and setting the emer brake and saying "Well, it will come to a stop eventually".

6 hours ago, MCPSPEED said:

Im just watching a hockey game and watching the players on the bench.  They are using smelling salts… Ive never used them before but how long do they last?  Is it all natural?
 

Could this be useful during a redeye before approach?  Kept in the flight deck like the hockey bench?

just spitballing

I don't know the answer but I found this:

https://www.webmd.com/brain/are-smelling-salts-safe

The signs are obvious.  For those buying tickets - consider carefully.

4 hours ago, deicer said:

 

When I get my BBQ propane tank filled at Costco it cost about $12.

When I get my tank filled at a local gas station it costs about $20.

When I swap tanks at the Sobey's it costs about $30.

When you swap batteries not only do you need to pay for the energy in the battery but also the facility to perform the swap, the upkeep, maintenance and replacement for a pool of batteries.  And, don't forget - the profit for the company providing the service.  I would guess that the total cost would be 400% higher than charging at home.

Battery swapping might be possible but in the video it mentions that it's mostly taxis that have gotten onboard.  Like most places I would assume the taxi fleet has settled in on one type of vehicle therefore only one type of battery to swap.  Can you imagine trying to start such a business where there are 40 different types of batteries?  Of course I've never even heard of a vehicle in NA that is setup for this. 

2 hours ago, deicer said:

There would be a very simple solution for all these problems.

Companies settle for billions without admission of guilt or liability.  It's like it's a cost of doing business.

Close those loop holes and very quickly they will either clean up their act or go out of business.

Even better - hold the executives criminally responsible.

7 hours ago, neverminds said:

The 220 is still considered "money losing"?

That was my question as well.  Airbus got the whole thing for free - how in the world can it be losing money?

Any list that includes Pearson in a "Best" category - for anything - is obviously flawed (or being bought off) and should be ignored.

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

 There was no risk to the aircraft from this panel's departure.

I love these kinds of statements.  I realize what you are saying is; there is no significant aircraft system affected by the loss of this panel.  This is correct.  The problem of course is that the fact this panel departed shows the company failed to detect some underlying problem - much worse, potentially, than the panel that blew off if it means other things might also have undetected problems.

I have zero confidence in anything a passenger would have to say.  They misunderstand, embellish, seek fame, modify their re-telling to try to set up for compensation, etc, etc.

With that being said it's possible that the pilot may have given a hastily crafted explanation in the heat of the moment hoping to cover for some error.  Probably didn't expect it to go any further than the one dude he told.

These days I pretty much assume that anything I do is being recorded so I either stick to the truth or say nothing at all.

27 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

Could the pilot/FA be putting the dinner tray on his lap and accidently push the CC forward ???

If you had the tray on your lap and the seat was moved contact/pushing the CC would be more likely but you'd have to be really zoned out not to notice it happening.

Maybe the pilot was a big fat dude, maybe he was sitting sideways in the seat, maybe it's a story to cover something else happening?

Personally, I find it to be a big relief that it's a simple human error rather than some deep complicated software problem.  Boeing will issue an alert telling crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the operators will tell the crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the issue will get added to the list of points to be taught during line indoc.  Done.

Not only is it covered but the switch is recessed.  It's 2-position rocker switch that moves the seat fore and aft (and a little outboard when at the rearmost travel).  The switch is spring-loaded to the off position and the seat moves slowly.  

Seems like a plausible explanation but both the pilot and FA would have to be completely oblivious to the movement of the seat for it to get to the state where the controls were affected.