Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/05/2017 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Hey Kip, it's been a while. This is going to be a bit of a threadjack but what the hell. It's always amusing for me to read people's take on this stuff and their perception of history, and Johnny's is not even close. I can answer this one definitively for you. When WestJet started, grooming was part of the flight attendant job description. Full stop. There was no pilot or "voluntary" grooming it was just the flight attendants. There certainly was no culture of "we are all equal" in fact back then the pilots were all considered management. None of the original flight attendants, with the exception of the inflight managers had any airline experience. Actually very few people outside of the flight ops and tech ops groups had any airline experience and so the pilots were expected to lead. We didn't wear leather jackets to dress down, we wore them because we were trying to differentiate ourselves from the competition. Plus they are just cool. There was no "social experiment." The culture at the beginning was simply a culture of survival although having fun was also a big part of it. Everyone was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get the airline up and running and keep it aloft. There was a common goal and everyone was pulling in the same direction, a very rare occurrence in aviation and probably in most any business but it was immensely satisfying. Back then 6 legs a day was common, we often did more and our long haul flight was YEG - YVR at 1:20. I hated that one. All the rest were 60 minutes or less and it was 25 minute turns all day, if we were on time. It was awesome! But it became apparent to me very early on that the flight attendants were really challenged by the short sectors and short turns. They were rarely off their feet and never even had a chance to eat their lunch or get off the aircraft just to use a real toilet. They were part of my team and if I could help them in any way I would, so I did. It never occurred to me that grooming was beneath me or that I was demeaning my profession. Hell, when I was flying corporate I had to wash the damn dishes after the flight! If me donating 5 minutes of my time to help groom the cabin meant that a flight attendant could go up to the terminal and use the washroom, or sit down and eat a sandwich or just go stand on the bridge to get some un-recycled air or if it might get us out on time, why wouldn't I? It was immediately obvious how much they appreciated the help so it just became routine for me. I never told the FOs I flew with that they should help but they started to anyway and, well, here we are today. So I guess I will take the blame for starting pilot grooming at WestJet. Pilots don't want to groom any more. Cleaning up a 120 seat aircraft after a 60 minute flight is one thing, cleaning up a 170 seat aircraft after a 5 hour flight is something else again and I get that so maybe it's time for a change. One of the arguments trotted out though is that pilots need to spend their time focusing on "safety related" duties, not grooming. That would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Somehow we managed to complete all our safety related duties and help the FAs when we were doing our 25 minute turns and back then we had to do our own weight and balance and performance calculations, on paper no less! All that is spoon fed to us now and our turns are usually 60 minutes. Mind you, back then safety related duties did not include sitting in the flight deck for 20 minutes, feet up, sipping a coffee and staring at a phone. That seems to be priority one for a lot of individuals these days. So there you go Kip. Like many things, pilot grooming at WestJet is an evolutionary thing that has now become a financial issue. Grooming was just one of the things our illustrious union was supposed to take care of but our boys got thoroughly schooled at the negotiating table. That's another story entirely. DR
  2. 6 points
    They've picked the first crew already!
  3. 6 points
    About 10 years ago, I gave a Christmas gift of an introductory flight to each of my sister's 3 kids, my two nieces and nephew. Since then, they've completed high school, paid their own way through university, gotten their degrees. How did they pay? They've been tree planting ever since the oldest tried it 6 years ago. They've all spent every summer since doing just that and making REAL money ($45K in 4 months!). There is no lack of work ethic in these kids, now all in their very early 20's. The oldest niece wanted to become a teacher and, after finishing Nippissing, went to Australia to get her teacher's certificate (recognized in most provinces here in Canada). After 2 years, she's back. What did she do this summer? PLANTED MORE TREES! The middle one, my nephew is finishing his Business degree at Ryerson, is unsure of what he wants to do, has a long-time steady girl friend who has just graduated Photographic Arts, Motion Picture Production, at Ryerson (the EXACT same course I did back in the early 70's but never completed) (my nephew never knew about my taking that course!). My youngest niece is just completing her degree at UofO in languages and international affairs. She had planned on traveling the world with CIDA (or whatever that entity calls itself today.) OKAY. So what does this post have to do about aviation? Well, I just learned that the youngest (CIDA hopeful) has enrolled herself in an aviation course at Algonquin College, is going to get her flying license then pursue a career in aviation. All I could say was WOW. That gift that was planted 10 years ago has blossomed into this. I hope she does well and spends a couple years doing what most of us did in one form or another before going into the airlines, which seems to be her goal. Of course, her Uncle Moon will do anything he can to assist her along the long and winding road of our profession and wishes her to be safe and well in the coming years!
  4. 6 points
    Thank you for your kind words... My daughter was here for 4 days and left this morning. I'm still having some real bad moments because photos seen, and memories intensely felt work as triggers to really derail my "get on with it" intentions. I really feel it is unfortunate than not everyone here met her because if they had, they would, like me forever wonder why she ever became my lifelong winger. I'm sure I am not the only member of this forum that has waded into the swamp of occasional despair and I won't be the last and I wish those that do encounter this life altering experience all the very best wishes. Be safe, fly safe.
  5. 5 points
    Who really cares what anyone from Westjet thinks about Air Canada or what anyone at Air Canada thinks about Westjet. At the end of the day, is your life so shallow that your identity rests solely on who your employer is? I have been in this business for 31 years and I have yet to see any difference between a CAIL, AC, AT, WJ etc employee. It seems we all just want a decent way to earn a living, spend time with family and friends and fly our airplanes (the last time I looked both Westjet and Air Canada’s airplanes had two engines, a tail, two wings and went to some pretty decent places.)
  6. 5 points
    I was sitting in my car at Walmart the other day, watching this woman, who apparently forgot where she parked. She kept putting her remote in the air and every time she squeezed it …I honked my horn.
  7. 5 points
    As a manager new to WestJet working in airports, I met more pilots in my first week through grooming aircraft than I did in a decade of working at CP and AC where we were encouraged to keep to ourselves and in some cases catch the other guy doing things wrong (ie. Project Hawkeye, etc...). In the following years, those "grooming" relationships evolved personally and professionally. It opened the door for many of my new pilot friends to pop by my office and give me a heads up about things or pass along a nice compliment. It also helped me get some things done that required buy in from flight ops thanks to our relationships. None of us were being paid to do the grooming. All of us were "over qualified," "over educated" and deep enough into our careers to think we were too important to be grooming an aircraft, and yet as I look back on my time at WestJet, it was one of the most important and meaningful parts of my time there.
  8. 5 points
    Sully never saw himself as special or as a hero. He was called upon to exercise the very best of his profession and everyone lived. That's as far as he would recognize his contribution. His next most important contribution was his and his crews' presentations to the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, just under six years later on April 28, 2015 http://www.sullysullenberger.com/my-testimony-today-before-the-senate-subcommittee-on-aviation-operations-safety-and-security/ Under USAirways' "restructuring", he retired about a $40,000/year pension, stating: STATEMENT OF CHESLEY B. “SULLY” SULLENBERGER III Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation April 28, 2015 Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Chair Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, and other members of the committee. It is my great honor to appear today before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security. I have dedicated my entire adult life to aviation safety. I have served as a pilot for more than 40 years, logging more than 20,000 hours of flight experience. In fact, just last month marked the 48th anniversary of my first flying lesson. I have served as an airline check airman (flight instructor) and accident investigator, and continue to serve as an aviation safety expert. And on January 15, 2009, I was the Captain on US Airways Flight 1549, which has been called the “Miracle on the Hudson.” On that flight, multiple bird strikes caused both engines to fail and, in concert with my crew, including of course our First Officer Jeffrey Skiles, I conducted an emergency landing on the Hudson River saving the lives of all 155 people aboard. And Jeff is with us today in the hearing room. Jeff, I could not have had a better colleague that day or since. I saw the birds just 100 seconds after takeoff, about two seconds before we hit them. We were traveling at 316 feet per second, and there was not enough time or distance to maneuver a jet airliner away from them. When they struck and damaged both engines, we had just 208 seconds to do something we had never trained for, and get it right the first time. The fact that we landed a commercial airliner on the Hudson River with no engines and no fatalities was not a miracle, however. It was the result of teamwork, skill, in-depth knowledge, and the kind of judgment that comes only from experience. As a result of all of this, I deeply understand what is at stake in questions of aviation safety; and I am uniquely qualified to talk about what works, what doesn’t, and why it is so important that we get these rules right. The traveling public, whose lives we literally hold in our hands, deserves and expects nothing less. I appear before you today knowing that the airline industry has their lobbyists and trade associations, but the traveling public does not. I consider it my professional responsibility and my personal duty to be an advocate for the safety of all air travelers. And as you consider the FAA Reauthorization Bill, I want to say it is critical that you maintain the requirement that newly hired commercial pilots—at both major and regional airlines—have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight experience, as Congress has mandated in Public Law. Public safety absolutely demands it. There are some who seek to roll back this requirement. They want to weaken it by allowing more credits for some non-flying activities or hours spent in flight school simulation to be counted as a substitute for real-world experience. They also claim that this safety standard is causing a pilot shortage among regional carriers and restricting flights to smaller cities. They could not be more wrong. There are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. There are some in the industry who look upon safety improvements as a burden and a cost when they should be looking at them as the only way to keep their promise to do the very best they can to keep their passengers safe. As airline professionals, aviation regulators, and legislators, we must have the integrity and courage to reject the merely expedient and the barely adequate as not good enough. We must not allow profit motives to undermine our clear obligation to do what is right to ensure public safety. And I assure you that public safety demands that every newly hired pilot have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flying experience before they are entrusted with protecting the lives of the traveling public. I have seen first-hand the real costs—the human costs—of having inadequate levels of safety. These are costs that no family should ever have to bear. And no one knows this better than the families here with us today. These are some of the families of the victims of Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407, a regional flight from Newark, NJ, which crashed on approach to Buffalo, NY, on February 12, 2009, killing all 49 people onboard and one person on the ground. It was a terrible tragedy that resulted from the performance of the crew and safety deficiencies. But even more concerning, the federal investigation into this crash revealed that these safety deficiencies reflected a systemic problem among some regional carriers that lacked the robust safety systems of major airlines. This investigation confirmed what many of us know: that we have a two-class system in the airline industry. Major airlines reflect the gold-standard in best practices, training, and safety management programs while some regional airlines, in a race to the bottom that they seem to be winning, take shortcuts to save money wherever they can, often potentially negatively impacting safety. Early this year, my wife, Lorrie, and I visited the site of the crash in Buffalo and met with the families of the victims, many of whom—in the wake of these findings, went to Capitol Hill, to advocate for improved safety measures. Knocking on doors at major federal agencies and meeting with hundreds of people, including President Obama, their goal was to strengthen safety rules on behalf of all members of the traveling public because they didn’t want anyone else to ever again pay the terrible price they did for lapses in regional airline safety. Against insurmountable odds, they succeeded—inspiring an overwhelming number of the 111th Congress to pass the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. Every member of the flying public owes them a debt of gratitude. We also owe you, the members of Congress, our thanks for getting this right. One of the most important elements of this Act was the establishment of the 1,500-hour standard for airline pilots. Yet just two years since this safety standard went into effect, airline lobbyists are trying to weaken the provision because they consider it a burden or cost. With the immediacy of that 2009 tragedy having passed, they also are appealing to new members of Congress and staffers who may not remember the Buffalo crash. Putting self-interest over public safety, they are trying to gain your support in rolling back the essential progress that has been made for airline safety. Some lobbyists would like you to significantly roll back the 1,500-hour minimum. Short of that, they want the FAA to allow simulator and academic training hours to count toward meeting the 1,500-hour minimum. They see this as an easier, more convenient, less expensive path to getting young pilots into regional airline cockpits. But there are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. Throughout the entire 112-year history of powered flight, one thing has been true. The most important safety device in any airliner is a well-trained, experienced pilot. That is even more true today, especially as we transition from my generation of pilots to the next. We must make sure that each generation of pilots has the same well learned, deeply internalized fundamental flying skills, the in-depth knowledge, experience, and judgment. And that is why pilot preparation, qualifications, screening, training—and experience—are so important. On behalf of traveling Americans, I want to thank you for the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. You got it right, and I urge you and all members of this committee to continue to uphold these essential safety standards now and reject the claims of those who would urge you to put profits over the safety of the American people. We must all behave as if the victims of the Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash are watching and judging our integrity and courage this very moment—as their families are. I now want to more specifically address the arguments that some have made for undercutting these essential safety regulations—and why each one is wrong, dead wrong. First, lobbyists are seeking to roll back the experience requirement that Congress wisely mandated in 2010 to protect the safety of the traveling public. This is preposterous. Let me tell you why we cannot have pilots with less than the required experience flying passengers. Pilots with less than the required experience may only have seen one cycle of the seasons of the year as a pilot —one season of thunderstorms, one winter of ice and snow. He or she may never have had a plane de-iced before, may never have landed with a gusty crosswind exceeding 30 knots, and may never have had to land on a rainy night when the glare off a wet surface makes it difficult to tell exactly where you are. And if they received all their flight training in a warm dry climate, they may never even have flown in a cloud before! I would not want my family members in a plane operated by someone with as little experience as that, and I don’t think you would either. Some of these lobbyists go on to say there is nothing magical about the 1,500-hour standard because, to earn the hours, pilots waste their time, merely drag banners by the beach. This is a catchy sound bite but it is a big lie. In the whole country, perhaps a few hundred pilots fly banners; it is a miniscule percentage of the commercial aviation industry. There are, and always have been, good and valuable pathways to develop the experience required to fly a commercial airliner under a variety of conditions, such as flight instruction, charter and cargo operation, and corporate flying. Those who argue to reduce the flight hours required of newly hired pilots also imply that First Officers do not need to have the same level of competence as the Captain. But it has been 80 years since the airline industry has had apprentices in the right seat of airliners. For all that time, we have had qualified pilots in both seats, and we absolutely must continue to do so. The safety systems that the industry has developed and implemented over the last twenty years are based on the assumption of two fully trained, capable and experienced pilots in the cockpit, with each pilot able to be the absolute master of the aircraft in every possible situation at every moment. The value of these practices cannot be questioned. The last fatal accident of a U. S. carrier fully adopting these practices was in November 2001. We have had fourteen years of perfect safety from major carriers employing two fully trained and most importantly, experienced, pilots. The intent of the 2010 safety language was to raise the level of safety in the regional airline industry by requiring the adoption of proven safety systems. Raising the basic requirement for pilot experience was central to this effort. I can tell you that US Airways Flight 1549 would have had a very different ending had my First Officer Jeff Skiles been a less experienced pilot. Like me, Jeff had more than 20,000 hours of flying experience when we lost the engines on that flight. His extensive experience is what enabled him to intuitively know what he needed to do in that emergency, when the work load and time pressure were so extreme that we did not have time to talk about what had just happened and what we needed to do about it, or for me to direct his every action. If he were a relatively inexperienced pilot, we could not have had the same outcome and people likely would have died. Experience is what made the difference between death for some and life for all. Recent events have also made tragically clear why it is so important that newly hired pilots have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flying experience. The First Officer on the Germanwings flight that crashed in the Alps last month had only about 600 hours of flying time. Under existing standards, he would not have qualified as an Air Carrier pilot in the United States and would not have been in a position to accomplish his dark and heinous act. By requiring more experience there is an opportunity to evaluate a prospective candidate over time and in many cases among several employers. The point is this: Any reduction in today’s standard reduces the time a pilot can be observed as a competent, reliable, and trustworthy person before being entrusted with the controls of a commercial airliner full of passengers. With a 1,500-hour standard, employers are able to know more about new pilots, able to have more people screening and observing them over a longer period of time, and able to make a more informed decision about whether they have proven themselves worthy of the public’s trust. When I served as a check airman (an instructor responsible for evaluating pilots) sometimes their performance would be just at the threshold of acceptable. In those cases, I would ask myself this question: When he or she is in the 14th hour of his or her duty day, flying at night in bad weather into an airport he or she has never seen before, would I want my family on that airplane? If the answer was yes, then he or she met the standard. If the answer was no, he or she did not. Those are the kinds of judgments that can only be made when there is adequate time to observe someone in an operational environment. And that is the kind of judgment that Congress made in mandating the ATP with 1500 hours. A second tactic lobbyists are using to try to weaken the standard is by suggesting that more non-flying training count toward the 1,500 hours in place of actual flying experience. Here’s what’s wrong with this line of thinking: Training experiences are highly scripted, highly supervised, and sterile environments where you know what is coming. Real world experiences are not. They are messy and ambiguous and you don’t have anyone holding your hand every step of the way. To propose that training situations are a substitute for real world experience is like saying that studying driving in a classroom is the same as having driven on a busy highway in inclement weather. There is just no substitute for real world experience. Third, lobbyists who want to weaken today’s safety standards say that they are creating a pilot shortage because regional carriers cannot find enough qualified applicants. They also say that the 1,500-hour requirement is threatening air service to small communities and imposing an economic hardship. The implication is that you should reduce the safety requirement so that they can hire less qualified applicants. This flies in the face of logic. Would we allow some airlines to buy jet fuel that is below specification because it was too inconvenient or costly to buy jet fuel that fully met all the critical safety standards? Would we allow some airlines to underinsure because they didn’t want to pay so much for insurance? If there were not enough doctors to serve rural areas, would we advocate a two-year medical degree? Why would we ever allow less qualified pilots to serve small communities? Are the lives of those from rural areas worth less than passengers in large cities? People traveling to small communities deserve to be no less safe than people traveling to large cities. They must not be forced to entrust their lives to less experienced pilots, or airlines that make smaller investments in training or safety management programs than those serving metropolitan areas. What is really going on is this: There is not a pilot shortage, but there is a shortage of pilots willing to enter, or continue employment in, the airline industry under the current economic model. The standard for entry to the airline cockpit is rightly a high bar and requires significant personal and financial investment to achieve the standards necessary to serve and protect the safety of the traveling public. Currently the rewards of an airline career don’t match the investment required. This in turn makes other careers—in and outside of aviation—more attractive, exacerbating airline pilot recruitment. Worse yet, this untenable economic model turns away the best and brightest at the door when they are first considering a career in aviation. Like doctors, pilots make a significant financial investment in their education and training, in some cases upwards of $200,000; and like doctors, they should see a career path worthy of that investment. Doctors, however, only hold one life in their hands at any given moment. As the tragedy of the Germanwings accident shows, pilots hold the responsibility for many more. Passengers entrust their lives to pilots. Why would they not expect the same training and professional experience from their pilot as they would from their surgeon? The First Officer of the ill-fated Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407 earned $16,400 a year before taxes, clearly an unbelievably low salary for someone who literally holds the lives of their passengers in their hands. Traditionally an airline career has attracted applicants with experience well in excess of even today’s minimum required hours. In fact, pilots applying for a job with a commercial airline would typically have had several thousand hours of flight experience. Only recently have some regional carriers lowered their experience requirements to meet the dictates of an unsustainable economic model. As Gordon Bethune, former CEO of Continental Airlines said, “You can make a pizza so cheap, nobody will eat it. You can make an airline so cheap, nobody will fly it.” Since the regional airline industry has insisted on trying to use this broken economic model, they have created their own problems. We must not lower the required standards to enable them to continue to do so. It is not in anyone’s best interest—not regional airlines, not major airlines, and certainly not the traveling public—to have the aviation industry lower commonsense safety requirements to meet an unsupportable business model. Regional carriers often compete on the basis of cost to be the affiliate of major airlines. Let me tell you what that means to you as a passenger: It means you are flying on the lowest bidder. Would you want your surgeon to be the lowest bidder? But there is no shortcut to safety. That is what FAA minimums have been designed to ensure. And since many operators have lowered their standards to the FAA minimum, we must make sure that those minimum standards are genuinely adequate to protect our passengers. Quality vs. quantity is a false dichotomy. When it comes to airline safety, we need not and must not choose between quality and quantity, because we can and must have both. There are existing methods for pilots to get the requisite experience. There always have been. And since the 1,500-hour standard has been put in effect, flight schools, regional airlines and major airlines have been working together to create a true career path that benefits the industry and most importantly, the traveling public. This is being accomplished by creating partnerships between aviation training academies and regional carriers such as the career program at the aptly named ATP Flight School where a beginning pilot is interviewed and provisionally hired by a regional carrier early in their career. Once an airline makes an offer of employment the pilot continues on at the flight school as a flight instructor building time and experience while training the next generation of pilots to enter the field. The regional carrier even contributes financially to the pilot’s education, and most importantly, the prospective airline pilot can be observed, evaluated, and nurtured while they attain the required flight time necessary for a restricted ATP. The second piece of the pathway is Flow Through agreements between regional carriers and major airlines allowing pilots from the regional to matriculate upwards to a major airline cockpit. Today a person considering a career in aviation can see a defined path forward worthy of the necessary personal and financial investment. The industry has created these healthy pathways—not in spite of the 1,500-hour standard–but because of it. It allows airlines the time to make good judgments regarding the skills and temperament of a pilot that are good for both pilots’ career and for the safety of the traveling public. Finally, as aviation has become safer, some people seem to think that being a pilot has become an easier job, requiring less skill, knowledge, training, experience, and judgment. Nothing could be further from the truth. In spite of how commonplace air travel is today, we must never forget that what we are actually doing is pushing a tube filled with people through the upper atmosphere, seven or eight miles above the earth, traveling at 80% of the speed of sound, in a hostile environment with outside air pressure one-quarter that on the ground, and outside temperatures to 70 degrees below zero; and we must return it safely to the surface every time. Professional pilots make it look easy but it’s not. It’s hard. If it were easy, anyone, everyone could do it. And that is just not the case. It takes deeply internalized well-learned fundamental skills, in-depth knowledge, and the kind of judgment that comes only from experience. When pilots enter this noble profession that I consider a calling, they make a tacit promise to all their future passengers that they will keep them safe. And every airline executive, every aviation regulator, every legislator who oversees aviation should feel the same obligation and keep that same promise. Honoring that promise requires us to acknowledge that there are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. And, the traveling public deserves and expects one level of safety: not one level for major airlines, and another for regional airlines. I urge you to stand with me in showing the right judgment by upholding the 1,500-hour standard for the safety of all Americans. Thank you.
  9. 5 points
  10. 5 points
    What? Nobody to buy a pizza? Seriously though... That's what travel insurance and self sufficiency is for... Go book a room! Feed your children! Take a taxi! Oooooh... fending for yourself in this world... The horror. If you can afford a week or two vacation for your family you can pay a couple hundred bucks for a last minute hotel booking for the night to look after your family and then sort it out with the airline or the insurance when you get home... Those people will absolutely fly Westjet again if they are the cheapest option by 2$...
  11. 5 points
    The retardant aircraft and scoopers have different roles and contrary to popular belief, often neither solely focused on extinguishment of a fire of any great magnitude. The red retardant is primarily used for containment, establishing a defensive line just ahead of the fire. The desire is not so much to extinguish fuel that's already burning but more to rob the fire of additional fuel once it gets to the line. It can be used as an initial attack tool to buy containment time until other resources, such as ground fire fighters, helis and heavy equipment can get on scene. Retardant is also used to create protection lines around structures and other values. The scoopers, in my limited experience, are more commonly used to modify fire behavior in support of ground based resources, or to defend the fire lines if there have been excursions through the line or windborne spotting across the line. Much like municipal fire departments working to prevent a house fire that is a total loss from spreading to the rest of the neighbourhood, it's often a more effective use of resources to starve the fire of new fuel rather than attempt to extinguish something that's already fully involved.
  12. 4 points
    ... and there it is. The first slam at a group of hard working people who are just like the rest of us. They go to work each day and do their best to serve the customers. We should be better than this. Like it or not, we're all small puppets in someone else's sideshow. IMHO we should try to remember that and keep it civil.
  13. 4 points
    If WOW goes belly up does it become MOM ?
  14. 4 points
    VS; Yes, I call it internet social media hyperventilation. It is inappropriate to hearken to millions of shrill, largely anonymous voices who conflate opinion with facts, in the face of what is already known; it is even worse to do so when nothing is known yet as is occurring in the present case.
  15. 4 points
    Agreed. The scale of abuse and harassment in the workplace is almost too large to define, which is why cases like this are so often met with disbelief and reframing as entirely part of some other agenda. IMO, there is importance here that affects nearly everyone, whether employed or not, regardless of gender, race, age or creed. The common root is the misuse of power and abject entitlement to abuse someone who is vulnerable. Whether that abuse is sexual harassment, isolating someone so their concerns are not taken seriously, racial profiling, you name it - it's wrong and inflicts, sometimes life long or life ending harm. It gets further complicated when someone who has a secondary agenda also happens to have a valid point. It is all too easy to see the agenda and dismiss everything. That has been the path of least resistance for too long. Perhaps times are changing. Let's hope. Vs
  16. 4 points
    And just to clarify my post for those that don't follow the rise and branding of "Air Italy"... Meridiana, a fledgling charter carrier was infused by dollars and aircraft from Qatar Airways who officially hold a 49% stake, but I think we all know really run the show at the rebranded "Air Italy" Qatar Airways is the wholly government owned and controlled flag carrier of Qatar, where homosexuality is punishable with sentences which have included prison and lashings.
  17. 4 points
    I don't think the chock is necessary...
  18. 4 points
    An Old Pilot's Reflections Pilots are people who drive airplanes for other people who can't fly. Passengers are people who say they fly, but really just ride. Fighter Pilots are steely eyed, weapons systems managers who kill bad people and break things. However, they can also be very charming and personable. The average fighter pilot, despite sometimes having a swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring. (However, these feelings don't involve anyone else.) Flying is a hard way to earn an easy living. Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the airplane; the pessimist invents the parachute. Death is just nature's way of telling you to watch your airspeed. As a pilot only two bad things can happen to you (and one of them will): a. One day you will walk out to the aircraft, knowing it is your last flight. b. One day you will walk out to the aircraft, not knowing it is your last flight. There are rules and there are laws: The rules are made by men who think that they know how to fly your airplane better than you. The laws (of physics) were ordained by God. You can and sometimes should suspend the rules, but you can never suspend the laws. About Rules: a. The rules are a good place to hide if you don't have a better idea and the talent to execute it. b. If you deviate from a rule, it must be a flawless performance (e.g., if you fly under a bridge, don't hit the bridge.) Before each flight, make sure that your bladder is empty and your fuel tanks are full. He who demands everything that his aircraft can give him is a pilot; he who demands one iota more is a fool. There are certain aircraft sounds that can only be heard at night and over the ocean. Most of them are scary. The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no limits. In the Alaskan bush I'd rather have a two-hour bladder and three hours of gas than vice versa. An old pilot is one who can remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe. Airlines have really changed; now a flight attendant can get a pilot pregnant. I've flown in both pilot seats. Can someone tell me why the other seat is always occupied by an idiot? And my favorite; You have to make up your mind about growing up and becoming a pilot, because you can't do both.
  19. 4 points
    Better trained ground handlers
  20. 4 points
    Making America Late Again? (I know, I know....) Vs
  21. 4 points
    The first step in all of this (which has yet to happen) is acknowledging that intake is a function of national policy and belongs to the citizens…. I have long advocated (on this forum) for caution, and by that I mean being mindful of long range national demographic projections and avoiding demographic concentrations that tend to isolate or ghettoize population segments. I think the reasons are obvious so I won’t belabour them. If they are not obvious think Toronto. If you are going to ignore all that, then open up your wallet and be willing to pay heavy for integration. You might consider all this to be moot at this point but it’s not too late for new years resolutions and doing things right in the future. The next step is integration because it follows immediately on the heels of deciding to flirt with your national carrying capacity. This needs to be a conscious decision and not one to be undertaken lightly. Those still screaming racist at this point will not want to pay their future bills so be ready to say no or tell them the cost flat out and then make em pay. Keep in mind this is hugely expensive and covers a lot of cultural ground…. it has been done poorly to date IMO and it needs to change because it makes many of the issues circular. Here’s an example of what I mean: many single mothers from the Horn of Africa have low status in their own country (below that of their sons). As a result, they find it difficult to maintain control of their teenage sons who are ripe pickings for street gangs and radicalization within the demographic concentration we allowed to fester in poverty and unemployment. I guess I could go on at length but I now see that this could get long winded, to take stock of the primary issues, I see massive intake (sufficient to affect longterm national demographics), localizing (or ghettoizing) that population, poverty, unemployment, lack of language training and lack of job training as the immediate threat. There are lots of other things at play here but that’s the flavour of a few cross cultural things to be avoided. This avoidance COMES AT GREAT COST and that seems to be lost on the very people who thought it was a great idea in the first place. In short, if you want to take in mass migrants you pay to play.... that's the first thing. After that: 1.Get an immediate handle on the numbers game and don’t exceed your capacity to integrate. Institute an immediate ban on sanctuary cities and start enforcing federal law 2.Avoid ghettoizing. Your acceptance in the country is contingent on living where we tell you… take it or leave it. 3.Open your wallet and pay for correcting all of those things in the third paragraph and do it with a smile. You wanted it now pay for it. Thats the language, job training etc. start that now. If you are not prepared to do that you will fail 4. Enhance intake screening procedures, Europe did this poorly. Don’t expect people to leave old grudges behind them, you likely wouldn’t either 5. Beef up all of your security and monitoring agencies big time, pay with a smile because you need it 6. Establish joint intelligence, information, and monitoring systems with allies. This is huge and remains a problem in Europe. Open your wallet and get er done. 7. Avoid knee jerk reactions like mandatory “correct thinking” classes, this is liberal values at their worst.... you will make a bad situation worse. Try this in Canada; mandatory religious training for all children @ 10 hrs per week and see how it works for you. In short don’t make things worse 8. Accept the fact that migrants came to your country for a better way of life. Accept the fact that your government welcomed them. Accept the fact that they need massive amounts of assistance (that’s money) to get there, resolve to give it to them or prepare to pay in other ways, or get a new government 9. Start helping refugees where they live in an effort to curtail (at least some) of the flow. 10. Spend the money to fix our refugee claims backlog and do it now (right now...like today). You should know your status within days, not multiples of years 11. Get a grip on the "safe third country agreement" and choke it. The current situation is both ridiculous and unsustainable.... it would stop WIE DEFCON - I will be quite busy for the next 10 days or so and mostly away…. that’s the best I can do on short notice. Cheers
  22. 4 points
    No, Malcolm. That's not how it works. The fares are almost always loss leaders. It's the ancillary revenue that's everything. Allegiant has been probably the most profitable airline in the US for years and they did it flying gas-guzzling MD-80's. I know lots of people that flew BLI-LAS for less than $20 each way. Of course they got their AC or WJ buddy's that were flying standby to take their bags but that's another story. They gamed the system and that's fine. My old physiotherapist is Irish and she always talked about taking Ryanair from Dublin to Faro for pocket change with her friends and buying underwear and soap when they got there. I'd like to think you're just trolling but I see you really haven't grasped how the landscape has changed and that's okay. You're retired and it's to be expected I suppose.
  23. 4 points
    I think we should stop labelling people. I know some lazy, self-centered, entitled a**holes from every generation. As well as good, kind, generous, hard-working ones. And it’s always been that way.
  24. 4 points
    Are you going to tell me your preferred solution to the migrant issue or should I stop asking? I'm more interested in how you would do it right than how others have done it wrong...
  25. 4 points
    I like the reply from AC and WS; we have processes we follow and we do our best but remember - you're in a public space. The contamination areas identified by Marketplace are simply representative of all public spaces. The handrail on the stairs, the door handle in the taxi, the chair backs at the restaurant you visited, the elevator buttons, the money you touch - all contaminated with staph, steph, bacteria, viruses. The advice is simple; don't touch your face, rub your eyes or pick your nose and wash your hands before you eat. The vast majority of these infections can be avoided by following those rules.
  26. 4 points
    Picture taken from a taxiway in SFO.....
  27. 4 points
    In the Second World War, you had, you know, a war. The Germans had the Luftwaffe, and they bombed, you know, countries. And the Japanese had an air force - both land based and carrier based - and they bombed, you know, Pearl Harbor and countries. So the clear purpose in having an air force. What exactly, is the clear purpose of having a Space Force? Is there an area in the control or exploration of space where the US doesn't have a huge advantage over any potential adversary? Do the Chinese even have a space shuttle that could scoop up enemy satellites? My experience with military spending suggests a Space Force at this stage of human development is just a Gargantuan waste of money. Just another needly bureaucracy, more bread and circuses to distract the lowest common denominator of US society from their misery.
  28. 4 points
    Perhaps but one day his FO will set things straight.
  29. 4 points
    Good to hear from you Kip. To your observation about those who have suffered... My limited time here has taught that there are those who have been lucky enough to have found the life and love that they now miss. These few never seem to say 'I know what you are going through' - they know it's not so. Instead, there is a standing close by, and with, understanding that words won't help and aren't needed. This forum is a poor substitute. But we stand with you, Kip. close by. Vs
  30. 4 points
  31. 3 points
    it was just over 1% of their flights over 2 days. DEFINITELY NOT "MOST"
  32. 3 points
    I think that the notion of a "hero" is a characterisation which both men avoid - Sully has observed that he and his crew "did their job". Sully has used his fame for two things - to draw attention to aviation matters which really do require the attention of a distracted government and public, (read his presentation to the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation) in April 2015), and to supplement his ~$45k/year pension when US Airways terminated their pilots' pension plan in March 2003, (through a process that is illegal in Canada but commonly used to "restructure" a business in the U.S.). We see him again using his name & fame to advance aviation safety and not pulling punches with regard to Boeing and their MAX. Sully, (and Pearson) are true heroes in the mythological sense - they have "been to places" which very few go to and have returned "alive and victorious" to "tell the story which becomes cultural legend", (Joseph Campbell, The Hero's Journey, The Power of Myth). I think Sully believes that, (perhaps at one time, maybe not now...?), that any airline pilot could have/would have, within a narrow band of individual performance, done the same thing with the same outcome.
  33. 3 points
    Fun to fly but that approach and landing wasn’t airshow worthy. Boeing doesn’t need anymore help with aircraft sales. 1. Overshot the turn to final. 2. Touched down hard off the the centerline 3. Excessive braking only to power up again exiting. Other than that it was perfect.
  34. 3 points
    Didn't you have Alcock as an instructor at some point or other Kip?
  35. 3 points
    Fear is a great short-term motivator, but long-term it creates resentment, dissension, and complacency.
  36. 3 points
    This is a big part of the problem and explains how we got to this point IMO. Listen to any of the questions posed at one of those town hall meetings and the underlaying premise is always "what are you going to do for me?" It's never about what is good for the country. Ironically, what is good for the country is usually good for you but people don't see it that way. In the age of identity politics, what is good for you as an individual likely differs from what is good for your neighbour. Hence polarization. And the real kicker here is that identity politics invariably boil down to sovereignty of the individual anyway; you can divide any group identity in a thousand ways. Then there is the inevitable 1% discussion that always arises at election time.... tax the 1%. I've been hearing this since about grade 6 and it hasn't happened yet, might be time to move on. There will always be a 1%, Price's law is governing here and attempts to thwart it have historically been monumental failures. How many times do I have to hear tax the rich or cut the fat tied to some crazy scheme that is going to be expensive. Liberals are all over this until they discover that they are the fat rich ones. I believe none of it now, never again will I fall for strident chants in support of Liberal values. The whole open borders thing is stupidity in 3D. We can't even handle a few refugees in a sanctuary city without giving up with a whimper and drying our tears with an omnibus bill.... that's the critter JT swore never to use as I recall. Meanwhile in California, arguably the most basic, easiest and cheapest aspect of sanctuary city responsibilities has literally turned to crap.... what makes the Democrats so dangerous is that they want even more of what they already have too much of.... it's like an addiction and they will need to hit rock bottom before they entertain the notion of rehab: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-sees-brownout-amid-spike-in-public-pooping-reports-say
  37. 3 points
  38. 3 points
    If trimming with the pickle switches stops/helps/impedes the problem why all the focus on trying to find the appropriate checklist (Lionair) With proper training and experience I think most pilots would lean toward a stabilizer problem. No question that having multiple systems barking at you can muddy your focus, but you still have ground speed/power settings/artificial horizon, and in both of these incidents a visual horizon. There is a faulty system on the Boeing that needs a remedy, but the larger issue appears to be basic piloting ability. Systems do fail, we've all been grilled in the sim - fly the airplane first.
  39. 3 points
    1700 AAE would not be low for an acceleration/flap retraction altitude. The minimum altitude can be as low as 400' but I am not aware of anyone who does that. Normally the primary restriction driving that acceleration altitude is terrain clearance and minimum all engines obstacle clearance planes. Most of the time, on all engines, a twin will handily outclimb that gradient once the gear is up, but the acceleration to get the flaps up, especially from a high hot airport, can involve an extended and relatively flat flight path which may punch through that gradient. So basically the aircraft has to climb high enough, early enough, to buy room for that acceleration phase. Vs
  40. 3 points
    I’ve got a pain in my ass.....will he apologize for that?
  41. 3 points
    AC is a big sponsor of Pride. While I don't imagine they will waiver in their support, I don't think they will be happy with a Qatari-proxy-upstart competitor jumping in with them... Further, I am disappointed in Pride accepting sponsorship from a company that is backed by a nation where homosexuality is illegal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar I mean they won't let Toronto Police participate, but Middle Eastern dollars? No problemo. Hypocrites.
  42. 3 points
    From an outdoorsman point of view.....not the best name for an airline.
  43. 3 points
    Odd thing to say having not set foot on the aircraft. I'll reserve my judgement until I actually fly on it.
  44. 3 points
    Great Rant from some guy from Alberta.... I'm Mike, I'm from Camrose
  45. 3 points
    precicely. Because Boeing doesnt want to do a clean slate redesign of the aircraft to implement the needed improvements. They keep putting makeup on a pig.
  46. 3 points
    When you click on the vid, make sure you go full screen... https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gy75py/watch-a-spaceship-leave-earth-in-stunning-iss-video
  47. 3 points
    My version - cleared a visual 33R YYZ, no guidance. Just a nice bright sunny day. Very young FO flying fresh from line indoc. About 10 miles back he says "so is this where I activate the approach?" Caught me off guard for a sec. I said "No. See the runway?" He says "yup". I said "Hit it with the wheels." He said something like "Huh. Really."
  48. 3 points
    DJT didn’t create this (it pre dates him) and he damn sure wont get rid of it either. This started before The Apprentice and will continue long after it, just keep watching. Until Democrats cut loose the crazy left and the Republicans disavow the ultra right and each entity publicly ridicules the media (yes I said the media) that slavishly and idiotically supports partisan causes, this will continue. Alas, no one looks to history… in fact, if it doesn’t fit in a 10 word meme it’s toooooooooooo much effort to even think about. This is everywhere, I will tell you that taking handguns away from IPSC competitors in PEI won’t solve Toronto’s gang problem. I will tell you that lots of gang members in Toronto are Somali and I will tell you that most Canadians can’t find Somalia on a map. It’s OK though, Taliban and ISIS fighters can’t find Canada on the map either…. it’s a world of stupid and if you think simple will fix it, then good luck, pull up a chair. In short, it's all bit like immigration without integration it's due to nothing more than ARROGANT IGNORANCE and arrogant ignorance is the root cause of partisanship. Guess what partisanship is the root cause of? All of this is circular, so, blame Trump if you like, but make the popcorn, crack a beer and settle in for a good long viewing of "The Antics of Stupid"… if I’m invited, I like the popcorn buttered.
  49. 3 points
    Canada-Saudi trade is small. We buy about 10% of our oil from them, so that is easily replaced from Africa. And of course, they didn't have the cahones to back out of the LAV purchase because they need them for a bunch of roles we shouldn't have sold them the LAVS to perform. It's an empty gesture, as experts on the mid-east have noted, mainly to try to warn the bigger powers of Europe not to criticize this thin skinned autocracy. The European Parliament has already declared its solidarity with Canada. Both the Swedes and Germans have had blowups recently with the Saudis over human rights. Germany hasn't had an ambassador in Riyadh for nine months now. The UAE was quick to throw its support behind the Saudis, but I will bet you they won't dare stop Emirates or Etihad flights to Canada, especially since Canada recently awarded the UAE more seating capacity per week which will mean more flights. Can you imagine them pulling out of Canada. I can't.
  50. 3 points
    I did a lot of airshow demos with the Herc here in Trenton. I called Lockheed and talked to a few people about looping the Herc, ( we were flying "E" models at our squadron). I was advised that it was possible but the external fuel jugs would have to be removed and all the tie down chains and other associated loading gear be removed and then the fuel load would have to be calculated to make the Herc as light as possible, Of course "those in control" balked at doing that for any airshows so were were pretty much restricted to max effort take-off , max effort landing with max speed off- load of a vehicle as well as max "G" level turning with the Load Master on a monkey harness standing on the ramp which, would be down, waving at the spectators. Those were the good old days where there were no altitude restrictions and all was OK as long as you didn't fly over any of the crowd I would imagine the video above has the new model of Herc with the more powerful engines, no external fuel tanks, and probably little, if any, load bearing equipment in it... Wish I could have done one....but I still look back at my 8+ years on the C-130 as one of my best tours in the RCAF..