Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/27/2019 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    When compared to wearing blackface and dancing like an ape, or standing under a terrorist flag while mourning one of the most ruthless terrorists of the decade..... I pick cheating at golf; I'd even accept driving a golf cart above the posted limit to see how far you can get through the sand traps. People are now blaming Trump for the fact that a rogue terrorist nation shot down a civilian airliner. And don't be fooled, Iran denied this for 3 days yet knew full well what happened minutes after the missile launch, so don't even try to snow the Snow Queen. Now lets try something closer to home that may be analogous: The Toronto Police Service decides that they won't arrest pistol packing gangbangers because it might anger their gang colleagues. None the less, one of the gang members shoots at police officers during his arrest for drug trafficing and is killed in the engagement. His death results in gang members shooting up the streets of Toronto and killing numerous innocent bystanders..... If I were to suggest that it was the Police Service's fault for trying to arrest him in the first place, how would that play with the citizens of Toronto? Democratic and Liberal hypocrisy, supported by a mindlessly partisan media is fascinating to watch, especially for veterans..... all of these ideas stand as A-OK with them as long as you don't make the OK sign with your thumb and index finger. I will now predict that Bernie will be the nominee, he will maintain the charted course of madness to Crazy Island, the Democrats will lose in Nov and Liberal minded folks will be astounded by the result... as well they should; my neighbour has a blind goat that could beat Bernie in the primaries. I bet Crazy Island has an active volcano and Democrats are selling guided tour passes.....
  2. 3 points
    Iran has claimed responsibility. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/iran-says-it-unintentionally-shot-down-ukrainian-jetliner-1.4762972 Sad. But at least now the families won't have politics drag their horror on even longer. With thoughts for those who have lost so much. Vs
  3. 3 points
    Margins in the airline business are thin. Airline staff have made enough in the way of concessions to enable people to fly around cheaply. If you want a seat with extra room, pay for it.
  4. 3 points
    What I should have qualified above is what I would call an immigrant in 2019....which are the ones Trudeau drags in unnecessarily for political purposes from Syria, Lebanon etc and the invasion he allows to waltz across the border unhindered at Roxham Rd. “ Statistics Canada recently took a close look at that first cohort of 25,000 Syrian refugees who had landed as of May 10, 2016. Employment is the most important metric by which to gauge the integration of refugees into Canadian society. And here the news seems rather disappointing. Only 24 per cent of adult male Syrian refugees were working, according to census data.“ https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-syrian-refugees-to-canada-have-fared-since-2015/ Looked at another way, 4 years later, going on 5... Canadians are STILL supporting 76% of them, and their families and no doubt their sub families that have come since the initial invasion. Canada’s resident idiot in charge makes a mockery of the entire legal legitimate immigration system that has worked successfully for eons. He gives to the ones that had to apply, go through interviews and then wait for years, the ones who had to meet some mandatory monetary and education qualifications. I whole heartedly support the “normal” process. Canada needs immigration, in fact the more the better , except that we need people who will be the solutions to Canada’s problems .... not addIng to our problems Canada needs employable workers with skills, not Freeloaders !!!
  5. 2 points
    I'm Tech Ops. Rules don't apply to us.
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    That sounds to me like more than their fair share. 1/3 of the tax payers paid more than 1/2 of the taxes
  8. 2 points
    when have the Liberals worried about Optics that do not have a negative effect on the Liberal Minorities?
  9. 2 points
    Probably.............. but as I am nearing the age of dirt, and with my tin hat and respirator I feel I am free to have occasional moments of level one sanity.
  10. 2 points
    Kip, your heart was in the right place and there is plenty of reason for that young lady to pay attention - least of which is simple decency not to talk over the flight attendants. That said, we are in the age of entitlement. You are lucky she did not have you punted off the aircraft for touching her iPad. I can think of a few very special personal celebrities whose dim light would have created an equally dim view of the whole situation. Glad it all worked out. Vs
  11. 2 points
    His new look needs some work, perhaps our Minister of Defense can provide him with some advice.
  12. 2 points
    A historic moment IMO, here we have Canadian Politicians standing under a terrorist flag mourning the death of a notorious terrorist and purveyor of death..... I didn't expect to see such a thing in my lifetime. This sort of fanatical religious zeal is why discussion and debate is useless..... you vote em out or accept the consequences of keeping them. The same people (in the picture) will have kittens if you signal OK to your wife while grocery shopping though because they see it as a symbol of "hate"; we now have exactly what we deserve. Enjoy the show.
  13. 2 points
    In the past, I have always like the Boeing Model of "break the airplane to save the passengers" mentality. Self preservation is a powerful tool that cannot be perfectly implemented in computer logic. Yes it has failed us in the past but I am still a firm believer that I and the pilot and the computer is here to assist me, NOT the other way around. In order to achieve a fully automated, or even mostly automated, aircraft. One should definitely NOT start with the 737. A clean slate design would be needed and is long overdue. Many moons ago when the A320 made its debut and had its issues (teething problems) I though "no way would I let a computer be in charge" Now 30 odd years later I think the Airbus methodology was very well implemented. Far better that the multitude of re-hashes of the 737. It's time Boeing got back to being an engineering company and stop being a finance company
  14. 2 points
    yes it is so people need to stop blaming a warm winter ofr hot summer on Climate Change. It just fuels the BS
  15. 1 point
    I sense that there is currently as much public appetite for this in the US as there is demand for live snakes, bats and monkeys in China's festering hot meat markets. As Sun Tzu wisely (and simply) advises, "leave yourself a line of retreat so you have less trouble retreating." I'm paraphrasing a bit here but none the less, he should be mandatory reading for them, sadly though, they seem otherwise occupied. While its true that he also opined that "opportunities increase as they are seized," I can only suggest that Democrats should actually read the book in its entirety.
  16. 1 point
    But not a single Democrat..... and none of them own shares in Apple. Pick 47 pilots at random, how many own stocks or mutual funds? I'll go on record as saying I do, my kids do, my wife does, even my mother in law does. I also own assets that get favourable tax treatment..... that's why I own them. About 65% of Canadians contribute to a TFSA and I bet that number includes a few Liberals. Not often, but every once in a while I get annoyed enough to actually research one of these headlines. The last one was "Ford fires thousands of teachers - your child's education is in peril." The fact that house members vote along party lines should surprise no one, it's indicative of nothing.... except perhaps partisanship.
  17. 1 point
    Sounds good but I have some questions; 1). What Alien technology did they steal from Area 51 that allows the production of "noise-proof" rotors? My neighbour has a small drone that he uses for taking pictures (and annoying me) - I'll buy him a set of those rotors because the ones he has now are far from noise-proof. 2). What proof can they offer that their VTOL with 4, 6, or 8 electric rotors is safer than a helicopter? 3). Why do people keep falling for the Hyperloop scam? https://youtu.be/vwLnyzyybYs https://youtu.be/vwLnyzyybYs
  18. 1 point
    Point is I am not looking for the best car on the road or the best plane in the sky I am looking for the best flying car.
  19. 1 point
    I'm putting this as a separate topic because the New York Times provides significant detail about this crash and how Boeing made sure its implications were minimized and contained. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/boeing-737-accidents.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’ By Chris Hamby Jan. 20, 2020, 6:00 a.m. ET Lessons from the 2009 accident would have newfound relevance in tragedies years later.Ade Johnson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images After a Boeing 737 crashed near Amsterdam more than a decade ago, the Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people. The fault was hardly the crew’s alone, however. Decisions by Boeing, including risky design choices and faulty safety assessments, also contributed to the accident on the Turkish Airlines flight. But the Dutch Safety Board either excluded or played down criticisms of the manufacturer in its final report after pushback from a team of Americans that included Boeing and federal safety officials, documents and interviews show. The crash, in February 2009, involved a predecessor to Boeing’s 737 Max, the plane that was grounded last year after accidents in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people and hurled the company into the worst crisis in its history. A review by The New York Times of evidence from the 2009 accident, some of it previously confidential, reveals striking parallels with the recent crashes — and resistance by the team of Americans to a full airing of findings that later proved relevant to the Max. In the 2009 and Max accidents, for example, the failure of a single sensor caused systems to misfire, with catastrophic results, and Boeing had not provided pilots with information that could have helped them react to the malfunction. The earlier accident “represents such a sentinel event that was never taken seriously,” said Sidney Dekker, an aviation safety expert who was commissioned by the Dutch Safety Board to analyze the crash. Dr. Dekker’s study accused Boeing of trying to deflect attention from its own “design shortcomings” and other mistakes with “hardly credible” statements that admonished pilots to be more vigilant, according to a copy reviewed by The Times. The study was never made public. The Dutch board backed away from plans to publish it, according to Dr. Dekker and another person with knowledge of its handling. A spokeswoman for the Dutch board said it was not common to publish expert studies and the decision on Dr. Dekker’s was made solely by the board. At the same time, the Dutch board deleted or amended findings in its own accident report about issues with the plane when the same American team weighed in. The board also inserted statements, some nearly verbatim and without attribution, written by the Americans, who said that certain pilot errors had not been “properly emphasized.” The muted criticism of Boeing after the 2009 accident fits within a broader pattern, brought to light since the Max tragedies, of the company benefiting from a light-touch approach by safety officials. References to Dr. Dekker’s findings in the final report were brief, not clearly written and not sufficiently highlighted, according to multiple aviation safety experts with experience in crash investigations who read both documents. One of them, David Woods, a professor at the Ohio State University who has served as a technical adviser to the Federal Aviation Administration, said the Turkish Airlines crash “should have woken everybody up.” Some of the parallels between that accident and the more recent ones are particularly noteworthy. Boeing’s design decisions on both the Max and the plane involved in the 2009 crash — the 737 NG, or Next Generation — allowed a powerful computer command to be triggered by a single faulty sensor, even though each plane was equipped with two sensors, as Bloomberg reported last year. In the two Max accidents, a sensor measuring the plane’s angle to the wind prompted a flight control computer to push its nose down after takeoff; on the Turkish Airlines flight, an altitude sensor caused a different computer to cut the plane’s speed just before landing. Boeing had determined before 2009 that if the sensor malfunctioned, the crew would quickly recognize the problem and prevent the plane from stalling — much the same assumption about pilot behavior made with the Max. And as with the more recent crashes, Boeing had not included information in the NG operations manual that could have helped the pilots respond when the sensor failed. Even a fix now proposed for the Max has similarities with the past: After the crash near Amsterdam, the F.A.A. required airlines to install a software update for the NG that compared data from the plane’s two sensors, rather than relying on just one. The software change Boeing has developed for the Max also compares data from two sensors. Critically, in the case of the NG, Boeing had already developed the software fix well before the Turkish Airlines crash, including it on new planes starting in 2006 and offering it as an optional update on hundreds of other aircraft. But for some older jets, including the one that crashed near Amsterdam, the update wouldn’t work, and Boeing did not develop a compatible version until after the accident. The Dutch investigators deemed it “remarkable” that Boeing left airlines without an option to obtain the safeguard for some older planes. But in reviewing the draft accident report, the Americans objected to the statement, according to the final version’s appendix, writing that a software modification had been unnecessary because “no unacceptable risk had been identified.” GE Aviation, which had bought the company that made the computers for the older jets, also suggested deleting or changing the sentence. The Dutch board removed the statement, but did criticize Boeing for not doing more to alert pilots about the sensor problem. Dr. Woods, who was Dr. Dekker’s Ph.D. adviser, said the decision to exclude or underplay the study’s principal findings enabled Boeing and its American regulators to carry out “the narrowest possible changes.” The problem with the single sensor, he said, should have dissuaded Boeing from using a similar design in the Max. Instead, “the issue got buried.” Boeing declined to address detailed questions from The Times. In a statement, the company pointed to differences between the 2009 accident and the Max crashes. “These accidents involved fundamentally different system inputs and phases of flight,” the company said. Asked about its involvement with the Dutch accident report, Boeing said it was “typical and critical to successful investigations for Boeing and other manufacturers to work collaboratively with the investigating authorities.” Joe Sedor, the N.T.S.B. official who led the American team working on the Turkish Airlines investigation, said it was not unusual for investigating bodies to make changes to a report after receiving feedback, or for American safety officials to jointly submit their comments with Boeing. Mr. Sedor is now overseeing the N.T.S.B.’s work on the Max crashes. He acknowledged that reliance on a single sensor was a contributing factor in both cases but cautioned against focusing on it. “Each of these accidents were complex and dynamic events with many contributing factors,” he said. “Boiling them down simply to the number of inputs ignores the many, many more issues that differentiate them.” The F.A.A., in a statement, also emphasized the “unique set of circumstances” surrounding each accident. “Drawing broad connections between accidents involving different types of emergencies oversimplifies what is, by definition, a complex science,” it said. The agency, also part of the American team in the Dutch investigation, declined to say whether the lessons from the Turkish Airlines crash factored into its decision to certify the Max — which was approved to fly in 2017 and became the fastest-selling plane in Boeing’s history. But a senior F.A.A. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, praised Dr. Dekker’s study and said it identified important issues that had not received enough public attention. The official pointed to the similarities — such as the reliance on a single sensor — between the Turkish Airlines crash and the Max accidents. A spokeswoman for the Dutch board, Sara Vernooij, said it was common practice to amend draft reports in response to outside comments, but she declined to address the specific changes. Other companies and government bodies involved in the investigation, such as the French firm that made the sensors and that country’s aviation safety board, also submitted comments, but the American submission was the most extensive. Ms. Vernooij said the Dutch agency regarded the Dekker study as confidential. “The parts considered relevant by the board were used while writing the final report,” she said. Focus on the Pilots On the morning of Feb. 25, 2009, Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 approached Amsterdam, carrying 128 passengers from Istanbul. The first officer guided the plane toward Runway 18R, calling out changes to its speed and direction. He was new to the Boeing jet, so the crew included a third pilot in addition to the captain, who was a former Turkish Air Force officer with about 13 years of experience flying the aircraft. Because of instructions from air traffic control, the crew had to execute a maneuver that could be challenging: slowing while descending more rapidly than normal. They engaged a computer that controlled engine thrust, known as an autothrottle, to help regulate the drop in speed. As the plane dipped to 1,000 feet, the pilots had not yet completed their landing checklist. Strict adherence to airline procedure would have meant circling around for another try, but violations were commonplace at the busy runway, investigators later determined. About a minute later, with the plane at about 450 feet, the pilots’ control sticks began shaking, warning of an impending stall. The jet had slowed too much. Immediately, one of the pilots pushed the thrust lever forward to gain speed, but when he let go, the computer commanded it to idle. The captain intervened, disabling the autothrottle and setting the thrust levers to their maximum. Nine seconds had elapsed since the stall warning. By then, it was too late. The jet plunged into a field less than a mile from the airport. The three pilots, another crew member and five passengers were killed. Dutch investigators determined that the cause of the malfunction was a sensor on the plane’s exterior measuring altitude. The sensor had mistakenly indicated that the plane was just moments from touchdown, prompting the computer to idle the engines. For 70 seconds, the autothrottle had done what the crew intended: steadily cut the plane’s speed. But the pilots failed to notice that the computer did not then maintain the target speed when it was reached; instead, it continued to slow the plane down. The pilots realized what had happened only when the control stick began vibrating. Losing track of airspeed is considered a grave error. The pilots, who investigators believe were preoccupied with the landing checklist, also missed multiple warnings that the autothrottle was acting up. The Dutch board’s conclusions focused on the decision not to abort the landing, the failure to recognize the dangerous drop in speed and the incorrect response to the shaking control stick, possibly because of inadequate training. At the request of the American team led by the N.T.S.B., the Dutch added comments that further emphasized the pilots’ culpability. The final report, for example, included a new statement that scolded the captain, saying he could have used the situation to teach the first officer a “lesson” on following protocol. In their comments, reflected largely in an appendix, the Americans addressed criticism of Boeing in the draft report. A description of the company’s procedures for monitoring and correcting potential safety problems was “technically incorrect, incomplete and overly” simplistic, they wrote. In response, the board inserted a description of Boeing’s safety program written by the Americans and a statement that Boeing’s approach was more rigorous than F.A.A. requirements. The draft had also referred to studies that found it was common for complex automation to confuse pilots and suggested design and training improvements. The studies, the draft said, included research by “Boeing itself.” The Americans objected, saying the statements “misrepresent and oversimplify the research results.” In its final report, the board deleted the Boeing reference. When the Dutch board announced its conclusions during a news conference, its chairman said, “The pilots could have prevented this.” Missing Information The Dutch Safety Board had also commissioned Dr. Dekker’s analysis of the accident, which applied an engineering discipline known as human factors. As planes have come to rely on complex computer systems, researchers and investigators have identified design and training practices that can make pilot error less likely. Dr. Dekker, then a professor in Sweden who had investigated other serious crashes and had worked part time flying a 737, acknowledged fatal mistakes by the Turkish Airlines pilots in his 129-page study. But he also found that Boeing bore significant responsibility. While his study was never made public, copies circulated among some researchers and pilots. And his role in the investigation was cited in an appendix to the board’s report. He is now a professor in Australia and the Netherlands. In the study, Dr. Dekker chastised Boeing for designing the autothrottle to rely on just one of two sensors measuring altitude. That decision, he wrote, left “a single-failure pathway in place,” raising the risk that a single error could lead to catastrophe. Five years before the Turkish Airlines crash, Boeing was aware that a sensor malfunction could idle the engines improperly, but the company decided it wasn’t a safety concern, the Dutch investigators wrote. After receiving reports about autothrottle misfires that did not lead to accidents, a Boeing review board determined that if a malfunction occurred, pilots would recognize it and intervene. In the meantime, Boeing developed a software update that allowed the autothrottle to compare the readings from the two altitude sensors. If they differed by more than 20 feet, the autothrottle wouldn’t be able to improperly idle the engines. The safeguard was available in 2006, but the change wouldn’t work on some 737 NG models, like the Turkish Airlines plane, that used an autothrottle computer made by a different company. After the 2009 crash, Boeing developed a version of the update compatible with those computers, and the F.A.A. required airlines to install it. The Dekker study found that another decision by Boeing — to leave important information out of the operations manual — had also hampered the Turkish Airlines pilots. The 737 NG has two parallel sets of computers and sensors, one on the left side of the plane and one on the right. Most of the time, only one set is in control. On the Turkish Airlines flight, the system on the right was in control. The pilots recognized the inaccurate altitude readings and noted that they were coming from the sensor on the left. This would have led them to conclude that the bad data coming from the left didn’t matter because the autothrottle was getting the correct data from the right, Dr. Dekker found. What the pilots couldn’t have known was that the computer controlling the engine thrust always relied on the left sensor, even when the controls on the right were flying the plane. That critical information was nowhere to be found in the Boeing pilots’ manual, Dr. Dekker learned. Erik van der Lely, a 737 NG pilot and instructor for a European airline who studied under Dr. Dekker, told The Times that he had not known about this design peculiarity until he read a copy of the study. “I’m pretty sure none or almost none of the 737 pilots knew that,” he said. When the draft report criticized Boeing for not giving pilots information that might have helped prevent the accident, the Americans disagreed, citing general directions from the training manual and writing, “Boeing did provide appropriate guidance to flight crews.” The plane was “easily recoverable” if the pilots had followed the proper procedures, they said. In its final report, the board retained its general conclusion but softened some language. Boeing later made a similar assessment on the 737 Max. The company did not inform pilots of a new automated system that contributed to both deadly crashes, hindering their ability to counteract its erroneous commands, investigators have determined. Over all, the final report by the Dutch Safety Board did mention some of Dr. Dekker’s conclusions, but the aviation safety experts who read his study said the systemic issues he raised received too little emphasis. For example, while the report noted the design quirk not included in the manual, it did so only briefly amid other technical documentation, and the significance of it was unclear. Dr. Dekker estimated that the board included the equivalent of about one page of information from his study in its report, which was 90 pages in addition to appendices. ‘Failure of Responsibility’ Today, faced with a public outcry over the Max crashes and demands for reforms, Boeing and the F.A.A. have agreed that more attention should be paid to the engineering discipline Dr. Dekker applied in his study. Both the N.T.S.B. and a panel of international experts found that Boeing and the F.A.A. had not sufficiently incorporated lessons from this human-factors research when developing and certifying the Max. But even though the research has been around for decades — an F.A.A. studyrecommended in 1996 that the industry and regulators embrace the approach more readily — accident investigations have tended to focus on pilot errors while minimizing or ignoring systemic factors, such as design and training problems, experts said. “It’s really easy to blame it on the dead pilots and say it has nothing to do with our improperly designed system,” said Shawn Pruchnicki, who teaches at Ohio State and has worked on accident investigations for the Air Line Pilots Association. Dr. Pruchnicki, who studied under Dr. Dekker, said he had participated in numerous investigations in which human-factors experts were largely ignored. “It just gets frustrating because we keep having the same types of accidents,” he said. Dr. Woods, the Ohio State professor who has advised the F.A.A., wrote an email to colleagues shortly after the first 737 Max crash, in October 2018, of Lion Air Flight 610, which killed 189 people just minutes after taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia. The initial details, he wrote, indicated it was an automation-triggered disaster of the sort that he and others had studied for almost 30 years. He cited research from the 1990s and pointed to the Turkish Airlines crash. “That this situation has continued on for so long without major action is not how engineering is supposed to work,” he wrote. After the second Max crash — in March 2019, of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, killing all 157 people on board shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa — Dr. Woods said in an interview, “I was appalled.” “This is such of a failure of responsibility,” he said. “We’re not supposed to let this happen.”
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    Awesome. Help address public reluctance to fly on the airplane by hiding the fact that they're on the airplane they are trying to avoid. Wow. Can't see any problem with that! This is the most idiotic idea ever. Can you imagine the fallout from the public learning, as they are sure to, that the company that deceived the FAA, all the 737 pilots and the entire world with the development/certification of the aircraft is now trying to hide the true identity of the aircraft by changing the name?
  22. 1 point
    Consultations on medical assistance in dying (MAID) eligibility criteria and request process https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html
  23. 1 point
    Yes, of course, simply my opinion. The point I'm trying to make (not very successfully it seems) is that while an airplane, ski boat, jet-ski, car, 4-wheeler, etc might provide lots of pleasure any combination of 2 completely different tools or devices satisfies no-one. These are all bad ideas. First one; crappy boat, crappy car. Second one; crappy airplane, crappy car. You get the idea.
  24. 1 point
    Thanks Captain Hudson, I quietly read and observe everything pilots like yourselves who have been around the block say and do.
  25. 1 point
    Because there is no profit in it
  26. 1 point
    The 737 is at least one generation further along than is should be. The systems are being stretch beyond their limits but a "just make it work" approach. The aircraft is makeup on a pig but the mascara is starting to run. It is outdated and needs to be replaced with a clean slate design.
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
    The various regulators from around the world have different issues with the aircraft. The FAA is probably walking a tight line trying to keep all the foreign regulators happy and trying to find a safe solution. It's not a simple guess... It might be a gradual return to service (ie US only) but I'm sure the FAA would prefer to have a full review done. If one more b737 Max goes down it would be catastrophic for both the FAA and Boeing.
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    Which would have negated the FaceTime call? Whats missing here is, manners, consideration of others and common courtesy. Which seems to be missing in a lot of life these days! 'Nuf said on this subject.............
  31. 1 point
    Not sure if that story is completely true and correct or if it has been embellished for humourous effect....grabbing someone's iPad, closing their call, admonishing them and grilling them on emergency equipment is over the line for acceptable behaviour. Fatherly approach or not, good intention or not, you're lucky you didn't get blowback. I certainly agree with a good dose of passive-aggressive scowling and head-shaking being directed at rude or oblivious passengers and have told people directly when their actions are problematic but grabbing their stuff or physically intervening is too much in any case other than an aggressive assault in progress. Of course maybe I'm misunderstanding your post and you posted what you wanted to do rather than what you did do.
  32. 1 point
    Cheats at golf - well - Putin catches the biggest pike in the lake, and, he got there on horseback!
  33. 1 point
    It was almost certainly a shoot down, but I have a hard time imagining it was sanctioned as part of state policy. The risks are far too great. Most of the dead are Iranians, with family in Iran and increasingly loud dissidents against the regime. (The Iranians don't recognize dual citizenship, so even a lot of the Canadians who died were in the eyes of that country Iranians first and foremost.) I don't see the gain here for Iran to admit or even imply such a public act of savagery that can only reflect badly on it in the eyes of the entire world. They made their statement when they fired cruise missiles at oil tankers in the fall, when they fired missiles at a key Saudi oil production complex, etc. Any fourth rate gang with a 1980s vintage shoulder missile can bring down an aircraft shortly after it has taken off. That's penny ante stuff, and no show of force. The Irani regime wants to split the Europeans from the Americans on the issue of sanctions, but accomplish the opposite with this. The Ayatollah himself could end up in the dock in The Hague. If you recall KE007, IR655, MH17, it's always some schmuck who presses the button presuming he has authority when he doesn't because the central authorities were lax or the process and safeguards woefully inadequate. It's even wild that some AA systems have an auto mode - I don't know if it was engaged on the SA-15. The US never disciplined the Vincennes commander for shooting down IR655. But schmucks they were Now, once that schmuck shoots down the plane, it's too embarrassing for the central authority to admit that the system was at fault for allowing this to happen. So Iran will cover up. Nor will it want the world to even know how its system and processes operate. If forced by leaks and other info to admit that this was a shoot down, it will likely find that schmuck who pressed the button, claim he did it on his own authority, and put him up against a wall in front of a firing squad, then pay compensation (as the Americans did for IR655 - several years after the fact). Compensation in this case ought to run somewhere between $500m and $1b.
  34. 1 point
    thenewceoatboeingisbeingtested totheMAX.
  35. 1 point
    This runway/airport claims another victim. Fortunately no real harm done but trying to land in YHZ in low vis, into wind and on a contaminated runway (as often happens) required a precision approach - shame on the YHZ airport authority.
  36. 1 point
    Dr Phil would not BS us would he?
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    We should not confuse "Legal Immigrants" vs "Illegal ones".
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    Companies like swissport are the lowest bidder. meaning they short change their employees to get a contract. Totally not cool. People will not stick around for minimum wage. The turnaround numbers prove it. As the the total number of hirees that do not stick around even to complete the training. it is a demanding job as mentioned above. Heavy lifting, harsh conditions, noise and pressure. I did it out of high school at AC for $9.10 /hr It really hasn't gone up much in 30+ years. The other issue is the progression rate. Miniimum wage for what 4 years or more.
  41. 1 point
  42. 1 point
    If you're looking for a payday it isn't with front-line, entry level jobs in the airline industry.
  43. 1 point
    Electric vehicles are supposed to be green, but the truth is a bit murkier Mining lithium for batteries, plus how they're charged, can affect an EV’s impact on environment David Common & Jill English · CBC News · Posted: Dec 29, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: a minute ago An electric vehicle may not have a tailpipe, but it still has a carbon footprint. (Ben Nelms/CBC) At gatherings of electric vehicle enthusiasts, the curious surround Rob Spreitzer and his car. Both are celebrities in these circles — he's known as "High Mileage Rob," having driven more than 115,000 kilometres in his Tesla Model 3 in a little more than a year of ownership. No other Model 3 in Canada is believed to have reached that milestone in such a short time, and it's possible no other battery-only electric vehicle has either. And not once has he stopped for gas. Never changed the oil. "I probably saved about $10,000 last year," Spreitzer says. He's also trying to save the planet by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. His car, like other zero-emission EVs, doesn't have a tailpipe and a popular online carbon calculator shows it has a zero-carbon output. But that doesn't mean there isn't a carbon footprint. Watch How environmentally friendly are electric cars, really? 19 days ago 7:25 Turn captions on An electric car doesn't produce emissions, but its parts still have a carbon footprint. We look at all the components of EVs, from how they're charged to what's in the battery to see how environmentally friendly they are. 7:25 Where does your power come from? Some EV batteries today pack 10 times as much power as an average household uses in a day. And often, those electric vehicles are being charged at home. Most of the electricity generated by North American grids has some greenhouse gas emissions connected to it. So even if a car isn't belching carbon, it doesn't mean it's perfectly clean. For instance, coal is about the dirtiest way to generate electricity to recharge a car battery. Powering an EV with electricity generated from coal is marginally better than burning gasoline in an internal-combustion engine, according to numbers compiled by Jennifer Dunn at Northwestern University's Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience. Most North American grids are composed of a mix of generating sources, from coal to hydro to nuclear, though Canada has pledged to eliminate coal-burning plants by 2030. When that mix is taken into account, charging a car generally creates less than half the carbon emissions compared to gasoline, according to Dunn. It's only when electricity comes from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar that you see the most pronounced drop in EV emissions generated to power the car. Where does your battery come from? Before an electric vehicle even charges for the first time, however, one key part of its power system already has a significant carbon footprint. "One really important aspect of an EV to think about is its battery," explains Dunn. "For example, the material that helps power the battery is produced from a number of different metals, things like nickel and cobalt and lithium." EV rider: Harley-Davidson fans kick tires of new all-electric motorcycle Electric-vehicle charging network planned for N.L. in 2020 Mining and processing the minerals, plus the battery manufacturing process, involve substantial emissions of carbon. Lithium mining, needed to build the lithium ion batteries at the heart of today's EVs, has also been connected to other kinds of environmental harm. There have been mass fish kills related to lithium mining in Tibet, for example. The freshwater supply is being consumed by mines in South America's lithium-rich region. Even in North America, where mining regulations are strict, harsh chemicals are used to extract the valuable metal. An aerial view of the brine pools and processing areas of the Rockwood lithium plant on the Atacama salt flat in northern Chile, the largest lithium deposit currently in production. (Ivan Alvarado/Reuters) And all the operations are energy intensive, sometimes running on diesel generators and relying on carbon-emitting heavy machinery. Adding to the cumulative effects on the environment, lithium demand is expected to at least triple by 2025, pushing more exploration and extraction globally. Second life for lithium-ion batteries And all that extracted raw material — once the batteries are worn out — will land somewhere. It's something Andrew MacDonald at Maritime Autoparts in Debert, N.S., is thinking about. His facility recycles car parts and he says it's only a few more years before his industry will start seeing EVs and their lithium-ion batteries in the scrapyard. "As pure electric vehicles come onto the market, there's less wearable parts, so it's going to change what we sell," he says. Andrew MacDonald of Maritime Autoparts is expecting to start seeing lithium-ion batteries at his recycling facility within the next few years as electric vehicles age. Problem is, it’s not clear what he should do with them. (Jill English/CBC) MacDonald adds that his company is already receiving nickel metal hydride batteries from early-model hybrids, and is figuring out what to do with them. "We do our own research, but it would be nice to have better partnerships with the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] to understand exactly what we're dealing with, what are the best methods and procedures and policies in handling them," MacDonald says. "There's lots of stuff going on in the research labs around the world, trying to figure out what to do with these things. But certainly there's a big potential for what you can do with them," he says. One of those research facilities is the U.K.'s Faraday Institution, and it's looking at ways to both reduce waste and extend the usefulness of all that lithium that's being mined. "There are going to be a lot of batteries that reach end of life. Out of those batteries, you're going to find very valuable applications in second life," says Gavin Harper, a Faraday Institution research fellow and the lead author of last month's paper on battery recycling, published in the journal Nature. Beyond powering cars, researchers are developing new applications for high-density lithium-ion batteries, as well as for cells when they're recycled from older cars. (Ben Nelms/CBC) He says if reuse is considered in the initial design, applications for batteries can be wide-ranging when their state of health — or charging capacity — is no longer adequate for an electric vehicle. "The best option companies are looking at is to remanufacture cells into new battery packs for electric vehicles," he says. That means taking apart the individual lithium-ion cells that make up an EV battery, removing the unhealthy ones, and reassembling them for continued EV-use. Beyond powering cars, there are other second-life applications being explored for lithium-ion cells, primarily rooted in energy grid and mobile energy storage, which can include acting as a power reserve for electric vehicle charging stations. "In the new energy economy, things go hand in hand," says Harper. WHAT ON EARTH? Whatever happened to the promise of hydrogen-powered cars? The challenge now is moving these kinds of applications beyond research labs and cottage industries. Harper says batteries aren't necessarily designed for disassembly right now, and to make it economically feasible when EVs start to see mass adoption, there's still work to be done. "We need to make sure we invest time and energy to find the right way of doing things, and solutions that are to scale of what's coming down the line," he says. Getting More out of Batteries Across the ocean, a Canadian research lab is working on another aspect of lithium-ion research, and quite successfully. Nova Scotia's Dalhousie University is finding ways to extend battery range and lifespan, led by Jeff Dahn, who is something of an icon to battery players worldwide. Tesla's Elon Musk has heralded his work, and Dahn himself led a group of researchers who proved the feasibility of a million-mile battery. Dalhousie University’s Jeff Dahn is considered a pioneer of lithium-ion battery research. His team continues to find ways to improve the technology. (Jill English/CBC) He's trying to not only pack more power into batteries to boost the range of electric vehicles, he's also working to increase the number of recharges possible without efficiency loss. "We're trying to help make lithium ion batteries last longer, in terms of years or decades … and lower their cost," Dahn says. He's also thinking beyond cars — into home heating and electrical needs. "If you want to use renewable energy for your source of power, the sun and the wind aren't there all the time. So it means you have to be able to store electrical energy. You have to be able to store it at scale affordably. And whatever you're using to store it better last a long, long time so you don't have to replace it all the time." That was a hot topic of conversation at Canada's largest electric vehicle gathering recently in Cambridge, Ont. There were discussions about how long a modern EV's batteries will last, and the best practices to extend their lifespan (some tips: don't use rapid chargers too often, don't recharge unless you really need it). High Mileage Rob is perhaps one of the people most consumed by these questions. He spends more time with his Tesla than his wife, he says. And he is intent on keeping both in his life for years to come. WATCH | From The National, why it can be hard for buyers to find an electric vehicle: Watch Why it’s hard to sell electric cars 20 days ago 9:24 Turn captions on The long-standing myths about electric vehicles one reason they aren’t everywhere and subject to months-long waits. David Common looks at why and some incentives that could boost supply of electric vehicles. 9:24 CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices|About CBC News
  44. 1 point
    The cost of the liberal “green energy” folly and why our bills are out of whack: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randall-denley-liberals-screwed-up-ontario-hydro-and-now-the-doug-ford-has-to-clean-the-mess
  45. 0 points
  46. 0 points
  47. 0 points
    Not a good start in the year for Bombardier. New York City pulls 300 Bombardier subway cars, citing safety concerns The Canadian PressPublished Wednesday, January 8, 2020 2:12PM ESTLast Updated Wednesday, January 8, 2020 2:53PM EST NEW YORK -- New York City's transit authority has pulled nearly 300 newly delivered subway cars made by Bombardier Inc. due to safety concerns. Two recent incidents "raised questions about the reliable operation" of the car doors, prompting the authority to remove all 298 of them from service Tuesday night, president Andy Byford said in a statement. "As documented, the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) has identified repeated issues with Bombardier's performance and finds this latest development unacceptable. We intend to hold the company fully accountable," Byford said Wednesday. The incidents caused no injuries and New York City Transit redeployed spare cars to service the morning rush hour, he said. Byford, who also dealt with delays to Bombardier streetcar deliveries during his time at the helm of the Toronto Transit Commission, briefly suspended deliveries of the new cars last January, citing software issues and previous problems with springs between the cars and doors that were "weeping oil." Bombardier said two doors on cars in the New York City fleet "failed to function as intended" because they were not properly calibrated by the supplier. "We are now inspecting all of the R179 cars and, where necessary, making adjustments to ensure the safe and reliable performance of the doors for the entire fleet," spokeswoman Maryanne Roberts said. She said the Montreal-based company is bringing in additional technicians to work "around the clock." New York City comptroller Scott Stringer slammed the MTA, which oversees transit in the state, for beleaguered deliveries that he called "unacceptable." "The New York City subway riders who foot the bill for the MTA's $600-million contract with Bombardier were promised new, state-of-the-art train cars to help modernize our ailing transit system. Now, all the cars that were delivered so far have been pulled from service due to critical defects," Stringer said in a statement. Last month, the comptroller released an audit laying out how the contract became three years behind schedule, costing taxpayers millions more dollars. Stringer noted Wednesday that the probe found "repeated failures to meet contract deadlines and requirements, poor project management and technical breakdowns, structural defects that delayed cars being put into service and several earlier structural problems that caused some of these trains to be pulled from service." "Bombardier sold us lemons. Strap-hangers need the MTA to manage these contracts from the beginning -- before the trains go off the rails," he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 8, 2020.
  48. 0 points
    “Canada is on an economic road to nowhere” The Liberals spent five years pandering to environmental, regional or anti-capitalist interests. Now in a minority position, the situation will worsen Who’s going to look after Canada’s economic wellbeing for the next five years? Canada slips and there’s nobody to catch it, not Parliament or other levels of government. The Liberals spent five years variously pandering to environmental, regional or anti-capitalist interests. Now in a minority position, the situation will worsen. The country’s governance, like a 100-car pile-up, is a tangled mess that is transiting out of the free enterprise system every year. The Liberals have adopted a soak-the-rich taxation approach and swallowed whole the green’s concocted “Climate Change Emergency.” As a result, Canada has missed out on what The Economist labelled the recent, half-decade global “jobs boom.” Deficits were supposed to disappear but have soared. Jobs and unemployment calculations are suspect and include so-called “part time” and “self-employed jobs.” For instance, before the Oct. 21 election Ottawa claimed that job gains hit 81,000 in August, then another 54,000 in September. Then suddenly, post-election, gains turned into losses of 1,800 in October and 71,000 in November, the biggest decline since the financial meltdown in 2008. Since 2015, median income has increased only $38 a year under the Trudeau regime, compared with $428 a year increases under Prime Minister Stephen Harper (even though he had to steer through the financial meltdown.) Consumer debt has become the highest in the G7, because Ottawa has not cracked down on illicit capital flows into condos in Toronto and Vancouver, which has helped drive housing prices to excessive levels. The private sector is embattled. In 2019, the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” report found that it takes 249 days to obtain all the necessary permits to build a new warehouse in Canada — 160 days more than in the United States, the only country Canada really competes against for capital. And how long does it take to obtain a permit to build needed infrastructure? Ask Kinder Morgan and hundreds of other corporations who have left because impediments turned into all-out obstructions. Overall, the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” report ranked Canada 23rd out of 190 countries, but this has fallen from fourth in 2006. Meanwhile, New Zealand is first; Singapore second, and the United States ranks sixth. Canada ranked 64th in getting permits and the U.S. 24th; Canada ranked 124th in providing electricity to businesses and the U.S. 64th; and Canada ranked 100th in enforcing contracts and the U.S. 17th. Other job-killers include anti-resource development laws (C-48 and C-69); the NGO and the federal government war against fossil fuels and mining; and interventionist labour laws, red tape, and excessive “green” energy regulations. Last year, the country’s biggest export sectors were slammed. General Motors shuttered operations in Oshawa, forestry laid off thousands, and Alberta lost thousands of oil-related jobs. Among the 34 OECD (Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development) members, Canada has the highest regulatory burden and the lowest investments in machinery, equipment, and intellectual patents. Interprovincial trade barriers worsen. British Columbia should not be able to block oil pipelines just as Quebec should not have been able to block transmission lines from Atlantic Canada. Recently, after years, a natural gas pipeline route had to be approved — in order to bypass Quebec via the U.S. — to deliver Alberta natural gas to a Nova Scotia LNG project. Regulators, special interests, and politicians did not hoist this country into the economic big leagues and the G7. Business, entrepreneurs and opportunities did. Now, in GDP terms, Canada is behind India and Brazil in size and will soon be overtaken by Russia and South Korea. It’s all very tragic given Canada’s track record, potential and talent. In the absence of smart economic leadership, Canada will become a road to nowhere. https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canada-is-on-an-economic-road-to-nowhere?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1578406892
  49. 0 points
    “When a terrorist is killed, some people cheer, some shrug, but two NDP MPPs thought it best to go to a solidarity rally where the terrorist was mourned and honoured.” https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-ndp-mpps-sing-and-chant-as-dead-terrorist-honoured
  50. 0 points