Jump to content

IFG

Donating Member
  • Posts

    1,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

IFG last won the day on March 9

IFG had the most liked content!

Reputation

217 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    YAM, no longer + YHM & DXB

Recent Profile Visitors

4,656 profile views
  1. You're way to kind Mitch, but the thought is mutual - & reciprocal! I think that lawyers have thick skin - and have behind me decades of dependence upon the goodwill of 'friendly' AME's Cheers - IFG
  2. Hi, UD - Not sure about cognoscenti , and following is just rambling of this interested layman (very much IMVHO!) I'm not quite sure what the 10% cohort is that you are asking about. It seems to be generally agreed that the mRNA vaccines are 90%ish effective (certainly against earlier variants, and against delta at least for hospitalizations/deaths, other vaccines not all that far off). As I understand it, that means that randomly 90% fewer of vaccinated population, would likely be infected. i.e. proportionately 90% fewer vacc'd oldies, 90% fewer vacc'd genZers than unvaccinated. I haven't seen anything suggesting the efficacy is variable between groups, or that the 10% breakthrough will come from a specific cohort. e.g.: (Plugging in #'s for illustration) Last year, picking a 10% infection rate, a random population of 1000 would have had 100 infections. With a 90% effective vaccine this year (this is very high in the world of vaccination BTW), and say an 80% uptake, the unvaccinated cohort show 20 infections, the vaccinated only 8 (their 'share' of 80, -90%). Two things follow.. 1- Of new infections, headlines scream that about 30% are "breakthrough"!! and 2- Almost none of the 8 show up at hospitals. The first is simple and predictable arithmetic. The second gets overrun by the first. Press coverage is frustratingly innumerate. I don't traffic in gratuitous hatred for journos (too much printers ink in my bloodstream), but lets agree that they are certainly no better than pilots or lawyers in that regard . IAC, In the real world, as new variants develop, transmissibility, severity, efficacy may all vary, fer us or agin us, but throughout, the case for high vacc uptake is compelling. I don't know if any of that nibbles at a relevant response Cheers, IFG
  3. I don't think you have, UD. Allow me to pinch-hit for Mitch. Mitch: "radical, r/w zealots", juxtaposed with "non-radical r/w tunnel-visioned dope" UD's transcription: "non-radical, tunnel-visioned, right-wing dope" For want of a comma! I think that Mitch omitted an important one - I suspect not where you supply another, but rather after and not before the lattermost "r/w" (i.e. as in 'non-radical-r/w, tunnel-visioned dope' - well, maybe a hyphen as well ). IAC, re: "synonymous" - "tunnel-visioned" modifies only the dope, & not the r/w zealots, no? & who only knows how much peripheral vision is needed to scope out radicality Cheers - IFG & p.s. .... Indeed, life is grand!
  4. er ... Kip ... isn't that a '55 Chevy tail light? Cheers, IFG
  5. He's brilliant, J.O., Mitch, yours is good too, but instrumentals won't quite capture the full breadth of 'Floyd's collective genius .... unless they can cover this - Cheers - IFG
  6. One Liberal MP voted for the motion, and one independent opposition MP against, otherwise a straight minority governing party vs. opposition vote, passing 183/151 (Vote Detail - 67 - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada (ourcommons.ca). Parliamentary procedure is pretty arcane, but this shouldn't be confused with a bill to make law. I don't know what kind of order is created when this sort of opposition motion is passed (UpperDeck??), or whether it brings any force to bear on the government at all. IAC ... seems likely close to the mark. Still, Libs had to know this was going to pass, and I don't see political benefit in vainly, but visibly opposing it. Curious, if nothing else, why they'd make a show of that. I wonder if it's nothing to do with the airline-specific part of the motion. The language is pretty innocuous (link above), but does address other sectors, business as well as labour. Regardless, hopefully some sort of assistance is in the cards, soon. Cheers - IFG
  7. Cool pic! Sure hope you didn't scare the crap out of him tho' .... Cheers - IFG (p.s. J.O., well bowled )
  8. My own family was caught up in this last year, with a FL trip. We took the offered credit, not expecting it all to drag on for a year or more, but - some time late last year we were offered a refund (unsolicited BTW), and took it. I don't recall the details of it now, but I do wonder why there are still people out of pocket. For those that are and seek redress - Specs, you kinda cherry-picked what to highlight in that CTA extract. Reading the entire section makes clear that it's addressing obligations in a flight disruption situation, and not an extended shutdown of operations. From your quote, some airline obligations in those situations: The "non-refundable" ticket is an injunction on the pax to show up for their booked flight or forfeit the airfare, not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the airline to take the money and run. The airline's obligation was to complete the itinerary, as the CTA makes clear above. That obligation has gone unfulfilled (for obvious reasons). A voucher may not even be sufficient to cover the cost of a more-than-a-year-later trip if fares are higher, and that's IF it's really reasonable to demand that pax change plans over year later (FFS, some of them are probably dead!) "Lucky" to have a voucher indeed A few people here might ease up on the customer-bashing/hatred. Pax should get their money back. As a practical matter, if not just for 'fairness', airlines should get assistance, because this whole mess is not their fault, and they'll probably be financially crippled or fail completely without it, which benefits nobody. Hopefully this happens soon, shouldn't take this long. Cheers - IFG
  9. If you like Rossini (backing up Bugs - nicely synced) : Cheers - IFG
  10. - "The examination of the engine's fan blades revealed fan blade No. 11 was fractured transversely across the airfoil directly above the fairings that are between the base of each blade. The other fan blade, which was identified as fan blade No. 10 and was the adjacent trailing blade, was fractured across the airfoil at about midspanmidspan". Looking at the picture above of the naked engine: if history doesn't repeat itself, it sure rhymes a lot - Cheers, IFG
  11. Indeed! Damage at wing root catches the eye, too. Looks mostly but not entirely to the fairing, but ... How far is that from tanks?
  12. Hi, UpperDeck - On the "degree" - I was not suggesting your degree was from Twitter LS, but that of some of your interlocutors (& us dollar-store epidemiologists). If anything, I meant to commiserate. I've followed your legal comments here for years with interest, your patience and impatience with opinions unburdened by any legal tutoring, and have no doubt about your own qualification to comment (and practice) whatsoever. I haven't looked up the post, and if it seemed that way, I definitely fumbled that. My own formal education stopped before a Bachelor's degree, if that matters. I try not to let it. Informal learning continues. But I do try not to waste credentialed people's time. Maybe not always successfully, tho'. I didn't/don't know of Turbofan's background (missed the Emory part), but he(generic pronouns) certainly does seem credible anyway. That said, his comments about Health Canada's projections initially seemed dismissive to my lay understanding, & given what I'd encountered, that didn't seem warranted (that's way short of full-throated defense BTW). He might be bringing me around. IAC, I've tried to be pretty clear and upfront about my own level of engagement in this sort of discussion, perhaps not enough? (Aside - the flyertalk comment was aimed at all of us, Turbofan only included as an assumed (albeit well-informed) pilot ) Not sure you really invite my answers to your Q's (with all layman limitations! TF, feel free to correct), but here goes. Your hometown - Stats will have local anomalies. Jail is somewhat 'quarantined' I suppose, but people still come and go, and confined quarters of any kind are a challenge. Deaths, Hospitalizations, Infections - My understanding is that B117 and the rest are more transmissible, but not likely more severe (although there seems to be daily discussion on that). More transmissibility > more infections > more deaths. It seems to me that should upset the current flow, for the worse (apparently many projections say not). What is "acceptable"? Current conditions reflect semi-lockdown conditions up to now under the old Rt#. Q may not be "is this acceptable", but "is this sustainable"? Current Covid conditions under an open economy might be "acceptable", but that's also fictional, & not likely one of our options (until vax!). And numbers much higher than those will strain our healthcare system. So perhaps the numbers to focus on are those projections (& hence TF's credibility concerns). Again, apologies if I've come across the wrong way. Challenging discussion sometimes steps close to the edge .... - Cheers, IFG
  13. Fair enough. I did not see the presentation you seem to be referring to, but not answering questions certainly brings more of them! I have been seeing quite a bit of stuff about the effect of the newer strains that suggests another surge, with similar suggested forecasts, so I'm not so inclined to summarily discount it. I'll have to look up the other national projections you refer to. I wonder what the inputs are regarding vaccination. Seems clear that they're a game-changer, WHEN they are widespread. We're definitely stumbling out of the blocks on that. Absent vaccination, it seems equally obvious that a more transmissible variant would increase infections. I have not seen anybody yet suggesting the new variants are actually not more transmissible. And I do agree about measures not aligning with forecast. In fact, Ontario is relaxing We'll see what we see in a month or two, it's not a contest. Hoping for the best ... Cheers, IFG
  14. Hi, Don - Never had the chance to train all-in-the-sim. I still remember my first sim session, though: my first landing, I thought "I'm in a sim!", and pulled full reverse, max brakes etc. just for the fun of it. We had a hell of a time getting my partners reading glasses from under his rudder pedals. He shoulda had one of those dorky cords like I did Re: AF447 - My recollection is they established that the recovery procedure that worked for stall recovery in the airplane also did so in the sim and left it at that. Pretty much like landing the sim. What gets you on the ground in one piece in the sim will be OK in the airplane, but 'working' the sim for a smooth one is usually a recipe for trouble . Quick rabbit-hole. When I was sim-instructing, it seemed to me that airline pilots never did do stall recovery, just slow-flight to shaker and speed up again. Years ago I'd seen reproduction's of FDR tracings from the AA4184 ATR icing crash. All the way down, elevator control never went much further than neutral. I thought we might be rustier than we like to think. Here is an instance where the perfect fidelity could be enemy of the good-enough-to-do-the-job if pilots are not fully trained for stalls. Seems to me that the above standard ought to be sufficient to inculcate correct responses and procedures. Of course it's been a few years now. Post-AF447, maybe that's already included in conversion/recurrent training? Cheers, IFG
×
×
  • Create New...