Jump to content

IFG

Donating Member
  • Posts

    1,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by IFG

  1. 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!
  2. er ... Kip ... isn't that a '55 Chevy tail light? Cheers, IFG
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Cool pic! Sure hope you didn't scare the crap out of him tho' .... Cheers - IFG (p.s. J.O., well bowled )
  6. 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
  7. If you like Rossini (backing up Bugs - nicely synced) : Cheers - IFG
  8. - "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
  9. Indeed! Damage at wing root catches the eye, too. Looks mostly but not entirely to the fairing, but ... How far is that from tanks?
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. And we'll hope that 20K projection is way off-base I guess my point is we don't really know OWOTO, just that some more pessimistic possibilities are not totally nuts. 20K/day in 42 days does seem high though. I think prevalence of the new strain doubles about every 10 days, which is a confusing metric, since the old strain is diminishing, which means the doubling time for B117 is a little longer than that. Regardless, it is increasing, and if Rt is 1.3-1.4, at a steady clip. I agree the math to get to20K/day is pretty opaque, but maybe not out by orders of magnitude. Back of napkin: If around 10-15% of daily infections are B117, or about 3-400, that could reasonably get to half of daily infections, beyond that being "dominance", by mid-late march (12-1600), which again boosts to 5-6K by the time 6 weeks is up. But, you know how exponential arithmetic works. Should we focus about the error 42 days from now when it might be irrelevant in another couple of weeks after that? IAC, the crucial thing to me is I don't know. Respectfully, I don't think any of us does. Cheers, IFG
  14. Hi, Fido - I guess it depends where you are and who you associate with. I live in a very low-infection area (touch wood!), and I'm like you. Don't know anybody who's got it. Daughters in YYZ on the other hand - both have had co-workers infected. TTC-ing daily, they take COVID very seriously. So, retired in the sticks, out working in YYZ - it does make a difference Cheers, IFG
  15. I don't see what's so hard to understand. Epidemiologists' models are not perfect, but even my layman's mind can grasp as a possibility that if prevalent R0 does go up 50%, we'll notice that. The measures we've taken have maintained it around 0.9, and consistent with that there's been a slow decline since late last year. If the new strain has R0 of 1.3-1.4 (+50%), it will be increasing. One strain gradually reducing, the other increasing, eventually new equals old in number, and old fades away, new continues increase. 1.3+ R0 makes for a pretty steady increase rate. This is the grounds for concern. To bring R0 back down would require measures sufficient to have brought the old strain down below 0.7 (x1.5 < 1). Until we get vac's. This is not rocket science. BTW, I don't think all projections have been wildly off, with the stipulation that range of uncertainty increases the further downstream you're looking. Now we're not epidemiologists here, and there are many other factors at play. But either we take sterner measures, or hope that the projections are indeed off (& for the better!) Hopes and plans .... IAC, illuminating as these discussions can be, we're like the aviation experts in the departure lounge and on flyertalk, involved at the margins and way over-confident in our opinions. Just about everybody here needs for #'s to come down, fast and a lot. There's not QRH for this stuff, it's a war. We just hope that there are more D-Days than Dunkirks. Cheers, IFG
  16. (but in fairness, 'twas the "discernable transfer benefit" of sim motion during training, not the real physiological effects that is called into question). I'd think any pilot who's trained in a sim marvels at the apparent fidelity. Care has to be taken not to lull into blind trust that aircraft behavior will always be reflected. e.g. I remember a paper discussing upset training after AF447 which cautioned that the aerodynamics around the stall are too chaotic to substantively code and simulate - I recall it said that more than 1-2 degrees of sideslip was pretty much guesswork from a simulation programming POV (wish I could find a link). I've had to pursue a couple of fidelity issues myself, that could compromise pilot training, tho' not primarily motion-related. This opens up a real vulnerability when instructors get creative (yeah, guilty ), as the simulation has only been verified for the specific maneuvers and procedures in the FOM. It's quite surprising how inaccurate sims can be even a little outside that envelope. Re: "Most significantly, despite the fact that instructors have an important role to play in teaching skills such as Crew Resource Management, studies of simulator fidelity have ignored the role of the instructor." - Amen! Most instructors try to be conscientious, with a professional attitude, but careering through a few airlines, the reality is that qualification and aptitude don't always govern who gets the job. But maybe that's another thread Cheers, IFG
  17. Not sure if that's any less confusing . Unless I'm misreading, it seems like commercial operators operate under higher bans than private (even with op. specs?) & curious about the rationale if that is so. As a general observation (confession?), I was among the bitchers when the first bans came out, based on years of short-haul ops and many, many successful approaches to MINIMUMS and safe landing with observed weather posted as below mins (often obscured ceilings in snow on non-precision, but often just better flight vis than observed on ground). But two factors set me straight, both data-driven. Exposure to some world-comparative Canadian Wxx-related accident stats, and the realization that quite a low % of total # of approaches are ultimately affected, and those stats were a gruesome price for a probably marginal 'improvement' in mission-accomplishment. Trumps the git'er-done attitudes from decades ago Cheers, IFG
  18. Sure seems intuitive for most pilots that motion should be better, but it seems credible to me that the benefit is illusory. I spent a few years SIM-instructing, and more than once was alerted by a super-smooth landing that we'd been sitting firmly on the blocks, motion-off. Both the candidates and myself none the wiser until touchdown. Not surprised if fighter sims are fixed-base. Pretty hard to simulate the motion of 360 degrees pitch change through inverted . Curious, do any carriers here do unusual-attitude/upset recovery with motion on? (and yeah, a lot of 'Gods-gifted' self-confidence in that there PM ) Cheers, IFG
  19. X3 - Thanks, Maverick Cheers, IFG
  20. Delightful, informative reads. FTR, more time on horseback anyway (not a lot) than with an Otter strapped to my butt (zero, only driven round engines in teams of 2). Who knew that motorized farm equipment came so late (or maybe you guys are even older than I think) Cheers - IFG
  21. All this farm talk! When I hear "stone boat", I'm expecting Dash-3 stories Cheers - IFG
  22. Hi, UpperDeck - I suspect studying epidemiology at Internet University is likely no better than Internet Law School for substantiating 'strongly' held opinions in either discipline But that said, & FWIW, I doubt those very low %#'s tell the whole story. The largest causal factor by far is "unknown", and "close contact" does not illuminate the prior generations of infection. There also seems to be strong correlation between stronger measures and better infection control (say, Oz/NZ vs US/Sweden?). And let's not cart-before-horse those low numbers; they're much more easily argued as substantiating the success of restrictions, and certainly cannot be taken as diminishing the prior problem. To mitigate the damage restrictions are causing, the airline/travel industry must argue very persuasively on the cost/benefit of these policies. Carelessly cited statistics will weaken rather than strengthen the case? Apologies for 'missing link'. But embarrassment is mitigated by your own lack of citation ... Oh wait! No data to cite, just your own assertion of incorrect info. Alas, I can't find that chart now (not devoting too much time to it), it was a ON gov't webpage tho', and the data it held is available all over the place (Kip found some OK). IAC, below is another displaying same over a longer time frame. It shows that indeed positivity rate ran 4-ish% for a month or two (not "all along"), before spiking almost to 10%, and declining again after Ford's quasi-lockdown. The chart does state that it's # of tests, not # of people, but that is the standard measure, and applied consistently should reliably show the delta of the rate, which is the important part for going forward. IAC, yes it's back around 4% for now, but the target is 3%, the healthcare system is still under strain, and more virulent variants are not (yet?) dominant. Hope for the best, plan for the worst might be wise? Cheers, IFG https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-daily-epi-summary-report.pdf?la=en
  23. Thanks for the reply. That's kinda what I'd expect. Sounds like she'll be able to get some work done ? Cheers, IFG ?
×
×
  • Create New...