Jump to content

IFG

Donating Member
  • Posts

    1,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by IFG

  1. Hi, Kip - here's a graph for your time period. Nothing like the steep spike in mogas last few months, BUT - Here's a 1-year graph. Trend's definitely been up. The prices seem low, so I'm assuming it's airline contract prices, which are substantially lower than public retail. Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Prices: U.S. Gulf Coast (WJFUELUSGULF) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org) Cheers, IFG p.s. I was looking into retail avgas prices several months ago in US, and they ranged north and south of $5/gal between ON & FL, self-serve at smaller airports (I think mogas was running mid-ish 2's?). If they're only $6-7 now, the increase % is definitely less than mogas -
  2. Hi again, Airband & Vsplat - First read, you're correct, the bill does not seem to propose the sort of broad pension "protection" I commented about. Altho' not finding anything in a quick look at info about this bill, I quote the following from Ms. Gladu in HoC: This IS the kind of thing I worry about. As for what I see in the bill (so far!), altho' introduced by a CPC member as a private bill, it's pretty bipartisan (how long will that last?), incorporating & building on previous efforts by members of all parties. There may be some 'careful what you ask for' tripwires, but that weed-diving is a whole other discussion. Editing my post. Cheers, IFG p.s. More I think about it, I shoulda left my 1st post (above) alone
  3. Hi, Airband - I have to confess I know little more about the CPC proposal than what's in the post above. But in defense - "Federal Government regulations currently do not protect your pension" or "Bill C228 that would provide pension security in the event that it is required", did't lead me directly to such technical considerations as creditor priorities etc. With that said, I should go find out a bit more about the bill itself . Cheers, IFG
  4. Comment deleted - The bill referred to above doesn't YET seem to justify a concern about RPP's being favoured more than RSP/RIF's (even if some interested parties lobby for it). Cheers, IFG
  5. It's OK, Moon', pour yourself another bowl of Corn Flakes . Truly, bugs me too when cut-and-pastes are not linked. OP likely just didn't catch the ..er.. seniority .. of that piece, altho' the year references were a hint . But, if you really want to know it, just swipe a sentence or two, place it in quotes in the Google window, and voila! Cheers - IFG
  6. Hi, Specs - The article contains no details to qualify or quantify the changes, but does include following: "The change, announced by EASA March 25, will take effect as of Oct. 30, and will more closely align EU rules with ICAO guidance about fuel planning and management." EASA rules do seem a bit more generous than than "over here". All that said, tho' here's some food for thought (from about 5 years ago) in the other direction : Risk analysis of the EASA minimum fuel requirements considering the ACARE-defined safety target - ScienceDirect Cheers - IFG
  7. Well ... they didn't get'em all . I remember groping about many nights years ago at KF with the runway turn-off lights (& occasional shot of inboard landing). Your story is exactly what we were told, except a some birds escaped. Only a couple of tails, but they were ex-AC. Our powers-that-be were unmoved by our 'objection' Cheers - IFG
  8. Hi, Junior - There are probably quite a few guys back in Canada from overseas gigs (wallets full, COVID cutbacks?). I know 5-6 myself, all with extensive 'bus'sing experience, and I'm not all that 'plugged-in' anymore. Cheers - IFG
  9. Hi, Floyd - As far as I know, 727 & 737 have the same windows. Boeing did away with the "eyebrow" windows on later models, but they weren't any use for flight visibility anyway. re: ".... but then I have always enjoyed flying whatever I was in!" - BIG Cheers - IFG
  10. Hi, J.O. - Yep, water is dense stuff. Maybe Greg's on to something here. Lots of deck space for the SARtech's, fill up the water tanks with gas for long-range patrol/loitering, and still a water-bomber as well (applicable for insurrections in the nation's capital?) Cheers - IFG
  11. Agreed. I do remember that accident, but was more appalled at the training standards revealed, than the crew's logged experience levels. IAC, lack of reciprocal recognition for licensing validations is not unique to the US, but that's a particularly heavy-handed application. Cheers, Ian
  12. Globe editorial about AC/WS/GTAA request on testing (pretty much on airlines' side!): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-on-mandatory-covid-19-testing-for-travellers-the-airlines-have-a-point/ Cheers - IFG
  13. Indeed, and upgraded some since I last saw it A trip down memory lane reading that list, being disproportionately populated with Eastern Caribbean strips. Of course, back then, there were shorter ones, particularly in the Grenadines. Fun times - IFG
  14. Hi, Rich - Would CAR705 (or other international equivalent) experience not meet those requirements? Cheers _ IFG
  15. & The Way It Was : Braniff Airways Concorde Operations | heritage-concorde (heritageconcorde.com) "Aviation history was made at Mach .95 on Friday January 12, 1979 as two Concordes, belonging to Air France and British Airways, flew in from the east and lined up to land on parallel runways at Dallas DFW. The simultaneous touchdown marked the beginning of a regularly scheduled supersonic service between Dallas DFW and Europe by Braniff in cooperation with Air France and British Airways. The new interchange was the first of its kind involving a United States carrier and foreign airlines ...." Cheers, IFG
  16. Hello again, Seeker - Ok, I'll move "for Pete's sake" to the strong response cupboard (& try to tone it down) My dilemma: the Seeker that wrote: "Look, I'm not blaming the experts - we just really underestimated the problem or overestimated our ability. Really - not blaming anyone for this. We're all in it together and it turned out to be harder than we thought" doesn't sound the same as the guy above who predicates his question with the premise vaccinations aren't working. When the manifestly are, but limited by a difficult cohort that won't take them. An earlier post outlines the confirmation of that in current ON #'s. Again I'd invite you to consider the aspirational #'s if almost everybody was vaxxed. The recent levels of infection & transmission would show about 2-400 instead of 7-900 daily new ones. But with full vaxx uptake, we'd never even have reached those levels. With community spread reduced by more than half, R#'s would be way below the expansionary range, and outbreaks could be quickly contained. You wrote: "Somewhere early in the process we were told that we (society) could throw a bunch of money and our best experts at the problem, have an expedited vaccine ready in a year or so, vaccinate 75%-80%, achieve herd immunity and then Build Back Better." We could apply the same inference to ON #'s for an 80% uptake, i.e. about 12M vaxx'd instead of current 10M, yielding about 200 or so fewer dailies. Don't know exactly where that would place R#'s, but pretty sure it's < 1. All that with the hope that an even more communicable variant doesn't mutate while we've still got these millions of determined human petri dishes. The guy that wasn't blaming the experts would be onboard, instead of talking about vaccines "not working". Quick thought about Ivermectin that just might resonate for you . Your no-harm-no-foul approach could be analogized with the power of prayer. No apparent harm (not even nausea and/or diarrhea), and far be it from us to prevent good folk from praying their hearts out if they think it "works" . BTW, of course off-label usage of prescription drugs is widespread and respectable. It's also usually conducted in relatively quiet privacy. The problem with loudly validating these off-label usages online, even as panic courses through the web, is that stupid people feel encouraged to unintentional self-harm. Whether that should matter at all or not is another type of discussion altogether. Cheers, IFG
  17. Oh for Pete's sake, Seeker, you don't "have to ask yourself" anything of the kind. The premise is patently absurd. A vaccine showing 80-90 percent effectiveness is working beyond the wildest dreams that preceded them. I'll fix it for you. If the first three vaccinations are not working as perfectly as we'd like, maybe we should try a fourth one? There. We might even arrive at the same conclusion. Hi again, UD - That reference to malpractice lawyers was nothing more than a gentle dig, born of the fact that some of the sites I hit citing that 6-figure estimate in fact belonged to that tribe. IAC, irony and subtlety just don't carry well on this medium. No worries. In fact, my own genealogy is quite polluted with lawyers (the rest much taken up with journalists - there is no hope for me) . Same with my little stake-holders comment, although I do suggest its simply true as stated, and not judgmental at all. But!! I just knew that you would respond .... the promotion of litigation as a prophylactic. Seriously, yes, litigation can play an important role, but it doesn't always. Of course, in a world without civil litigation, many good things would not have happened. We're not in that world. In our real world, the threat of sometimes opportunistic or frivolous lawsuits really does hamper good safety initiatives. Not making some no-chance case for eliminating it (in either aviation or medicine), just expressing frustration at collateral damage. re: Your paean to the good works of management in approving safety programs - of course they're not demons, but you elide the fact that many of efforts were 'approved' after strenuous advocacy from the ranks. I can testify that some in management have not let go of an almost primal need to view safety lapses through a crime-and-punishment lens. Lots of Pilots too. The FAA's reporting procedure is colloquially referred to as the get-out-of jail-free-card. Cheers, IFG
  18. Yikes! Citing alternative statistics with a lowest estimate of 22000 deaths due to error hardly seems to me to trivialize the problem, but discrepancies orders of magnitude apart aren't trivial either, and could be counter-productive. So just to be clear, even the lowest of that range of estimates absolutely warrants serious consideration and effort. FWIW, my own experience with this involved my father - fortunately he weathered it, but the Doc's brought up DNR's as he lay in hospital. I do think these testimonials do more inflaming than informing, but (again FWIW) I'm neither bamboozled by MD's, nor heartless about tragedies caused. You are of course correct that all 'trades' suffer from the group self-protection for error. Nonetheless, and imperfect as pilots may be, we can take a little pride in ongoing efforts like improving SOP's, SMS, careful investigation etc. I believe the medical profession has already learned a bit from the aviation world about techniques for adherence to procedure during surgery (checklists etc.) Perhaps another direction to go would be a change of focus on error toward recognition and correction rather than blame and retribution, encouraging more open reporting etc. Of course, as there is in the flying business, there would be some tension with the more litigious stake-holders. Cheers, IFG
  19. That was certainly a tripwire on the '27's I used to ride, but would not the PFM on the '67 calculate for the selected flap? Or does it only go off keypad entry? & if so, wonder why? That's what the paint was for! Cheers, IFG
  20. Hi, Seeker - If this was in Ontario, I have to wonder if a little was lost in translation there. I had my car towed within the last month through CAA. It was made clear when booking the tow that I'd not be able to ride in the truck, due COVID protocols (vaxx never even came up). And here's what strikes me. It never occurred to me to argue. TBH, I don't know why anybody at all, even vaxxedx2 as I am, would blithely expect the driver to unnecessarily (CAA is not taxi service) expose himself (and thereby his family) to close contact > 15 minutes with a total stranger, maybe several times a day, every workday. I was pretty much "well, that sucks, but I get it", and went about alternate arrangements. I just don't see what presents here as an intolerable encroachment. Talk about 1st world problem. On another note : Estimates of preventable hospital deaths are too high, new study shows | YaleNews "Previous estimates of preventable deaths of hospitalized patients may be two to four times too high, a new Yale School of Medicine study suggests. The meta-analysis of eight studies of inpatient deaths, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, puts the number of preventable deaths at just over 22,000 a year in the United States, instead of the oft-cited 44,000-98,000 estimate of a landmark 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine. Other frequently cited studies have placed the number of deaths as high as 250,000 deaths per year, which would make medical error the third leading cause of death, behind cancer and cardiovascular disease ...." Quarter million figure certainly piques curiosity . What percentage of total deaths is that? 1 in 3? Where people die - Harvard Health "Although more than 700,000 people die in hospitals each year in the US, the trend is toward fewer in-hospital deaths." JH study may not be limited to hospital deaths (likely as wide a net as possible was cast), but I'll bet many people read that into the study's conclusion. The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States (medicalnewstoday.com) "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2,813,503 registered deathsTrusted Source in the United States in 2017." Total death rate above suggests JH saying almost 10% of ALL deaths (guns, crashes etc. included) are medical error, which FWIW still seems high to me. IAC, Don't want to bog down with amateur statistical analysis. That quarter mill number does not seem to lie in the centre of estimates for caused-by-error (except perhaps for malpractice lawyers). One is open to be convinced, but as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . Cheers, IFG
  21. Hi, Seeker. "Right" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, but - fair enough? Hope we're all still here to keep those appointments! Cheers, IFG
  22. Hi again, UD - Admire your fearlessness in taking up the libertarian defense of leaving porn up on the internet . Apropos GDR's original comment, though, whether or not the porn "net" is cast, it has no bearing on the vax-disinfo fishing. ! 2 quibbles tho'. My Blitz analogy (not intended as comparison) was drawing out the failure of anti-vaxxers to step outside their personal concerns. Another might be booting team members who won't follow the playbook Imagination abounds. The point is again that group concerns often collide with individual ones. Anti-vaxxers (and their fellow-travelling anti-maskers) have been indulged to a considerable extent, but the patience of the overwhelming majority might be exhausted. There's an unfortunate collateral result, where worst instincts kick in, and, in the face of compelling evidence, stubbornness takes over. This phenomenon is well known and documented. It's blooming in many pathetic dying anti-vaxxers to the very end. So one should try to give hope a chance & not to be overtly judgmental, but seriously? That's hard now. The other quibble is the notion that anti-vax opinion is being censored. It's my understanding that take-downs target [mis-dis]information, upon which most (not all) anti-vax opinion rests. Far from being silenced, opinionated internet anti-vaxxers still seem to win the shouting match by volume. Cheers, Ian
×
×
  • Create New...