Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


3 Neutral
  1. Greece has 100+ tonnes of gold, 33 times as much as we do. I don't see the correlation between gold reserves and currency/economic stability. I suppose you could make the case that a resource based economy like ours can rely on lumber, oil, etc. to backstop our currency.
  2. I find it funny that we're talking about people being overcompensated in a forum dominated by airline pilots. Rightly or wrongly, many people think senior airline pilots at major carriers are overpaid in light of the automation in place and the safety record of the industry. Of course, as pilots would likely say in their defence, those people simply don't understand the compensation model. They don't know what why the compensation is the way it is. I suppose the same could be said of the salary of CEOs... Perhaps you folks simply don't understand the market driven compensation model at work here, how could you... it's not like you're pilots CEO's yourselves. A final thought: A typical CEO has the ability to cause many $millions worth of financial impact as a result of poor decisions and poor planning. Perhaps, like pilots, they're paid for what they know and/or their proven abilities rather than what they do day-to-day.
  3. I think WS is already doing this for transatlantic service with a long stop in Newfoundland. It's an interesting initiative. I hope it drives tourism and demand.
  4. This reminds me of standardized testing in school where teachers focus on teaching kids to pass standardized tests instead of educating kids. The EPA is the administrator of standardized testing for vehicles. Automotive engineers have simply designed emissions software to conform to the test parameters. Freakonomics 101. I wouldn't be surprised if this is widespread in the industry.
  5. You're right. I didn't explain myself well. I think we're saying almost the same thing. To clarify, I'm saying that the SFOCs are routinely granted where risk can be properly mitigated. In this case, unless someone holds a grudge against Spec's friend, there is probably some element of the proposed flight that presents risk that can't be mitigated. I don't think it's simply a matter of compliance like checking boxes on a form. I think there's a bit of grey area in evaluating risk. For all we know, there may be an issue with drones flying close to aircraft around that airport. What I do think is that Spec's friend is owed an explanation beyond "Airport Airspace" so that he can come up with an alternative solution to meet his commercial objectives. Saying no for the sake of saying no is in no one's interest because it drives behaviour outside of regulation, control and risk mitigation and defeats the purpose of SFOCs.
  6. My point here is that there's no standard that the industry has adopted so mitigating the risk of autonomous drones is a bit of a dog's breakfast.
  7. Canada's rules in this respect are reasonable and are being used as the the model for the world to follow. In the United States for example, they're simply prohibited for the most part so people operate them outside of regulation, which is intended to ensure safety. At my airport, there are hundreds of SFOCs granted in controlled airspace every year so many exceptions are permitted. Here is a good infographic that gives a high level overview of the regulations: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-standards/Infographic_Permission_to_fly_a_UAV_Print_English.pdf Specs, the difference your friend should appreciate is that that he's not in control of the aircraft he's operating and he's not communicating with other traffic or ATC in real-time. Does it have a Mode C transponder? If something happens to the connection between the controller and the aircraft, what does it do? Return to the point of origin? Remain stationary until the battery is expended? Climb to 4000' in an attempt to reacquire the signal?
  8. No problem. Of course, the document explains how very well but it doesn't address the why. I suspect most of the manual is copy/paste from an ICAO document (most of our regs are). Airports and NavCan are blindly following procedures for issuing NOTAMs because we both lack the power to deviate from established international practices. If this is going to change, ICAO will be the one leading the change.
  9. The Canadian NOTAM Procedures manual is the authority on this subject. http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/NOTAMProcedure.aspx
  10. It's no theory. Airports like YVR operate on a cost recovery basis. Rates and charges are set to cover expenses. If additional revenue comes in, say from operating other airports, selling expensive purses, or parking, the pie shifts and the less money needs to be recovered from elsewhere. There's nothing theoretical about it. It would be pretty simple math to take an annual report, strip out some of the non-aeronatical revenue and see how much more money would need to be raised. The only other two pieces of the revenue pit are AIF and aeronautical revenue.
  11. Because the money generated from the ownership stakes offsets rates and charges to airlines.
  12. So how does this work? If the fuel facilities are owned by a consortium, are there now simply two service providers drawing fuel from the same in ground hydrant system?
  13. But that's not exactly the case. TC regulates the volume. Each airline sets their own dimensions for length, width and height. If the carriers could all just agree on the dimensions and acceptable weight, the manufacturers can get behind a consistent size and sell it as 'carry-on approved' and the expectations of customers can be managed. The convoluted policies and inconsistent enforcement are the issues here, not the passengers trying to save a buck and play the system that the airlines created.
  14. The new runway has been planned for and protected by airport zoning regulations since 1977.
  • Create New...