Donating Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by seeker

  1. Was checking CADORS to see if there was anything about this - nothing found but I did find this: February 20, 2019 Incident at ABBOTSFORD BC (CYXX) The Abbotsford police called the Abbotsford, BC (CYXX) tower to request that a Swoop Inc. Boeing 737-800 (WSW106) from Abbotsford, BC (CYXX) to Hamilton, ON (CYHM) return to the apron. The aircraft was on Taxiway Alpha at the time. The aircraft returned to the apron and a police officer boarded. No impact to operations. I wonder what that was about?
  2. Yeah. The tow crew had the aircraft stopped, chocked and park brake set. Then they noticed the aircraft was moving fast enough to jump the chocks, defeat the park brake and sustain major damage all within the space of one hangar length. Something doesn't add up
  3. This is true but I recently talked to someone who is familiar with the Harbour Air DHC-2 project and his opinion is that it will be viable. The reasons are quite specific to Harbour Air's operation. The usual flight is just 15 minutes or so - across from Vancouver to Nanaimo and the battery will be (anticipated to be) capable of 1 hour operation - pretty much lines up perfectly with a flight and required reserves. On the turn it would get plugged and and is anticipated to be able to recover the 25% used in about 30 minutes. Perhaps a waiver of the 45 minute reserve is possible for a VFR float plane, perhaps the turn gets stretched to 45 minutes, perhaps there's a quick swap system for the battery pack to handle longer flights. IAC, this isn't a pie-in-the-sky plan.
  4. Likely because it was burdened with unrealistic rates for the energy to be produced - it would cost more to run than to cancel and tear it down. The Liberals get tagged with this error. According to the auditor the Liberals over-payed 9.2 billion (Billion!) for green energy projects plus you gotta add a few billion for the cancelled gas-plants. Dougie has a long way to go before he comes anywhere close to the incompetence and malfeasence of the Liberals. Yes, I agree, wasting a hundred million having to cancel some faulty Liberal project sucks but this is a Liberal legacy, not a Conservative mistake.
  5. I don't live in Ontario and am therefore not really entitled to an opinion but here it is anyway - I'm not a big DF fan but after the gross mis-management of the province by the Liberals can anyone really believe that he's worse than they were? As someone (Jaydee perhaps?) has already posted when a Conservative government finally gets elected and shows a bit of fiscal restraint and un-does some of the previous Liberal government's largess they get labeled as the bad guys - hardly seems fair. Doug Ford has a bit of a bull-in-the-china-shop style but if I had to choose between that and the whip-out-the-chequebook Wynn style I know which one I'd choose.
  6. That's not really the point I was making. Boeing bought DHC simply to ingratiate itself to the government hoping to sell a bunch of 737 junk and then dumped the company when their plan didn't work. It seems like Airbus's participation in the Canadian Aerospace industry is likely to last longer and provide more benefits for Canadians.
  7. Certainly better than Boeing's short (and painful) ownership of de Havilland. This, from wikipedia: In the 1980s, the government of Canada privatized DHC and in 1986 sold the aircraft company to then Seattle-based Boeing. The government claimed to have guarantees from Boeing not to discontinue any product lines, but shortly thereafter, Boeing discontinued both the successful Twin Otter and the Dash 7. The jigs and specialised equipment for their manufacture were destroyed. Boeing was in heavy competition with Airbus Industrie for a series of new airliners for Air Canada, at that time a Canadian crown corporation. Boeing used the DHC purchase to further strengthen its commitment to shared production contracts. The contract was particularly contentious. When Air Canada announced that Airbus had won the contract in 1988, amid claims of bribery, Boeing immediately put DHC up for sale, placing the company in jeopardy.
  8. By co-incidence I happened to meet the Capt of this flight in YYZ the day after the event. Yes, by the standards of all inflight emergencies it's relatively small potatoes but to hear the story first-hand....well, I wouldn't call it a "non-event."
  9. That's a lot of damage for rolling into a tow tractor - looks like it was "rolling" at about 30 knts.
  10. Deleted. On second thought, I have edited my reply because saying what I want to say might be misconstrued.
  11. The woman was identified as a student taking a flight attendant course at the Guilin Tourism University, according to the state-run People's Daily. It is unclear whether she is personally connected to the pilot. I think it's safe to say that the pilot hoped she would be "personally connected" to him some time after the flight.
  12. Yes, it's happened before and every time it's get s little easier to justify.
  13. ....and all the promises made when the technology was installed are cast aside by an ignorant judge. All the discussions held in his chambers over the years have relevance to the parties involved, I wonder if he will be releasing that information? No? Why not?
  14. Well, I don't necessarily think Mitch and Deicer are wrong with their end goal. Society will eventually evolve (devolve?) to an environmentally-friendly state. My problem with environmentalists is that they want it to happen NOW without any process to get there. I do believe we (society) should move towards a sustainable future but you can't just switch off the taps without something ready to replace the energy needs. IMO, we should build the pipelines and use the resources we have while simultaneaously working towards the end goal. The oil revenues will/can provide the bridge to the electric future. I do not see a contradiction in this. The environmentalists have it right but are simply wrong about the path to get there. Imagine some sort of massive infrastructure project like elctricfying the rail system between Windsor and Quebec City. This would have a huge benefit for society and massively reduce CO2 but can we afford the 50 gazillion dollars to do it? No, we can't. However we could use the oil revenue to fund the replacement for the oil industry. The greens want to eliminate the oil industry before building the replacement system. That's a problem.
  15. Hi Mitch, glad to see you back posting. Well, economics is the primary concern ultimately - you can do all the good you want until the bank account is empty and then what? Assuming you got your wish and all oil production ceased in Alberta - what is your plan to replace the lost dollars in the federal coffers? Where does the money come from to pay for health, education, etc? I don't disagree with the idea of moving toward a renewal energy future but we need the resource revenue from oil and gas production to pay for it and sustain us until we get there. If you hate your job you don't quit immediately but rather use the pay from that job to afford the education to allow to you to eventually quit.
  16. Well, I knew (hoped?) it would happen eventually - we actually found something to agree on! It's a red-letter day!
  17. A $50K (US) SUV with a 450 HP engine that goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Who needs that? Produce a 200HP SUV that can tow a small utility trailer and costs $25K (US) and it will replace 80% of the vehicles on the road. I don't get that manufacturers. Tesla, BMW and now Ford. All of them. Designing and producing these stupid vehicles - don't need (or want) a vehicle that can do F-14 carrier launches. What I want is a vehicle to drive to the Sobey's and Home Depot.
  18. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Alberta oil is cleaner than the oil we will import in it's place. It's also more ethical, from a human right POV, and benefits us economically - Kind of a tri-fecta.
  19. Well, my posts on this topic are in response to the article posted by Jaydee. The idea of giving "the youth" 2 or 3 votes while others get one is crazy. If anything it should go the other way. Very few people pay the tab for their public education, healthcare, etc until well into their 40s and many never do at all. I was a "youth" once and now no longer am. If I look back at myself when I was young I can clearly see that, although I was ambitious and (relatively) hard-working, I honestly had no real understanding of the issues. Can anyone truly understand what "deficit" means until they have a mortgage, a maxed-out line of credit and bills to pay and are facing an economic recession? I have voted in every Federal election since I turned 18 - did any of those votes I cast before I knew what I was doing, and what I was voting for, help the country move to a better place? It's quite probable that my vote, and others of my generation, reduced the ability of those who really did understand to elect an effective and responsible government. So, yes, I agree, disenfranchising a portion of the population isn't feasible but the opposite is also true - giving them "extra" voting power would be a disaster. As would following May's proposal of lowering the voting age to 16. Haha, you think it's bad now - we'd see political platforms including; "free" cellphone data packages and "free" pizza in school cafeterias (which isn't actually that far off what we have already seen). Compare the difference between Herbert Hoover saying that Republican prosperity meant "a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard" vs Jagmeet Singh saying the NDP will "cap your cellphone bill and give you free tuition".
  20. Did you read to the end of my post? Maybe we consider volunteering at the school as "public service", maybe raising a family is public service or maybe it isn't - I hardly know the answer. My point is that society has too many "takers". Encouraging and rewarding those who step up would be a good thing - no?
  21. You've been misinformed by your Liberal tribe - the 1% pays more than their fair share of taxes. Obviously my 2 sentence description of some sort of contribution-to-earn-a-vote is not meant to be taken as a full plan.
  22. A "weighted" vote system is not a bad idea - the criteria should be; how much each person contributes to society. I am often reminded of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. It's been made into a Hollywood movie that focuses on the sci-fi action but the book itself is more about politics and society. In the imagined society there are two classes; civilians and citizens. Both have rights but only the citizens get to vote and anyone can earn citizenship by public or military service. So those who are willing to contribute to society are the ones who get a say in how and where it goes. Seems like a good starting point. I've posted here before my feeling that only those who pay taxes should be able to vote. The British system used to be that only land-owners voted. Why should some person who never pays any tax but enjoys the benefits of a tax-payer supported life also get a vote in deciding anything? Perhaps a system where if you own property you get a vote, if you're a net-payer of tax you get a vote and if you're unable to meet either of these due to whatever reason you can earn your vote by public or military service.