av8tor

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

av8tor last won the day on May 5 2017

av8tor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About av8tor

  • Rank
    2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,798 profile views
  1. Bad behaviour knows no class ... years ago I was in Business when a guy in row 1 took off his shoes and socks and planted his bare feet high up in the bulkhead for all to admire. ?
  2. It wasn't that long ago (well at least it doesn't seem so) that the Constellation Hotel (now torn down) on Dixon Road had its own Constellation aircraft on the property, used first as a bar and later moved and converted to a restaurant.
  3. There is no question that Mr. Rovinescu has done a stellar job in turning around AC from its near-death experience in the mid to late 2000's. As I recall, the pilots helped out during those dark days when the company was in precarious financial difficulty and the pension plan was in severe deficit by voluntarily (and temporarily, the thought went) giving up indexation. When times got better, it was believed, then indexation could be, and would be re-instated. Well times did get better, in fact much better, and with the pension plan now over-funded the company has shown no interest in the return of indexation. I seem to recall them actively resisting indexation during one of the many arbitrations ACPA has had with them in the intervening years. What is that saying about being nice guys??? Meanwhile Mr. Rovinescu and all the other senior executives (who enjoy participation in their own non-contributory pension plan) can look forward to a very sweet pension for which they made not a single contribution. I'm not suggesting that their pensions are not deserved, yet it bothers me nonetheless that these same people, with a clear conscience, continue to reject all requests from us former worker-bees for re-instatement of our indexation. Silly me, apart from feeling that we deserve it, I believed that we had earned it. Some interesting reading here, particularly starting at page 72: https://www.aircanada.com/content/dam/aircanada/portal/documents/PDF/en/2018_proxy.pdf
  4. Speaking of flight bags, this wounded warrior was purchased in 1979 and, had it not been force-retired, was good for a few more years! ??
  5. There has existed for a long, long time, a rivalry in the Air Force between pilots who fly different equipment. 50 years ago, when I joined up, I wanted to be a fighter pilot but even back in my day there were those who professed to see no purpose for fighter aircraft in the then today’s Air Force and I came to realize that no minds were going to be changed in the oft-times vigorous debates of my day. I have always seen the requirement and necessity for different aircraft types and missions in our Air Force, but of course we are all not like-minded (that’s a good thing) and hence the perpetual debates concerning what aircraft are, or are not required/necessary. History is once again repeating itself. Just like the Liberals under Chretien had cancelled the Sea King replacement, thereby costing us taxpayers hundreds of millions; now the Liberals under Justine have all but abandoned our investment in the development of the F35 and worse, seem comfortable spending a billion plus on end-of-life Aussie F-18’s. I’m in your camp, Wolfhunter: “the next step in lunacy is coming to the conclusion that an air force doesn’t need fighters”. Our small contributions to NORAD and NATO, alliances within which we have been members for many decades, are contributions nonetheless. If Canada as a country is unwilling and/or unable to contribute our share in those alliances, then we risk becoming a shameless satellite to those countries that take up our slack. I suspect most Canadians understand and accept that with any threat to the North American continent, the US will run the show. That does not, however, in my view, rationalize our throwing up our hands and abandoning responsibility for our own defence, however regrettably small our contributions continue to be. As for fighters in our Air Force, I would use the analogy of carrying a set of jumper cables in the trunk of your car: you’ll never need them … until you do. And when you do need them, you need them now. You’ll get no disagreement from me regarding our heavy haulers that in peacetime resupply Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, that in times of crisis provide emergency aid wherever and whenever asked. Our search and rescue people provide yeoman service despite being undermanned and underequipped. They are just two organizations of many within our military that are able to serve Canada and Canadians in times of peace as well as war. Fighters, on the other hand, are combat machines. In times of peace, it’s easy to dismiss them as being unnecessary, even irrelevant and particularly today, certainly expensive. After all, they can serve only as a visible sign of deterrence and only a preparedness to fight. The alternative however, of being caught up in a fight without the equipment you need, will prove to be far costlier than the peacetime expense. The Cold War was my kind of a war wherein no shots were fired. That war was fought through the strength of deterrence. Let’s not forget that, as we struggle with the F-18 replacement. It would appear from the YouTube video above, that the Norwegians haven’t forgotten, but then again, they experienced an occupation by a foreign power whereas we Canadians never have.
  6. I agree. As a 12 year Air Force pilot, 3000+ hours, current squadron ICP (Instrument Check Pilot), I had to pay for a few hours flying lessons in a Beech 95 just so I could fly a check ride in an unfamiliar aircraft with a Transport Canada check pilot to confirm my ability to hold an Airline Transport Rating. To add insult to the process, the check pilot concluded his pre-flight briefing with a comment along the lines of "if you fail this ride I don't want you to go complaining to my boss." Class act.
  7. There's a lot of WWII nose art available for viewing that suggests not much was banned let alone removed and so in terms of restrictions imposed during WWII I'm curious as to the "political committee" and the decision issued to which you refer. Are you able to provide further guidance? The only info on restrictions that I've been able to locate happened decades later: From one web site that I viewed: "If we are to compare side by side the 80’s with Vietnam or WW II then the general consensus among most people would be that there is more freedom than what was enjoyed in the Vietnam era but less than what was allowed during the Great War. In the wake of the infamous “Time” story on the fifth of December 1988 “Bimbos for Bombers”, nose art earned public ire so much that it invited the criticism of the National Organization for Women and the National Women’s History Project."
  8. I love the artwork on all those WWII aircraft, particularly bombers and fighters. In today's PC and SJW world, such artwork would no doubt profoundly offend somebody and be judged inappropriate by some "independent" tribunal. I suspect a decision would come down from above dictating that you go fly your mission and die if necessary, but don't dare deface an aircraft with such offensive artwork.
  9. I expect that they will .... and very soon. They already accept remotely controlled trains and autonomously driven automobiles are just around the corner (in terms of legality and availability), robots are everywhere from surgical rooms to assembly lines. It (remotely controlled airliners) will begin with single pilot ops and then ultimately complete autonomy. Not in my lifetime I suspect, but most likely in my grandchildren's lifetime. Absolutely. People place a high value on life but when it's their own money they often come up with some strange rationalizations.
  10. I just had a Tesla model S out for a test ride last week. It is an amazing vehicle. Tesla does not recommend that you turn on the vehicle’s auto pilot and then pull out your favourite magazine. In the same manner that pilots monitor an aircraft autopilot anytime it is engaged, so too should a Tesla owner monitor the vehicle’s autopilot whenever it is engaged. It would not surprise me if most Tesla owners do not fully appreciate the necessity to monitor the vehicle’s automation. After all there is no training involved for Tesla owners, you write a cheque, get a half hour briefing and hit the highway. We all know how many idiots there are out there driving conventional automobiles, putting them in a Tesla just raises the danger level incrementally. Fully autonomous driving is not yet legal but I suspect that it’s coming, and sooner than perhaps it should. All the same, I loved the car! And no, I didn’t buy one (but my brother-in-law did) and I have volunteered myself to be his instructor.
  11. I was told that I was "immature" the day after I joined the Air Force and I've been told that time and time again ever since! Only have one life to live!!!
  12. Employers will push and push and push some more until one is willing to take a stand. If any pilot believes that fatigue will be a consequence of any given flight schedule then that pilot has a duty and obligation to ensure that he or she will remain in compliance with CAR 602.02 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/page-82.html#h-750 If, given the circumstances of any particular flight, he or she has reason to believe that they will not be in compliance with CAR 602.02 then they shouldn't do the flight. Particularly so because, safety aside, if something untoward does happen and it is found that fatigue was a factor then the pilot will carry the blame and the employer will be the first one to agree that the flight shouldn't have been flown by that particular pilot. You will be hung by your own "can do" petard. Will the employer be happy if you don't accept a flight because of CAR 602? No. Will the employer push back against your decision? Most likely. Possibly a "letter" on your file or a suspension or obligatory medical examination or any number of other things. And they will be doing such things not as a message to the "offender" but as a message to everyone else. Employers know that there's strength in numbers and it's in their best interest to cut the legs out from under an individual than it is to deal with the group as a whole. Problem is, when it comes to fatigue, most pilots, as individuals, will avoid the grief of standing up for what is right and instead, do what is asked of them. Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the time everything works out but surprise, surprise, employers keep wanting more and more, all in the interests of "flexibility" and "protecting the operation". But remember this: if a pilot gets caught in a fatigue-related incident/accident - you're on your own and the employer will be the first one to pull the chair out from under you. And your "can do" attitude will count for squat.
  13. Malcolm, may I suggest that it’s not entirely the fault of Joe Public. Yes, most people are very price conscious but let’s not overlook airlines that do whatever they can to put a warm body in an empty seat. It is the airlines that have bought into the mantra that it is better to have a seat generate one dollar than to have it depart empty. After all, flights for the most part are scheduled, and are departing regardless of being half empty or full. I will always remember, and probably never forget an article in the company rag of an airline no longer with us, where it was explained how an aircraft could depart ”full” and yet still lose money. I remember thinking to myself at the time, if this is the best that the high priced help at the top can come up with, then our days are numbered … and they were. The suits only (well maybe not only) focus is that they want Joe Public flying on their aircraft, and not with a competitor. And what’s the obvious way to do that? Attract them with lower prices. And how to offset lower revenue? Well, lets cut service. You want service?Well then pay for it. All of the airlines are doing it as they, in concert with Joe Public, fight each other in this race to the bottom. Competition is good but it can have an ugly side to it.
  14. I agree. But I believe a place to start is with the airlines taking responsibility and being more proactive when it comes to overbooking. They know how many seats are on an aircraft and they know when they have sold the "last" seat. Overbooking implies, and in reality is, selling a product that is sold out - for which an argument could be made that this constitutes a form of misrepresentation. Having said that, I understand "no shows", the myriad number of legitimate reasons for those no shows, and the airlines' necessity to mitigate the impact of those no-shows. From the passenger's point of view, the issue is: who gets bumped in an oversell situation? As I wrote in a previous thread: "someone who books 24 hours before departure using one of those 'refundable fares' for which they have paid a 'hefty premium for that privilege' should not bump a passenger who made their plans and booked their flight possibly months previously." It is the airline that oversells the flight, it is the airline that decides who gets bumped and thus it is the airlines' problem to solve. If they don't solve the problem of their own volition then I suspect that eventually, public complaint will force regulatory authorities to step in and solve the problem for them - a resolution that might not sit well in the boardroom.