Jump to content

flyinghigh

Members
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by flyinghigh

  1. During my entire line indoc and final check, the wind never exceeded 5 knots(if it got that high) and hot one cloud. I did handle that stuff fairly well though, I must say. Seeing as there were no listed limitations for crosswind, only demonstrated, perhaps you could make a suggestion on what I should have used as a limitation on my first few flights. Around 40 as the book says have been demonstrated, perhaps. Should I lower them arbitrarily for the very mountainous airports I flew into, even though there was nothing written about it as a limitation or am I an "independent thinker" that needs to be called to the CP's office for further discussion. I know, there are plenty of heroes out there. There were the usual stories of the 50 knot crosswind landing by someone or another. But I am just an average pilot and try to use some good judgement to keep my record safe. I am not ashamed or don't have too big an ego to save it for another day.
  2. "What I do assume now from your posts is that you have some independent ideas about things. I used to spend 90% of my time office time as CP dealing with independent thinkers. " Wow, that does not sound like a safety-oriented statement from the CP about someone who has decided to be cautious when new on an aircraft. I was fortunate, I had a supportive CP.
  3. If you read my initial post on this part of the subject, you will notice that I mentioned that I was trained as a straight-in captain on type. I never said what company I was working with at the time. Obviously this was not with WestJet as they don't do such a thing. As well, it was not on a 737. Unfortunately, you are assuming multiple things even when they are not said which may very well be what you are doing in your beef about your cancelled flight the other day. I would have told my chief pilot about this when I finished doing my touch and go's with him on type. He had no problem with it because he is a good chief pilot. I never told dispatch about it and thinking about it now, there was one flight where I did not land due to winds. It was an enroute stop in mountainous terrain with a somewhat short runway. I remember that the winds were reported as 27 knots but there was not much crosswind. During the descent, they picked up to over 30 knots and I climbed back up and proceeded to our alternate which was the next destination anyways. No one questioned it(except possibly a pax or two that was more interested in getting home).
  4. I believe I mentioned it to the chief pilot when I was given the final sign-off. The issue never came up on the line as I was fortunate to get a gradual increase in crosswinds on the line. This aircraft is a bit squirrely in crosswinds and after a couple of interesting landings in a 25 knot crosswind, I got the hang of things and had no further issues. But it justified my decision to not jump into attempting a landing at the much higher max demonstrated crosswind and the even significantly higher max demonstrated takeoff crosswind. I justify it with the belief that what is legal is not necessarily safe and what is safe is not necessarily legal. Safety took priority over the desire of pax to insist that I attempt a landing because the super test pilots were able to do so in controlled circumstance during initial testing and therefore put it in the book. And by the way, I'm sure you know that demonstrated crosswind is not a limitation, therefore, this aircraft had no limitation except my good judgement. And that is waht all of us get paid for.
  5. "If Westjet can clearly tell me weather conditions at the time of scheduled landing exceeded the limitations of the aircraft, I can buy that without any further questions. Done! " While not likely the exact case here, I did a straight-in captain thing a few years ago. For the first while until I built up my experience, I placed a crosswind limit on myself more than 10 knots lower than the aircraft's limit for the first while. If someone were to complain about it, too bad.
  6. The captain wasn't comfortable with the landing. Perhaps it was within limits but he/she is new or discovered that he was fatigued, had an anti-skid issue or a multitude of other reasons that came up on the flight such as his digestive system not being too good that night. If you don't like, it, go somewhere else. I wasn't on the flight but I and the rest of the pilots in the industry don't need to be pressure by some pushy pax who think they know more than the flight crew. Most of us have been dispatched when weather conditions were marginal. If they hadn't even taken off, you would probably be complaining that they didn't bother to go take a look. We can't win with people like you and owe you no explanation other than the fact that we as pilots will not let the likes of you browbeat us into doing something we are not comfortable with. The captain is the captain and has decided not to land at YYG.
  7. "Give a man someone else's fish and you have a lifetime liberal." That has to be the most accurate statement yet. Wynne and Trudeau win their elections by giving away fish from others. And a majority of Canadians call themselves fisherman because of their endless catch. Their net is the ballot box. But there are alternatives for the rest of us.
  8. There is a famous saying that probably most of us have heard.... "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain". I disagree. Conservatives such as myself have some heart and I do believe in all my wisdom that those on the left(as we can see by their posts, do have some brains.
  9. Some people have to learn the hard way. The lefties have no concept of reality(don't worry, I can't stand the neo-cons either). Ontario is now going down the economic hole even further and so will Canada. People will leave to pay their taxes elsewhere. Greece was an obvious thing to avoid but the lefties and their naïve followers who unfortunately believe a good talker or nice looking person with sunny, feel-good policies never learn. I have discovered something recently. A lot of people who are quite intelligent and accomplished have a lot of really stupid beliefs when it comes to policy. Immigration, fiscal policy, political correctness at the expense of many deaths. Very strange but a real eye-opener once finally learned.
  10. Remember how all those Harper haters used to say that he was a bully and not representative of what Canada truly should be? Where are they now.
  11. But isn't it amazing how much fodder there is. New fodder almost every day from the religion of peace. Here is some fodder: "Last December around 70 red badges were withdrawn from staff at Charles de Gaulle who were found to have praised the attacks in Paris, prayed at mosques linked to radicalism or showing signs of growing religiosity like refusing to shake hands with women." I'm sorry, did you say something about insanity?
  12. Who out there still supports the airlift to Canada. Simple response please. I say Stop the airlift. Anyone else have an opinion?
  13. Edited in accordance with the rules of this forum.
  14. Why would you suggest using nuclear weapons. One of the best things that any of us could have done was to vote for a government that wouldn't vastly increase the threat here. warned about this just a few weeks ago but people are more interested in transferring money to themselves from wealthier Canadians and restoring heir access to taxpayers money that the security of their country. The people have spoken loud and clear. Justin Trudeau is going to make a speech at the upcoming G20 summit on the benefit of refugees t the west. Let the airlift begin. Or....take the last chance possible and call your mayor who is calling for more refugees and your premier MP who are doing the same and state that you voted them in because of other policies and insist that this airlift be halted immediately. Don't say that I didn't warn you about this.
  15. Ummmm, I assume that you have become THE ONE and the bullets are the arguments you face from the agents on this forum which are easily stopped and then fought off with one arm. Then fighting 100 agents. I liked that movie but not the sequel.
  16. The newspaper editorial endorsements are coming out now.... Above was an individual writer from the NP and below from the Globe and Mail. Of course they can't wholeheartedly endorse everything so they are hedging their bets and saying that Harperman, it's time for you to go. Which I think he will within two years even if he wins a majority. "The Tories deserve another mandate All elections are choices among imperfect alternatives, and this one more than most. Each of the parties has gaps, deficiencies and failings. But choose, voters must. The election of 2015 has been powered by a well-founded desire for change. But it has also been an election where the opposition has recognized the electorates desire for stability and continuity on all things economic. Thats why the Liberals and the New Democrats, while running on the rhetoric of change, put forward economic platforms built largely on acceptance of the Conservative status quo. The key issue of the election should have been the economy and the financial health of Canadians. On that score, the Conservative Party has a solid record. Hardly perfect but, relatively speaking, better than most. However, the election turned into a contest over something else: a referendum on the governments meanness, its secretiveness, its centralization of power in the most centralized Prime Ministers Office in history, its endless quest for ever more obscure wedge issues, and its proclivity for starting culture wars rather than sticking to the knitting of sound economic and fiscal stewardship. It turned this election into a referendum on the one-man show that has become the Harper government. In an election about the economy, the Conservatives might have won, and would have deserved to. But thanks to the Harper governments own choices, this election has mostly not been fought on the Conservative Partys strong suit. Attention has instead been turned to the rotten culture of Mr. Harpers government. The thing is, the other two major parties have so much respect for the Conservatives record on economic, fiscal and tax policy that they propose to change almost none of it. Did Tom Mulcairs NDP run on a promise to raise income taxes? To massively increase spending? To run deficits? No, no and no. The NDP tax platform was, essentially, the Conservative Partys, plus a small increase in business taxes. The slogan may have been about Change, but the platform was about trying to reassure voters that an Orange Wave would leave the Conservative economic status quo largely in place. The Liberals have in one respect been slightly different from the NDP in offering change their call for the federal government to spend more on infrastructure, financed by two years of small deficits, deviates from the Harper government brand (though not its record) of balanced budgets. But leaving aside a few billion dollars worth of extra borrowing, key planks in the Liberal economic platform were cribbed from the Conservative textbook. They promise to one-up the Conservatives, with a cut to the middle-class tax bracket, and one-up them again with an increase in benefits to families with children. To pay for this, they would raise taxes on the highest income earners, and similarly target family benefits to everyone but the rich. But pushing marginal income tax rates on high-earners above 50 per cent in some provinces is likely to be counterproductive promoting brain drain in a country that needs to attract the worlds most talented people. Over the course of this long campaign, Mr. Trudeau did well to market himself to the country. But beyond the selfies and the smiles, the substance has proved difficult to find. Mr. Trudeaus has been a skeletal vision and is therefore unpersuasive. With Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne at his side, he would undoubtedly return to a bigger government footprint, and the spectre of waste and debt rears its ugly head. Who would apply the brakes if he is handed a majority? If he achieves minority government, Mr. Trudeau will need the NDP on critical economic issues to prevent his governments collapse. That, together with his inexperience as a leader, is a recipe for frailty. This election should have been about jobs, taxes and the economy. This has been the Conservative Partys strong suit. But the Harper government pursued a multi-year plan of distracting voters from its accomplishments, focusing attention on its faults, pushing up the number of Canadians upset at it for reasons having nothing to do with their pocketbooks, and whittling down its supporters to an ever narrower base. Watching the self-immolating Harper government in action is to watch a tired group trying to shrink itself back to the old Reform Party. To the distress of the country and thinking Conservatives, it is succeeding. Canada needs a change. It also needs the maintenance of many aspects of the economic status quo. What Canada needs, then, is a Conservative government that is no longer the Harper government. It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave. He can look back on parts of his record with pride, but he has undone himself and his party with a narrowness of vision and a meanness of spirit on a host of issues, from voting rights to crime and punishment to respect for science to respect for the courts. The topper has been how this election campaign was sidetracked into an artificial, American-style, culture war over niqabs and barbaric cultural practices. The spectacle of a prime minister seemingly willing to say anything, or demonize anyone, in an attempt to get re-elected has demeaned our politics. And while it may have firmed up the old Reform base, it also solidified the Harper Conservative Party as a party of, by and for that base. The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it wont be, as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/
  17. This article pretty much sums it up. "The case for re-electing Stephen Harper A week or so before the start of the federal election campaign, an item was carried in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper that has built an immense circulation on a diet of celebrities, scoundrels and adorable animals. Occasionally it throws in a bit of news for fun. This item said: Canada named worlds most well-respected country. It cited a study by an international research organization that polled 48,000 people on a range of measures including technology, social and economic policies and international perception. Canada came first, for the fourth time in five years. It didnt get much attention here, perhaps because it didnt fit the narrative of a country in crisis, with a desperate need for a change in leadership and direction. Just this week a second report of similar ilk was released this time by the banking group, Credit Suisse indicating Canada has a disproportionate number of millionaires, and that much of Canadas middle class is so well off it qualifies among the worlds richest 10%. Anyone who owns a home anywhere in the country almost certainly falls in that group. We seem to be doing pretty well by these measures, but you wouldnt now it from the Vesuvian eruption of opprobrium that has rained down on the government of Stephen Harper through the course of the election, and the months before. So appalling has Harper been portrayed so lacking in any redeeming feature that a visitor would have to wonder how the guy ever got elected in the first place, never mind three times in succession. Are Canadians nuts? Perhaps. Or, perhaps as one of the worlds most prosperous and peaceful countries we have the luxury of nitpicking our leaders to death every few years when we tire of the same old faces and feel the need for new ones on which to focus. The Harper years have offered plenty of opportunity to ruminate and get grumpy, enjoying a period of relative prosperity while much of the world the U.S. and Europe in particular has struggled on a plane ranging from recession to meltdown. No government has the ability to control an economy, no matter what they might like you to think, and Canada has benefited from strong commodity prices until recently, but Ottawa has adroitly avoided the sort of self-destructive policies that hobbled much larger and diverse economies, using the opportunity to pursue an impressive web of trade agreements that open Canadian products to billions of consumers beyond our limited domestic market of 36 million people. Canada depends on trade without it wed be a large but easily -ignored afterthought and no government has put greater effort into opening markets than the two Conservative governments of Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. In doing so, opponents complain, the government has shown inadequate concern for the environment, promoting pipelines and defending Albertas oilsands in the face of environmental concerns an celebrity disapproval. Its a valid complaint, but the critics have yet to identify an alternative means of protecting so many jobs for so many Canadians, and forget that Canada does not, in fact, end at Ontario. Ten years of a Calgary-based leader has erased much of the resentment that divided east and west for a generation. Western Canada may feel more integral to Canadian interests than at any time since Sir John A. Macdonald sent a railway to the Pacific to bring it into the fold. Alberta alone filled with eastern migrants eager for the jobs it could provide feels secure enough to end a 43-year political hegemony and elect an NDP government, unimaginable when the east was seen as a hotbed of schemers eager to steal its resources. At the same time, the hostility that typified relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada has faded to a degree few could have imagined just 20 years after the most recent referendum came within a hair of fracturing the country. The angry separatists who dominated discourse for so long have been replaced by a more confident, less strident and enterprising group, eager to embrace the advantages Canada offers rather than complain of ancient slights. While there are many reasons for the change simple ageing being a big one Harpers disciplined effort to avoid confrontation, to refuse to engage in the endless antagonisms in which the separatists specialized, removed much of the oxygen from the sovereigntist cause. The Bloc Quebecois won 54 seats the last time the federal Liberals came to office; on Monday they will be fortunate to retain the two to which they still lay claim. Harpers approach to Quebec typifies his aversion to Ottawa-based social dirigisme. Theres a very real difference in belief systems at play here. Liberals are big on grand national projects that reflect their view Canada needs the guiding hand of government to do great things, even if the proffered programs often fail to materialize the oft-promised national daycare system that was never introduced, the Kyoto accord on emissions that was approved then ignored, the national energy policy that appropriated western resources for eastern priorities, the national gun registry that spawned an expensive new bureaucracy without reducing gun crime. Harper prefers to provide the means, and then allow individuals to use it as they see best, cutting back steadily on the size of government and the regulatory burden every Canadian faces. The Wheat Board lost its monopoly, freeing farmers to seek markets without producing the prophesized disaster. The gun registry was shuttered with no upsurge in gun crime. Taxes have been reduced even as healthcare funding has continued to rise at several times the rate of inflation, and as provinces continue to complain they cant possibly get by on the ever-rising billions they receive. A balanced budget and lower taxes has allowed for creation of more ways to save, particularly the innovative tax-free savings accounts championed by former finance minister Jim Flaherty, which have proven so popular that both opposition parties now pledge to cap them. In place they propose a larger Canada Pension Plan that will siphon off income and invest it as hired professionals see fit. None of this pleases those accustomed to regular infusions of public cash, and who see ongoing subsidies as a justifiable claim on the taxpayer. Harper has generous support for those most in need, accepting it as a fundamental duty of a prosperous nation, but is less prone to propping up arts bodies, special interest activists, public broadcasters and others he figures should be capable of doing much more of their own heavy lifting. His relentless focus on commerce strikes urban critics as faintly crass, in much the way Britains landed gentry once looked down on those involved in the vulgarities of trade. Those born outside the country arent so blasé: throughout the Harper years immigrants have been welcomed at record levels, with increased emphasis on skills and education over family ties. Former immigration minister Jason Kenney undertook a radical remaking of the system, reducing a backlog that produced wait times of up to eight years and was subject to widespread abuse by families eager to bring in elderly relatives in need of healthcare or social housing. Though predictably denounced by opponents, it unabashedly put Canadas needs at the forefront, fast-tracking applications from ambitious, highly-skilled people who could fill employment needs while capping the number of grandparents no longer able to look after themselves in the old country. Its probably no surprise that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has pledged to weaken the reforms so more families can bring in older relatives able to take advantage of Canadas generous benefits. Its always been a handicap for Harper that he assumed people would see the value of pragmatism over imagery, and appreciate the advantages that come from placing national interests ahead of sunny sentiments. Cold efficiency rarely warms hearts. Canada has done well under Stephen Harper, in many ways. Now, it appears, it wants to be hugged a bit. " http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-the-case-for-re-electing-stephen-harper
  18. Flyinghigh said.... IFG said... Hmmm......YAM, YHM, and last but not least....DXB. So, just out of curiosity, what exactly does that mean?
  19. I believe Trudeau. He will return us to deficits. And wait until he has "seen the books" as he claimed he was going to wait until he had done that for financial decision-making. Then he will say..."Gee, things are so much worse than forecast", I need to do something that I didn't campaign about(ie. raise more money from you). I believe that he will restore spending your money on a bunch of unnecessary funding. Wait until we hear of the huge amount wasted on unnecessary construction projects. I believe that he will let in a large amount of risky people. Wait until people start dying. I will sleep quite comfortably knowing that I did what I could to prevent it. Harper campaigned with Ford, quite a clown but Trudeau campaigns with Wynne, a complete financial disaster resulting in two downgrades in financial performance and huge debts. It amazes me that people are stupid enough to repeat the same thing but I guess there are enough in this country that are willing to put their short term financial gain ahead of the country(unemployment insurance, union government contracts). I call them the parasites of taxpayers money. The ones that have been screaming the loudest as the cuts take hold. Oh well, I can mitigate things for myself in the short term by accepting being based in a province out west with lower tax rates and still come out ahead. Time to stop thinking of my country first if that is the way the majority behaves. Vote with your pocketbook.
  20. Well folks, you have been duped by Trudeau. You know, the man who says how incompetent the government was to run deficits after being forced into deficit by the liberals and who at the same time campaigns on deficits and admires his father who had endless deficits and of course at the same time accuses Mulcair of double speak in a debate. Anyways......He hasn't even got his majority yet and his campaign co-chair is sending emails to companies on how to lobby the government. This is the party that says that they want to clean up the corruption in Ottawa from a few minor scandals. Folks, I have said it before and I will say it again. If you vote based on the normal trickle of scandals that have been happening your entire life, you will be voting for a new party each time. It always amazes me how people are easily tricked by what people say but then again, the Nigerian scammers do quite well don't they. If you are voting for a party because you believe in their general policies be it liberal, NDP, or conservative, well that is respectable thing to do. If you are fooled by the leaders(regardless of which of the big three are saying it) claiming that they are cleaner than the others, I know of a few Nigerian princes that would like a word with you. Vote for lower taxes, smaller government, holding down the unions, supporting cultures in the Middle East that actually believe in freedom instead of cheering on 9/11, stability in Europe, less government waste than the other parties, reducing taxes to unemployment scammers in various regions, more oversight of your money being directed toward the natives, not allowing artificial language barriers dictate who is on our supreme court, less racist affirmative action policies, not implementing stupid ideas like proportional representation leading to gridlock and more frequent elections, not spending your money on the man made global warming scam, and not being stupid enough to vastly increase the terrorism risk in this country with their refugee policy.
  21. 24 hours later and I just saw the highlights after being told in a foreign country by a friend that they had lost game 5. Go Jays.
  22. Weeee.....almost as credible a reasoning for not voting in this post as Mitch's detailed reasoning for our drug prices going up. Oh yeah, there is the neo-Nazi opening post and perhaps a dear leader statement somewhere. I am quite proud to live in the most respected country in the world(rated #1 last year). I guess I will have to read those very long posts with links for and against harper. I'll start with the 100 for which I should be able to finish by voting day and then read the against links starting the day after. I suggest others do similar.
  23. Pretty much as I stated earlier in the thread about Russia's games. It is unfortunate that some use this story as an excuse to paint a political leader as a Nazi-sympathizer or whatever the intention was. It seems to encapsulate much of the type of arguments that we see as excuses from that part of the spectrum. And when asked to back up arguments(as seen here), there is none to be found aside from the occasional "Dear Leader" statement or something similar. Caramilk bars is the response....what a role model.
  24. I am not sure what bait there is when asking for details to back up a firm statement that you made. I did point out multiple points of the TPP that you should be happy with after you asked me to do so. Are you happy with it now? Thanks J.O. It seems awfully strange to me. If the patent period is extended, there is strong opposition as it is stated that the companies will have a longer monopoly period. I can see reason in that argument. Now it is shortened and guess what? Prices will rise as an excuse will be made for a shorter monopoly period. What should be done? Cancel the TPP perhaps.
×
×
  • Create New...