UpperDeck

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    1,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

UpperDeck last won the day on November 25 2019

UpperDeck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

359 Excellent

About UpperDeck

  • Rank
    5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Boating; golf; research

Recent Profile Visitors

3,872 profile views
  1. I'm replying to Dagger but didn't want to unnecessarily quote his entire post in which he reasonably maintained that Iran would not INTENTIONALLY shootdown this airliner except in error. I am a cynic. I believe ( regrettably) that people will engage in otherwise irrational acts in the belief that by so doing, they will advance a cause; " a greater good". I also believe that there is general acceptance of the principle of acceptable casualties in war; we will sacrifice troops knowing they are being deployed to certain death in order to give credence to a feint that increases the likelihood of a successful manoever. Those two "principles" are invoked in the world of geo-politics but without attribution. I was aware that the Ukrainian flight had been held on the ground for an hour and was then cleared. This was NOT an unexpected departure. Khomeini made specific reference to the downing of a commercial aircraft in response to Trump's comments regarding the embassy hostage deaths. Now...imagine....Canada provided the intelligence of Suleiman's agenda for the controlled militias in Iraq ( and elsewhere) to the US. The US found that intelligence to be credible though the targets were not clear. It was an ambiguous report but only in regards to the specifics. The US responded and eliminated Suleiman. The Iranians...who are no fools...quickly determined that "other" intelligence agencies were involved. How best to convey their understanding in a way that would be unequivocal to that secret " nether world"? The shootdown would make it clear that "cost" was irrelevant....they WOULD respond without fear to perceived or actual threat. And the message was understood. And now the US administration is left fumbling trying to explain the nature and source of its intelligence that a terrorist threat was imminent.
  2. I apologize in advance but I am VERY frustrated because I KNOW others realize this but nothing is being said! I feel like Sheldon. As soon as this event occurred , I said to my wife: " This was a shoot down. No question." Go back.....Trump said that for any Iranian response to the Suleiman assassination, he had 52 targets...referencng the hostages killed in the Iranian takeover of the US embassy. The Ayatollah responded by referencing the 290 pax on Iran Flt 655 which was shot down by the US killing all 290 pax on board, Come on, folks!! Forget the missiles fired at the Iraqui airbases. The real Iranian response was this shoot down. Their message was both loud and clear and heard by the powers that be but ignored or not understood by the press; you take a life and we will take a hundred. This is NOT about the Iranian people. It is the mujadin of Iran....cultural artifacts; innocent civilians; Geneva Conventions.....they mean nothing.
  3. Here's an idea. Go to a local marina in a southern clime and become a regular habitue. Focus on sailboats. For some unknown reason ( lol), many pilots prefer blowboats. I assure you, you will meet more pilots of every ilk than you ever anticipated.
  4. And I repeat my undertaking to refrain from comments regarding how one ought to operate an aircraft. LOL "Tort law".....certainly has been a vehicle by means of which public safety has been enhanced in all methods of transportation including aviation. "Privileged communications" in a broad sense is an area of law that is NOT specific to negligence law and is and has been an area within the law of evidence that is ever-changing. As an aside.....and I welcome correction....I have a recollection that it was an aviation specialist lawyer who narrowed the causation search down on the US Airways Flt. 427 to a rudder "jackscrew". When an incident occurs that is captured by a CVR, I doubt that the flight crew in those crucial moments is concerning themselves ( and tailoring their remarks) with reference to the existence of a recording device. And no one is concerned with the everyday exchanges that occur in the cockpit. If those crucial exchanges can identify communication or training issues, how can one deny that disclosure is in the public interest? The fact that disclosure was sought and obtained within the context of a lawsuit is irrelevant much akin to blaming a pilot for a defective IFE. The existence of a lawsuit is simply a vehicle by means of which to get from A to B.
  5. There is of course, a perspective that is that of someone who does not have a vested interest in confidentiality; someone actually versed in the law but with SOME appreciation of the issues of aviation safety......but I doubt that perspective is of any interest to this audience.
  6. Entered US last week by car and asked by CBP agent whether I had more than......I thought he said $10,000. and said no then realized he said $1000.!!!! I immediately corrected myself and didn't question the discrepancy given the plainly visible sign....."Report currency amounts in excess of $10,000." And he did say; "Carrying more than $1000. each?"
  7. Next thing you know.....there'd be an impeachment inquiry!!
  8. Marshall..... I beg to disagree but only in a general sense. Some police officers and some firefighters....depending on their place of work....face inordinate danger. That is NOT true of all. You might take as an example a municipality in Ontario without a gunshot in over 10 years or one with no building loss due to fire in the same period. However, in Ontario, what the arbitrator awards for Oshawa for police and firefighters is what the taxpayers will pay in Podunk.
  9. Really?? According to a recent analysis of annual incomes in Canada, $230,000 puts a wage earner in the top 1%....less in some Provinces. What percentage of AC pilots using seniority to fly max lift...say with 15 years....are earning that amount? The BA pilots were offered more than 11% on a three year contract. The AVERAGE BA pilot earns approx 187,000 pounds per year currently. They're striking because they want a share of profits. Police officers and firefighters can't strike. They have to rely on arbitration....and we, the taxpayers, bear the consequences of those consistently very generous arbitration awards.
  10. I'm sorry but is it agreed that Canadian Airlines operated into LHR? I remember a GREAT Xmas and New Years in 1999/2000 in London and I'm pretty damn sure we were on a crew bus from LHR!!!
  11. You're all just dodging the real issue. In these circumstances, the services of a " matchmaker" are essential....a GOOD matchmaker. Anyone knows that putting a 20 something guy with a 60 something woman just wasn't going to work. Now then.....change that to a 20 something ( and attractive) woman and......(etc). Point made.
  12. I'm not offering an opinion but question whether you would be best served by a DFR proceeding; become a thorn. You need the Board to re-assess the appropriateness of the composition of the bargaining unit. ACPA had a head start simply because AC pilots were a distinct unit and when the contract opened, the members were free to have a representational vote. The organizational efforts before that vote paid off for a relatively small but very successful group.
  13. Preceded no doubt by the flight crew with the same agenda...or perhaps rushing for a commute? And whose plane is it? Or only when the doors close. Seriously, at what point is there some acknowledgement that the passenger has SOME responsibility for their own welfare. The young boy boarded on a flight to Germany instead of Sweden ( United and SAS) was sufficiently aware to alert crew to the fact he was on the wrong flight. The elderly woman left on the aircraft for 15 minutes is a different issue. Clearly, in that case there was a miscommunication but an obvious duty given the known limitations of the pax. Perhaps I'm simply jealous of any individual who is able to sleep throughout descent; landing ( with announcements),; taxiing ( don't forget your personal belongings); deplaning; and then tug pushback for the ride to the sheds. Lord....wouldn't it be nice to sleep so soundly....without any aids?
  14. Come on, Malcolm. Be honest. You and Defcon have started your own anonymous forum, haven't you?
  15. Lawyer...and 100 k is a mere drop in the bucket. I know of a number of lawyers who turned to teaching high school or other professions. One who worked for me turned to the CF to fly.