Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

cannuck

Members
  • Content Count

    1,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

cannuck last won the day on September 4 2019

cannuck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

382 Excellent

About cannuck

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,772 profile views
  1. I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated. When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.
  2. The "professionals" in the field make their money from having immigrants to deal with. When you say "the immigrants", which ones are you speaking of? I know a lot of immigrants who are great for our economy, but none of them came in as refugees - they had to wait in line, put up their investment money, prove where that money came from and then came over to join us in our struggling economy. Genuine refugees, I would have no problem with...IF we could afford them - and we can not. Most of what the Liberals seem to want are those looking for a better life, such as the Siks who smuggle in illegal immigrants to work in the trucking industry...here because they know we are too stupid and naiive to stop criminal activity. Why would I/we give a flying purple fxxk about what the slimey limey press is writing?????
  3. what is needed to save the economy is to do useful, productive work. No amount if immigration will change or effect that, but it WILL add to our debt if we don't get smart and only bring in useful, educated, skilled and well financed immigrants. Haitian drug dealers and Somali terrorists don't fit that profile very well.
  4. It would be nice of them to bear the burden of cleaning up the mess on their doorstep rather than counting on Uncle Sam to do their dirty work.
  5. I feel the same, plus worth noting that the Iranian Canadians lost were almost all academics and professionals. HUGE loss to Canada, but more than that, THESE are the people who could return to Iran once the Mullah's are sent packing to put the country back together again. I have a very good friend who is Iranian, and her whole generation plus all but her Mother from that generation are expatriots. For that reason (she could easily have been on that flight, or any of her cousins) I was really touched by this disaster. BUT: I am even more disturbed that the ambulance chasers could even think of trying to make their blood money from such a tragedy.
  6. I understand your sentiment, but in reality, airlines are just another business. No different from a bus service or taco stand. They are NOT diplomats with embassies. THAT is where responsibility for this lies, NOT with either the airline or its passengers. If either the airline or its passengers didn't feel safe, the answer is very simple: don't fly. Further, if it is not legislated and regulated that they must do something, why would you reasonably expect them to do it?
  7. Two things: In a country with staggering debt and a budget many, many billions negative, there should simply be NO allowance for the Liberal (or so-called "Conservatives") to virtue signal with massive "refugee" programmes. The Canadian taxpayer should have the brains and balls to stand up and say enough is enough, but as demonstrated by the last election, East of Thunder Bay that is not the case. Secondly, the issue of "where" to locate those on the public dole. Why in ANY city? Life in rural Canada seems to be something rural Canadians can manage - and do so on a lot less money than in the cities. I still think reserves would be even better destination for immigrants, as they can get the "real deal" on Canadian culture.
  8. Close, but not quite. It is up to the ATC system to ALLOW what flights can and can not leave, and where they can go. Airlines, charter operators, private aircraft and passengers are free to choose if and when they want avail themselves of what ATC system is offering. Well, more if than when, as the release of clearance applied for under the filed flight plan is at ATC's discression, and their's alone.
  9. Why is it the airline's responsibility, and where is that legislated? THEIR responsibility is to rely on the authorities who grant or deny them privilege of access to SAFE airspace. The "right protocols" are that you have a clearance from ATC or you do not. Very simple. Their "mistake" was in trusting Iran, and that is exactly the same mistake that those visiting made.
  10. You got my point: it is as ridiculous as claiming the airline should have known that those who they are REQUIRED to place their trust in were going to either allow (through negligence) or cause (through treachery) the plane would be shot down. They were given a clearance by the authority they are REQUIRED to yield to. Both they and the passengers were reasonably likely to be aware of the tensions between US and Iran at that time they BOTH chose to fly.
  11. While I can agree with you on so many points, this one is where we part company in a radically different direction. As I have already explained, ATC is who gives an airline a block of safe airspace, and THEY are the ultimate authority on what is and is not "open" or "closed" airspace, and THAT is what airlines and other users of the civil transport system rely upon. When an IFR flight departs, it is not just wandering around for jollies, it is following an SID (Standard Instrument Departure) that is published for all users to follow. The SID gives the heading on takeoff and climbout, as well as the climb gradient required. We can figure out the times and positions pretty easily from the SID and what that aircraft could and DID do. Anything below 10,000 ft. is restricted to 250 knots TAS, and normal normal initial climb from -800 with flaps and slats out is about 150kt at 1,500 ft/min changing to 2,000 ft/min and 250 kts for the main climbout. The airplane is capable of much more, but unless there are obstacle clearace issues, this is about how it is flown. The flight in question was shot down at 8,000 ft., so it would have been airborne with an average speed of 200kt for about 5 minutes, giving 18 NM = about 30 kms. Again, unless there is some big reason published on the SID or commanded by air traffic CONTROL, the PF (pilot flying) would have followed the SID very, VERY closely. You can actually see these things on flight following websites, and the images I have seen show a very normal departure with an extremely small deviation from runway heading (i.e. turn from runway heading to the SID heading for climbout as EVERY flight would do). The point of this is that the 737 was in the air for something like 5 minutes at 250kt, and the missile would not likely be flying any faster than 500kt, so it had to be launched at 2.5 minutes before impact - when the jet would have been less than 15 kms (my guess closer to 10) from the airport and barely finished initial climb. That's the launch. The DECISION to launch would have been before that, so the airplane was barely past the airport boundary when the someone started to think seriously about blowing it to bits. Even a complete effing moron could EASILY have seen that this flight ORIGINATED from Iran's own civil airport. So, the IRANIAN government's ATC directed a civil aircraft into the air when an IRANIAN government military force immediately decided to shoot it down. IF what QM posted, and what I have heard from other sources is true, civil flights had departed before and immediately after the disaster flight. Airlines are not in the business of running countries, they are in the business of carrying passengers under CONTROL of the air traffic system. When the government that owns ATC and the military tells them they can fly, it is implicit it is safe from that government's perspective to do so. So, an airline decided to do business in a normal manner on a day that military action was chosen BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN to be done in a different place. What you are missing in this whole thing is the passengers boarded this flight OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, all obviously knowing that they were in the middle of a military conflict, and pretty much knowing that they were visiting a country ruled by some viscious, murderous fruitcakes - and you thing that is the airline's fault????? If I were the airline, I would be suing the passengers and Iran for the cost of my goddamned airplane. BTW: on the question of airplanes and the LLL (Legal Liability Lottery) - it is exactly that, a hoard of ambulance chasers who will sue the airline, the airplane manufacture, the engine manufacturer, the seat manufacturer, the radio manufacturer and ANYONE who has been anywhere near the airplane or its type certificate from day one (that can go back 3/4 of a century) that killed the general aviation industry in the USA and Canada. When Cessna (then largest manufacturer in the world) suspended light aircraft manufacture in IIRC 1978, more than half of the cost of an airplane was insurance premiums. The petitfogging assholes have handed yet another industry to China and Eastern Europe strictly due to their greed and avorice.
  12. Worth noting that of the missiles they launched against the Iraqi base, 1/3 failed completely and the rest did very little damage (but DID land on the base). What makes me curious is why did the Yanks not have anti-missile defenses in place???
  13. It is called air traffic CONTROL because that is precisely what it is and what it does. International commercial flights are all operated under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) in which case it is ATC that is responsible for exactly where and when an airplane can occupy any particular block of airspace, and it is ATC that is responsible for maintaining separation from other aircraft. The pilot can not simply taxi out and take off, as first a ground controller has to grant him clearance to get from the ramp/apron to an active runway, and before Air Traffic Control will grant access to the runway, they will have received a flight plan filed with ATC and will then clear the aircraft to the runway, clear it to take off, and assign it a heading and altitude as the first clearance in the IFR flight. The only time in an IFR flight that the pilot is responsible for separation (i.e. not running into other airplanes or the ground) is when they have VFR (Visual Flight Rules) conditions, can see the destination airport and have cancelled IFR to make a VFR approach and landing. So, was the Ukraine airline foolish to operate under these conditions? Yes, somewhat, but they did as every other airline must do and were given clearance to what ATC is supposed to maintain as SAFE airspace. If the airspace was "closed", they could never have been given clearance to get to the runway, never mind depart on their IFR flight plan.
×
×
  • Create New...