sherpa
-
Posts
3,492 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
Two birds with one stone strategy.
My plan is to tell my wife in the morning that I had a dream that if we had consensual....the Bills would win.
If we didn't, it's on her.
-
Does this sacred pledge get equal consideration to "no more drilling?"
-
7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
1. Israel: Well…a two-state solution has been rendered impractical because of the continuous encroachments of Jewish Israeli settlers onto Palestinian lands. Let’s also not pretend as if Israel itself has been an honest, faithful negotiator during this entire time, dating back to 1967…and especially since the Second Intifada and its citizens’ swing toward far-right government leaders thereafter. Let’s also not forget Israel’s own culpability for barbarism, dating back to the 1948 Nakba.
2. Defense budget: The 50% reduction arguments are what I’ve seen others propose. I’m personally more in favor of 25-33% reductions, which would still leave the United States spending annually about twice as much as China. Warfare in the post-Cold War era is predominantly driven by advanced technology and not by manpower. The U.S. can still meet a mission objective of fighting a two-front war on opposite sides of the globe while closing down a bunch of extraneous military based abroad, putting most of the manpower on reserve/standby, and allocating much of the military expenditures as wartime/emergency deficit spending.
3. Post-WW2 power structures: I was merely describing what would be and what would have been preferable to having the United States as the lone democratic superpower. I don’t disagree with your historical explanation, though I do think there are ways today in which the U.S. can get other countries to shoulder more of the global military responsibilities.
4. Jumpstarting economies: You appear to be acknowledging that defense budget expenditures create jobs and accelerate technological growth. A classic precept of Keynesian economics is that government has the ability to redirect taxpayer investments and spending in ways that can grow the economy better than what the individual taxpayers might do under a laissez-faire system (especially during recessions).
I don't agree, which is fine.
My views are in my original post, and have not changed.
One thing worth mentioning though.
I think your expressed views on the military budget are grossly unrealistic.
One of the things I've noticed about this forum is that there seems to very few people who actually understand what the US military is tasked with, and what that costs.
Those items relate to ability to early detect, respond quickly, minimize loss of life, ultimately win and provide superior search and rescue in hostile areas, along with massive transport capability, air to air refueling capability, and a host of other things that are rarely considered by folks who aren't familiar with this stuff.
If the desire is to decrease the defense budget, those capabilities must be diminished, or in some cases, disregarded.
That is the reality.
-
1 minute ago, Justice said:
You can't say the same about Iran.
Yes I can, and so can the rest of the world.
-
9 minutes ago, Justice said:
Attaboy. Make it about religion. Tell me the last time Iran attacked a Christian nation. I’ll wait. They fund terrorist organizations you say? Now how in the hell you really know that? You’re their accountant?
Are you serious?
There aren't two people on earth who do not know that Iran is funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Maybe you are one.
Who do you define as a "Christian Nation?"
I'm unaware of any, let alone one who was attacked.
Attacking, taking over an embassy, and holding the people there as hostages is an act of war.
Are you aware of that?
-
2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
It all started in the 1950's when the democratically elected government of Iran wanted to nationalize oil assets so the CIA engineered a coup and installed the Shah until, what? 1979. So the idea they started it is sort of horse crap.
Taking over an embassy, which is universally regarded as an act of war is "starting it."
Blindfolding and parading workers in that effort makes it far worse.
I have no sympathy re the Iranian Islamic folks who have fomented countless death in the pursuit of their caliphate.
-
2 minutes ago, Justice said:
You sure you want to compare body counts with anyone?
Body counts are meaningless.
That regime has been at war with the US for decades, and is responsible for many, many US deaths.
I have zero sympathy for them.
That view does not transfer to the innocent people who may have been killed.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, RkFast said:
Is it me, or do all these videos of really rough approaches and landings come out of Europe? It seems most come from either Britain or Germany, Frankfurt airport specificially. Do they have different minimums in Europe than they do in the states? Or is the weather just worse?
I would add to your other comments that what people dont understand is that that automated systems dont "fly" the plane. All they do is "hold" certain conditions the pilot tells it to. Hold an altitude or speed, or fly a certain heading, or follow a certain nav aide.
Same minimums, just more cameras.
Europe has more days of low visibility and the UK gets a bit breezy, but the US has more really violent weather than cannot be flown through. US thunderstorm activity is far more frequent because we have cold Canadian air colliding with warm, moist Gulf air.
Just a technical correction. Automated systems do fly the airplane. An autoland is such an example.
Very rare, and very few airports are certified, but the autopilot(s) actually land the thing.
There are very strict crosswind limitations, but if the airport, airplane and crew are certified, you can autoland.
It is useful in very low visibility situations with light winds. Very rare.
The training to do it takes about one hour of sim time for an already qualified captain/first officer.
At 1500' above the ground, three autopilots separate, and three electrical systems separate.
Each compares it's data to the other two, and if there is any discrepancy, it is annunciated and you go around.
All talk is scripted, and no unnecessary things are said.
The captain keeps one thumb on the autopilot disconnect button, and the other on the thrust levers which have a "go around" option.
Very quite, very tense, but works great.
Scripted event, so only a few things are said, but they must be said.
After touchdown, you simply make sure the thrust levers are at idle, the spoilers are deployed and you manually engage the thrust reversers, as always.
-
I feel real compassion for the victim's families, but for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
That regime is responsible for more death, mayhem and destruction than can be described.
-
6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Does seem strange though, a group dedicated to killing every last Jew was just not even taken as a serious threat. Very strange.
That group has existed for years, as have others with similar goals.
You have posted a bunch on this, and never seem to have any knowledge of how Israel has defended itself.
You do nothing but literally post Monday morning thoughts, void of what they do.
No acknowledgement of what is involved.
Ignorant and pathetic.
-
10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Well, one way or another, there will be an investigation on the "security failure." Is not even having any plan at all a "failure"? Or just part of the plan?
Lawyers representing survivors from the Tribe of Nova trance music festival, one of the first targets for Hamas militants during the Oct. 7 attack, submitted a lawsuit Monday against Israel’s security agencies, accusing them of “negligence and omissions.”
Senseless.
We should sue the victims of a terrorist attack because they should have known better?
Can't wait for the victims and Hawaiian inhabitants to sue the US over Dec 7 1941.
-
I don't think it's a problem that the US' has less influence over Israeli policy.
I think having less US influence, which is largely driven by the US political environment, is actually more likely to end this.
Israel is not the US' family pet.
They are a sovereign nation surrounded by enemies that want them destroyed.
They should do what they need to do, much the same as any country would, removed from wacky American election year politics.
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 12/31/2023 at 10:14 AM, Joe Ferguson forever said:
my mother committed suicide when I was 10. Ever heard of deep abandonment issues?
Sorry to hear that.
A few weeks ago, if I recall, you claimed to have bee recruited by that three letter agency.
You claimed they passed on you and offered an opinion, jokingly.
When they found out about this claim, which they would have, it most likely would have disqualified you anyway, so maybe they saved you some time.
I went through two thirds of that process before choosing another career, so I'm a bit familiar with it.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
2. Palestine: Similarly, standard progressive policy here is that any aid given to Israel that rightfully helps the country defend itself from Hamas terrorism should be conditional. In this instance, the conditions are that Israel immediately halt its war crimes against Gazans and work honestly toward a one-state or two-state solution with the Palestinians.
I agree that the United States should strive for having the unquestionably strongest military in the world. But what defense budget size is enough to meet this objective? I’ve seen legitimate arguments in favor of an annual budget reduction of FIFTY PERCENT.
However, I would argue that a number of Western democracies of relative equal strength would have been the much preferred power dynamic since the end of World War 2.
So the question is: how do we jumpstart the economy and move it toward a way more optimal state?
A few comments on where I think this is unrealistic.
First, the discussion of a two state solution is currently without reality.
If one state is Israel, who is the other?
Simply stated there is nobody on that side for Israel to negotiate such an agreement.
There is Hamas, who is beyond barbarism and intent on not only destroying Israel but every Jew on earth, and the Palestinian Authority which is, yet another, Iranian puppet with no desire for coexistence.
Ergo.....There is nobody to negotiate with.
Second....The defense budget.
A 50% reduction is absurd.
Beyond that, if there is a desire to reduce the defense budget, it has to start with the mission and goals the US imposes on its military, which is currently to be able to fight and win a two front war on either side of the world at the same time.
Want to cut the budget? Change the requirements.
Late edit. Regarding the desire of including a number of "relatively equal strength wester democracies" isn't realistic. There were none with the military capability or desire at the end of WWII, and there absolutely isn't any now. The UK is probably the closest, and they aren't close and about to get un-closer. Canada, France, Germany and a host of others are not in good enough shape to shoulder any of that burden at this time.
As well, the more one understands how the defense budget is as much a jobs program and technology accelerator, the more one understands Congressional desire to keep it so.
Dividing it up to their liking with funds to their jurisdictions is what Congress does.
About "jumpstarting the economy," it doesn't need to be jumpstarted.
Passing legislation that anchors it is one of the big problems, as well as constantly changing policy and tax law after every election is a gross waste of potential.
An alliance with US businesses, which are the strength of this country, (certainly not our politicians), is the way to go.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:
I've landed in Vegas on a 95 degree day and updrafts had wing tip very close to hitting ground. Maybe not a big deal if tips hit as you'd think they' make runways narrower and undercut the sides if it did matter more??
Scraping a wing tip is a very big deal.
One of the dangers in a screwed up landing, no matter runway length, is what happens if the airplane is not directionally aligned properly. If there is even a relatively minor angle between the fuselage and the runway, the tires will be misaligned and could separate from the gear. There are tremendous forces on the gear at touchdown. That's why crosswind landings are an art, and have wind limitations.
Regarding autolandings, landings done by the autopilot, the airplane has to have three separate and isolated autopilots and electrical systems, The internal operation of the autopilot and electrical systems separate at 1500' and go through a self test that enunciates when complete. Very few are so equipped.
The airport has to have very specific equipment which must be maintained and tested far more frequently, and even the taxi hold positions near the runway have to be expanded to prevent signal interference.
It is a very big and expensive deal, and if an airport has has the capability it will usually be on one runway only.
The aircrew training to keep certification used to take us almost two hours of simulator time alone, and we only were scheduled for eight hours in there at every recurrent cycle.
That is why very few airlines have their airplanes equipped and their crews certified to do it.
US and international majors do it, like American, United and Delta, but most don't. Certainly not those that don't operate internationally, as it simply isn't worth it to them.
-
4 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Why should people risk their lives and safety when they can safely guide you via a joystick on the ground.
Primarily, because that capability and security does not exist, and is not close.
Secondarily, such views are evidence of a lack of understanding of how things work, as evidenced in the link which states that airplanes are flown from shortly after takeoff to and through landing.
That is grossly false.
Beyond that, the money paid to this occupation is not for physical manipulation of controls.
The safety, economy and success is based on understanding the system, fitting into it and using it to your advantage, better than the other guys. To do that successfully requires direct observation of the airborne situation. An airplane in flight is among very many, competing for altitudes, routes, speeds and a host of other things that make one flight far more efficient than one being run by some goof.
Even getting from the gate pushback to the takeoff position requires a host of decisions to push ATC along to your advantage.
In short, there's a ton more involved than just manipulating controls, and multiples more when things go wrong.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:
I knew about the crash in the falls in mid 80s. Saw the picture of the one you’re talking about but never knew where it was. That’s crazy they’ve crashed twice in the area.
You are referring, I believe to a different Blue Angel accident at Niagara Falls in July of 1985.
It was a midair killing LCDR Mike Gershon.
Mike was a friend of mine,
Sadly, his 13 year old son was killed in an ATV accident a year later.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
From 12 years ago.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/when-will-we-have-unmanned-commercial-airliners
Already, she notes, an airliner's software typically takes over flight seconds after takeoff, handles the landing—and most of what happens in between. The pilot just “babysits,” she says.
Of course, software that can meet only "most" of aviation's challenges would hardly satisfy the afraid-of-flying landlubber. That's why the pilot is still there, babysitting, until all the remaining kinks have been worked out. None of the problems are so bad as to prevent civilian pilotless planes from ever happening, but they are real, and they will have to be solved. ..."
Both paragraphs are utter, complete nonsense.
Check out the wind limits on auto landings vs. manual landings. Auto landings are much more limited than humans.
By the way, airports that have auto landing capability are extremely rare. Most airlines don't train to that, so are not qualified, nor are their airplanes capable.
It is a very expensive capability to achieve and maintain for both the airport and the crew.
-
43 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
I am never gonna live that one down!
Still computers make less mistakes than humans. That was a human messing w/the AiS.
Days are coming w/AI... It won't have that sense of humor. But, back on topic... I am probably one of the few that would trust a computer flying me from point A to point B over an arrogant human.
That discussion will be had over the years.
The freight companies are already moving the ball.
Anyway, to your point, I can point to many crashes with many fatalities that are the result of computer errors.
Ultimately, it gets blamed on the pilots, but it is computer errors that are the direct cause.
The 737 Max crashes, Air France 447 and a host of others come to mind.
Never mentioned are the hundreds of computer data errors that put the plane in jeopardy every year that are resolved and overcome resulting in a safe outcome every year. Many times per month in fact.
You can offer an opinion on the relative safety of humans vs computers. that is your right.
As for my view, the claim that arrogance has anything to do with it is not an issue, but I would never get on an airplane that didn't have a human able to overcome computer errors.
Day one of training, even as a private pilot. Controllers and computers will, one day, try to kill you.
That was certainly my experience over 40 years of fighters and airliners at sea and all over the world.
Not often, but enough.
To each his own I 'spose.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
That plane @ LHR had plenty of room!
The differences between MDW, ORD, &
LHR are shocking. Midway is a postage stamp. I might wanna think about continuing to fly outta here after seeing this! 😆
Heathrow: They can flutter all they want
O'Hare:
Now the postage stamp, Midway, holy dear Lord! 😆
No room for error. 10,000 people would get wiped out! No wonders they almost shut it down before rehabbing it. It really does belong elsewhere!!!
You can't "flutter all they want."
Once the spoilers are deployed, which they are in that video, and the thrust levers are moved to idle, which they undoubtedly were, you can't get airborne again. They had one bounce, which is all you get. If it got airborne again they would have slammed down, as there would not have been enough airspeed to control it.
Kind of a famous landing there in the 90's when a 767 landed really hard there in very bad winds.
Nobody in the cockpit said anything as they cleared the runway, but the cockpit phone rang, and when the extra guy picked it up a flight attendant mid cabin told them she could "see outside through the roof."
Regarding Midway and the Southwest 737 overrun, there are so many components to that.
The accident itself was the result of landing there in a tailwind, but it goes so much further than that and gets into Chicago and FAA politics and the life of the 737.
The FAA was intent on forcing all jet operators to go to ORD. The City of Chicago was not willing to part with the tax and associated other revenue derived from there, wo they worked out a deal for Southwest to operate there, The exact same thing happened in Dallas with Dallas Love vs. DFW.
That's why Southwest is there also, and nobody else is, and it's a huge financial advantage.
The 737 is notorious for overruns, even though it's a relatively small narrow body.
They have continuously updated and enlarged it, but it still has those tiny landing gear on all variants, and they simply don't have the capacity that other airplanes do to handle that kinetic energy. Simple physics.
It is slow in cruise, but has a relatively fast final approach speed because of it's expanded size and small wing. making it more difficult to stop. Faster approach speed than other similarly smaller airplanes, but not fast at altitude.
Until the last two years, you could always count on at least two 737 overruns per year, somewhere.
Burbank, Kingston Jamaica, Sao Paulo Brazil are other examples just off the top of my head.
That gets us to the FAA, and leads to the 737 Max crashes.
The FAA requires "type" ratings to fly individual aircraft. When a single type undergoes many variations, there is pressure to require a different type rating if the differences are significant.
Southwest enjoys a tremendous training cost advantage because between them and Boeing, they have convinced the FAA to never require a different type rating for the 737 variants, which is the only airplane Southwest operates. Other airlines operate many different types of aircraft, and as pilots switch, the training costs are very significant.
This has been going on for years, and nearly got exposed with the 737 Max crashes, pointing out a significant change that was not required to be specifically trained on, but never was fully exposed.
Sorry for length, but there is a lot of layers to that Southwest Midway overrun.
Regarding MDW, there are many more difficult places to land, even in the US. It's just that the 737 is not an ideal airplane for that concrete.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
48 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:
The cockpit! What is it?
It's a big building with sick people in it.
But that's not important now.
Oh wait.
-
-
1
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, DCofNC said:
Yes, the NFL has too many teams, the talent pool is too diluted. They have screwed up the quality of the product, the problem is, nobody cares enough to stop watching.
Once the Saudis get done destroying the balance of the golf world, they should take a swing at the NFL. If they could pull off what they did to the PGA and pull a handful of top QBs to an alternate league, the NFL could crumble the way it deserves to. Imagine for a second if they pulled Mahomes and Allen to an alternate league and then landed some of the top college guys, who wouldn’t have to enter the NFL draft and can get paid more. It could disrupt the NFL faster than it did golf. All it would take is a well timed strike, catch a year when a couple of big QBs are hitting FA and there’s a solid young crop in college. Think about last year, they could have poached Lamar Jackson, CJ Stroud, possibly Rodgers, Brady, and had Herbert and Burrow in their sites, pulled in guys like Flacco etc as other guys. The league would blow up quick.
?
I cannot imagine any NFL player ever having any desire to live in an Islamic state.
That's just the players. Their wives would revolt.
Very difficult to get people with much more muted lifestyles, ie State Dept and military families to go there.
-
6 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:
This process was nothing more than a process for custom officials to be bribed.
I had all the cabinets and flooring for a 36 unit condo building shipped from Paraguay through there as well as all the flooring and interior doors for my home.
Being delayed going through there was inevitable. A bit of a nuisance, but you had to have a "guy" to help you get through it.
-
1
-
1
-
Who's Running The Executive Branch?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Not knowing the Secretary of Defense was not functioning is the final straw of many final straws, including not being able to know where he is or complete a coherent sentence.
This Administration is dysfunctional, incompetent and needs to be replaced.