sherpa

He's a bit of an enigma to me. He is grossly inaccurate coming out of the locker room. I always hope we get through the first two possessions alive, then he seems to settle down and do OK. He missed grossly on that fourth down slant early in the game. I mentioned to the people I was with that we need an Allen run on our last possession to get a field goal, and we didn't get it.

Having read the link, it isn't quite what the headline suggests. His complaint was that the Navy has not provided detailed information on the threat such things might pose. Nobody knows what they could do, since nobody knows their potential capability, so how do you respond to such a request? No story here.

Not possible. You are never going to get to JFK in an hour from Buffalo and then connect to a Heathrow flight which includes the connection, per your post, under seven hours. Simply not possible. Flight to JFK, hour and half minimum. Connection..an hour minimum. Flight to Heathrow about 7 hours scheduled. Customs/Immigration add on. And it's longer coming west.

Maybe I should have made it clearer. If it isn't a charter, you aren't getting a flight from Buffalo to London without a connection somewhere. The the ten hours.

It isn't a six hour flight. Its much closer to eight, and without a charter, much closer to 10 minimum.

Go Hoos. Better, Go New Hoos.

The point wasn't that it can't be done. Of course it an be done. The military does it frequently. The point is that those times carry significant restrictions on route and altitude, and result in more expensive, time consuming operating costs. The airspace that is closed off to those flights is 300-400 miles wide, varies daily, is the most efficient routing, and includes any altitude from 29,000-41,000', avoids most weather, which is not all that frequent in the North Atlantic, but is much more difficult to get clearance around. That is a very significant corridor. The sweet spot for airliners, and the same exists on the way back, but at late afternoon and early evening hours.

The food in London is fantastic. The grocery store deli sections have great options as well.

It truly is, but it isn't just a question of living in London. It is a question of living there while having to work in the US, which would take up a good portion of your away game's week, and have quite an impact on your body. In addition, the demographic that would rightly judge London as a great place to live is not the same as NFL free agents. I did a (then) New Jersey Nets charter there, and they didn't like going there to play at all.

We stayed in South Kensington, my favorite district. I would fly the trip to London, wife in the back, have my wife stay in our hotel on the companies dime, then drop her off at the VRBO townhouse, leave her there while I flew my trip back to the US, get on the next flight to London as a passenger, a mere two hours later, and spend the next three days there..... Commute back to the US four days later, work back to London, and then fly my wife back to the US. Plenty of great places on VRBO there.

I've done it my entire career, including doing the "reverse commute," getting an VRBO townhouse in London for a month and commuting back and forth once a week for work while staying there, and the work was doing trips to London. London is the least of the problem, but still, I would never do it for any length of time, and I was "done" when I got there, not having to work during the time off. I know all the tricks of staying on top of it. Living somewhere is completely different for the individual and his family than shift work in the same time zone. Just a very bad idea.

Not possible. There is simply no way to keep a London residence with any reasonable family life on a US body clock for months at a time. This has been tried by US airline people. Living in London and commuting back for work, once per week. Unhealthy and not realistic. Did it.

I understand what you are claiming, but London's support of a team is just one issue in the calculus, and the easiest. Filling out a London based roster would present a huge disadvantage. Travel problems are very significant. The current system neutralizes that to a large extent, but that wouldn't be the case with a London based team. There is so much that goes into building a competitive league, and this would be beyond a reasonable challenge.

It doesn't matter. When you have two teams play at an off site, and you neutralize the impact to both, which is the status quo, there is no significant problem. If you based a team there, it would be a completely different issue. They would be significantly disadvantaged for reasons of player and staff desirability to live there, immense travel issues for the London based team, potential tax issues, and a significant free agent problem. It isn't London or its' fans, it's just a bad idea.

It's longer than six hours , closer to 7.5 or 8, depending on which leg, eastbound or westbound, and time of year. Eastbound leg gets shorter the further into the fall you get, and the return leg gets longer. Additionally, the system is set up as basically one way. The flights departing the US mainland do so late in the afternoon into the evening, and the flights departing Europe leave in the morning. The routes change every day based on winds. Since returning teams would probably want to do that a few hours after their game, it would put them head on with all the traffic heading east, resulting in much worse route and altitude choices, further adding to flight times. It is done, but going against that system results in significant disadvantages and route restrictions. A London team with the requirement to play teams much further west would be greatly disadvantaged. I imagine it would have free agent issues as well.

One of the things I'll not forget in my career was a similar story. Flew the last leg of the day from Chicago to Providence, a 727. I'm at the door saying goodbye, and at the very end of the passengers is this really tiny Mexican guy, about 5'2". He has a little carry on bag in his hand and hes says: "Mexico Ceety?" We got him a hotel and got him out the next day. One gate over.

Yes he did. Absolutely drilled both. I was at that game and my fondest memory was after Lindell hit those two filed goals, I was watching Greg Williams, the then defensive coordinator of the redskins, standing on the sidelines, with nobody within 25 yards of him, pouting like a ten year old, having just given up the game winning drive, with a crucial pass from Trent Edwards to Josh Reed. Greg Williams is the single individual I despise the most in the NFL, and I loved watching him pouting, alone.

Have your affairs in order my friend. Quick and painless, but guaranteed. To hasten your inevitable end, start a sentence with "I'm like," followed by anything.

You are scheduled for termination. Date and time will not be announced.

Anybody who starts a sentence with "So." Anybody who says, "Having said that," or "That being said." We know what was said. You just said it. Anybody who uses the phrases "going forward." or "at the end of the day."

I flew the thing for years, and am very familiar with the fuel system and items in the accessory gear box of the engines, like oil, hydraulics etc., and it can't.

It can do so briefly, but such a thing is ridiculous, and it absolutely cannot be done for any period of time. I'm not sure how much time you have in the real world inverted, but such a thing requires -1G, which would not only make it nearly impossible to fly for anyone without a great deal of fighter experience, but the trash that would be in your eyes would be amazing. Your claim is that you could land it inverted, if that's what you meant by landing it "on the roof." Doing so would, of necessity, rip off the vertical stabilizer and shortly thereafter, the horizontal stabilizer, giving it no lateral or longitudinal control. If you could do this, and somehow survive, that would truly be amazing, and I guarantee the airplane wouldn't.

I've got a few thousand hours on the 777, and I'd like to know how you can "land it on it's roof." Such a thing is not possible in the real world. Where did you do this, and for who?

His name was actually H. Preston Ridlehuber. Getting behind the goal posts for FG's or extra points was an adventure. I actually got the ball once. I got the snot kicked out of me on the way down, but I held on. On the way out, ans usher told me that if I didn't hide it, I wouldn't last a half block.

One easy way to shorten them without varying the game would be to look at this idiotic waste of time the refs are responsible for. Take a "challenge" play. Here's what happens: 1. Coach throws the challenge red flag. All the viewers know it. The stadium fans could read it on the scoreboard. Graphics are easy. 2. Ref walks over to the head coach to hear the challenge. 3. Ref walks out to near center of the field to "announce" what everyone already knows. 4. Ref walks over to video booth to review the play. 5. Ref makes decision and informs team. 6. Ref gain walks to near middle of the field to announce decision. The entire process gives you time to eat dinner, complete a real estate deal and start a family. The entire thing about having only the ref makes all these "announcements" is a gross waste of time.