Leaderboard

I'd counter that there's a virtually limitless supply of tools chasing this Hunter Biden angle.

Hi Phil, Lippy is not; and, neither am I. Once again, Brent has not seen the football since kickoff. Jerry Baumchen

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), voted to raise the debt ceiling three times during Trump’s tenure without insisting on spending cuts in return. The GOP demand for cuts — and threats of a debt default — only occur when a Democrat is in the White House, such as Obama in 2011 and Biden now. The national debt rose by nearly $7.8 trillion while Trump was in office. Hypocrites!

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent. A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing. So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics.

Hi Joe, There are things in one's life that just warms your heart. Jerry Baumchen

During the four years of the Trump administration, the national debt rose by 24.8%. And we weren't even in a recession. Yet the GOP clings to the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves, and morons believe them.

If the water was well above the money find spot at the time, then the money can be pushed along the bottom to that spot.. when the money arrives the money spot is effectively the bottom of the river.

An interesting tidbit I picked up at CC was that In Search Of with Leonard Nimoy aired in December of 1979, and the money is found just a few months later. Might be a coincidence, might not. If you were holding onto that money and saw that show, you might be thinking hard about getting rid of it. I would have burned it personally. So many out of the ordinary things have to happen for the money to have landed at Tina Bar or be buried there. Regardless, it is only 3% of the actual money, and Tina Bar is right on a major river, and Cooper likely landed 10-15 miles away. It's fun to speculate, but there is still $197k out there. There are many options on how the $ got into the Columbia. I'm still not ruling out that it washed down from another section of river, or that it fell out of the plane after Cooper jumped (if he lost it on the stairs). It does seem odd to me that he took money out and handed it to the stews, then supposedly took it back. I'd suspect the money became separated from the original $200k as a packet of $6k and then somewhere along the line got thrown in the river. Could have been by Cooper, Tina, someone else. I don't need the diatoms to tell me that the money did not land in the river that night.

Almost everywhere there is a civilization there is some form of alcohol use. Humans have a very long history using and mis-using the stuff. Misery and joy can both be found in the jar.

Sort of. "Reserve Storage' means they were cleaned out and parked. They may or may not have had any preservation done. As an 'airplane guy', you likely know what has to be done to preserve an airplane engine for long term storage. This is similar to what the Russians are looking at when they are trying to pull the T-62s out of storage. I've seen generalized estimates that 1/3 will be usable with a bit of preparation. 1/3 will require major effort to get operational and 1/3 will not be 'revivable' and will be used for parts. Before they could send any over, they'd first have to evaluate them to see what they've got. Then get some up and running. Another problem is maintenance. The Abrams is a very maintenance intensive tank. It requires skilled techs (and quite a few of them) to keep it going. Beyond training the crews (an experienced tank crew could adapt to the Abrams fairly quickly), the rest of the folks who are involved in keeping it going would need substantial, specialized training. Then there's the logistical support. The main gun is different from what they are currently using. So they'd need to figure out how to keep those specific shells supplied. The ideal fuel is jet fuel. It can run on other stuff, but there are downsides to that. There's a lot more to it than just 'sending them a bunch of tanks. And even if it was just 'sending' them, that's not a trivial exercise either. 2 Abrams fit in a C-5. I'd guess they'd go to Poland, not risking flying into Ukraine. Then overland to Ukraine. Sending them by ship is usually preferable, but that takes a lot of time. Personally, I'd LOVE to see substantial, serious arms get sent to Ukraine. And I think it's going to happen. But it will take some time.

When all problems look like nails, it suggests that your toolkit is very limited.

I think he's saying that the documents about the guy John Anderson was looking into is someone else. Another suspect from Egg Harbor, older and working at a different airline. Which would make sense to me considering the discrepancy between Catalano being a good match for the sketch and this other guy apparently not being so. Catalano is the unresolved Egg Harbor suspect. His name is unredacted in the newest FBI files.

So we had made a faulty assumption that the Egg Harbor guy from the DNA 302 was the same Egg Harbor guy mentioned in those previous 302's, but we were wrong. Different guy. This guy worked for Japan Airlines and was old enough to have served in the "U.S. Air Corps" (a WWII guy). So it's not Catalano.

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not.... Yielding to the lower jumper is NOT OBSOLETE! In fact, your suggestion is dangerous and I encourage jumpers to disregard it. The reasons we yield to the lower jumpers are simple. First, jumpers in the pattern are (correctly) focused on their landings, which dictates giving primary attention to what is BELOW them. Jumpers are ALWAYS responsible to clear the area in their flight path - like clearing the area to the left or right AND below before making a turn. This includes pattern flight and final approach. Second, it is often impossible to see traffic above us because our canopies block much of the view. Yielding to the higher jumper simply doesn't make sense and much of the time would be impossible because of the blocked view. It also distracts from the mission at hand - clearing the flight path ahead and below, and landing safely. The "low person has the right of way" is a basic premise in all of aviation. CFR 92.113.g states in part "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way...". Additionally, the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual agrees with this rule. SIM Section 6-1.C.3.c states "the low person has the right-of-way both in freefall and under canopy". Deciding on our own to buck accepted practices leads to confusion, and that leads to problems. As for high performance canopies and the jumpers who fly them, they are ALWAYS responsible to yield to lower traffic. This makes perfect sense. The higher jumper has the best field of view of the jumpers below them, they can monitor lower traffic without looking away from their flight path, they have more altitude to make an avoidance maneuver if necessary, and it's consistent with aviation and skydiving norms. I am a former high performance canopy jumper (and still have a rate of descent faster than many others) and can say in practice that yielding to the lower jumper works. When I am descending faster than the jumpers below me, I have the best opportunity to observe what they are doing and have the best field of view to decide how to avoid conflict. There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.

It's a "feature" of the new software. Not one of the better features, I'll admit. Hopefully Meso will chime in. Wendy P.