DaviiB

Not in this market (North America). Everyone is insanely busy right now (unless you're based in the middle of nowhere) Cheers

Sadly, in real life you rarely get to choose. Many crews are all too familiar with certain airports for that reason. You're lucky if there's good food in the area, or at least if the FBO has a good crew lounge. e.g. " Teterboro.... again...." DB

Whichever way you look at this, there are some facts that are hard to escape: The Pentagon has admitted that they have been studying UFO's / UAP in some capacity for years. This is an indirect admission that they have been lying to or misleading elected officials and the public for quite some time. David Grusch has submitted evidence to Congress to back up at least some of his claims, and gave about 11 hours of testimony. In this respect, as he is using formal processes, if he is found to be lying, he can go to jail. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community has determined Grusch's claims to be both credible and urgent. Grusch was cleared by (someone at) the DoD to publicly make the claims he is making, without revealing classified information, which would be a crime RE: Edward Snowden etc. On that last point, there is something that is often overlooked in these discussions that's worth mentioning: "The US Government" is NOT one coherent entity with a single intent / purpose. It is clear from the last few years that: "The Pentagon" / DoD has lied to Congress. "The Pentagon" has also lied to "The Whitehouse" Different elements of the Military (Airforce / Navy) are cooperating with the AARO investigations to very different extents. i.e. Navy is apparently cooperating, Air Force is not. The above indicates there are very different attitudes within the DoD towards the subject. Different groups within "The Government" have very different clearance levels, restricting their access to information. e.g. AARO allegedly has not been granted the clearance to view much of the classified information relevant to the UAP subject. There are many players, with many different agendas all being pushed at the same time, hence the conflicting information. So when people say this is a psy-op by "The Government", that statement makes no sense without also stating which element of "The Government" they're talking about, and what their intentions are. To put it simply: It appears that some elements of "The Government" want this information to be released, and others are pushing to keep it out of sight. IF this is true, then someone has a lot to answer for, as they have been spending US Taxpayer dollars without any oversight from the elected Government....which is illegal. The "alien" subject is a much deeper one to dig into, and is likely more about "us" than "them".

Hi Brian, Long time no chat! One phrase you need to learn: "On-demand air charter" Meaning (for most Part 135 Charter Operators), flights are scheduled per client request. Departure Times, destinations, and aircraft type are all determined by client needs / preferences. Depending on the type of operation, that could mean as little as 2 hours' notice for the crew from the time of trip confirmation to wheels-up. Those don't tend to be the norm though (again, it depends on the type of operation, with many trips booking days, weeks or sometimes even months in advance. Advertising is for getting your name out there so customers can find you. Sales people are for quoting and selling trips to clients (Also going out and finding business) <<A bit of an understatement of the actual scope and workload, but that's the general gist of it). As for creating a realistic scenario for a pilot: You'll get an email notifying you of an upcoming trip, usually with the following details: - Date(s) - Reporting time - Full routing with scheduled departure times - Number of passengers - Any additional relevant info. e.g. passengers are bringing golf clubs (can be a space issue on some aircraft).....or 1 dog on board etc. Many companies have a "Pilot Self-Dispatch" system, meaning: It's your responsibility as a pilot to take a look at the trip, confirm no operational concerns, do the flight planning and operate the trip safely. Note: a good sales / flight coordination team will not usually sell trips on your aircraft to airports you can't safely operate into, but there are edge cases where things slip through and you, as PIC have to make a change for safety/operational reasons. e.g. Runway closed by NOTAM for annual drag-racing event (This has happened to me before) ..so you have to find an alternative airport to pickup the client. If you'd like to simulate this, pick a random destination at a random time, do all the planning yourself and go. It's that simple. I'm pretty sure I built a random destination finder some years ago (in Excel) where you could specify min / max distance and runway length. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. There are a bunch of details and dozens of different scenarios I left out, but these are the basics. Happy to discuss if you have any further questions. Cheers, DB

That's fair. My bad, I should have been more specific. It shouldn't happen at or near the correct trim settings for a given weight / CG. Cheers, DB

Fair enough, that sounds about right. Now I guess the only question is whether it still happens with the trim in the "green" (it shouldn't) (I'm qualifying all this by saying I still don't own MSFS......Can't wait to get it someday, as business jets are my favourite and I'm thrilled that there are so many good options in the sim...CJ4, Longitude, Hondajet etc......somebody just needs to make a good Heavy / ULR business jet and I'll be set) DB

I don't mean to nitpick, but my gut tells me that any (non-fly-by-wire) jet that has enough nose-up trim dialed in to rotate and takeoff by itself at Vr will subsequently climb like a homesick angel.....and then stall, roll over and return to earth just as quickly if you don't un-trim it, or push on the controls like your life depends on it. I'd question the flight dynamics if the above didn't happen (in the absence of some kind of auto-trim, or fly-by-wire system). My experience in Jets is limited to one (fairly tame) type only, but the one thing that struck me in initial training was just how much nose-down trim was needed as we accelerated after takeoff. It was nearly constant trimming, otherwise she would aim for the stars and try to take you there in a hurry. A Cessna 172 operates in a comparatively narrow speed-band. Rotate at 55, climb at 65-70. Compared to a small jet, rotating at 100-110, climb at 220-250....massive trim changes over that speed range is a necessity. Cheers, DB

I have no dog in this fight (not that it's a fight), and don't have MSFS yet, but this is completely unrealistic as-described. (Unless I'm mis-understanding) Can't think of a jet that would behave like this IRL. It's not a C172. At Vr, back pressure should always be required to raise the nose of a jet. Cheers, DB

1 - Most airliners will backtrack on the runway to get to the threshold, then make a 180 degree turn before beginning the takeoff roll. Standard airline procedures for being on a runway will apply (stay on the centerline, all lights on, etc) Smaller aircraft which don't need the entire runway (turbo props etc) will either depart from a taxiway intersection, or only backtrack part-way. This will usually only be if their airline SOP allows intersection takeoffs. Take a look at Grenada (TGPY) or St Vincent (TVSA) ops (on YouTube) for good examples of this. 2 - If there is a displaced threshold, aircraft can begin their takeoff roll before the threshold (displaced thresholds only restrict landing aircraft.... they must land beyond the threshold, usually for obstacle clearance reasons). See runway 22R at KJFK for a good example of this. Hope this helps, DB

I think it might be the other way around. I'm not sure the B17 would have been visible from the Cobra's cockpit while banked (and pulling) like that.... It looks like the B17 would have been been 'below' the Cobra's nose in the turn for at least the last few seconds until immediately before the collision. Tragic and horiffic either way. DB

I guess that settles that then. DB

You may have a point. European cities seem to have been able to pack more people (and value) into a small area. I'm sure it has a lot to do with history. It would be interesting to see an actual head-to-head comparison though. If we take that argument to an extreme, neither is the CN Tower, or Ontario Place (or High Park for that matter), but nobody is really calling for the closure/teardown of either of those sites......and it would be much easier to build access to those sites than to the island. Why would we remove a piece of transportation infrastructure from a growing city instead of figuring out how to maximize its utility? Makes no sense... And to be clear....maximizing utility happens naturally as a business (airline) strives for profitability. The city would just need to play ball and help make access easy. DB

The actual passenger number was almost 3 million per year pre-pandemic. Nowhere near the numbers at YYZ, but certainly not insignificant. Keep in mind that, pre-pandemic, YYZ could only maintain its schedule if the weather was good. It was very close to capacity. If the weather deteriorated around one of the peak periods, things would go south quickly Ask anyone who works in ops there what they think of the slot & de-ice slot systems. 🤢 Regarding the land under YTZ, what would be a better use for it? (Genuine question). The surrounding parks are underutilized, the harbourfront is overbuilt with condos, there is plenty of entertainment space nearby (hokey/basketball arena, baseball stadium, tourist attractions, amphitheaters, restaurants), and demand for business (office) space has not really recovered. What's left after that? Industrial? Easy access to transport is something that makes cities liveable. YTZ has demonstrated far greater utility than Meigs Field ever had. Yes, you can argue that there is a rail link from downtown to YYZ now (UpExpress), but it's just another example of Toronto's not-well-thought-out transit infrastructure (and a whole different rabbit hole). YTZ is a very unique airport, and adds to the mix of diverse land-uses, and services available around downtown. The only other comparable is probably LCY. Does it benefit absolutely everyone? No......but not every person uses every transit service or entertainment venue. What is the minimum (threshold) positive impact before an airport is deemed worthy of being kept? And how many people is it negatively impacting at the moment? Also, the passenger experience is vastly better than YYZ (based on my experience). There's an "old geezer" at the island airport who would rant on and on about how 40-50 years ago, when land was being reclaimed to build-out the current port lands, they should have just kept extending the Leslie St spit further into Lake Ontario, and put a big airport out there to replace YTZ and YYZ. Sadly hindsight is 20-20, foresight is almost nonexistent, and the time (and money) to do that is long gone. Would have been cool though (and less affected by lake-effect snow and airmass thunderstorms than YYZ is). DB

The proposed runway extension on the island airport was specifically to accommodate the operation of the A220 (then Bombardier C-Series) from the field. Total runway length would be around 5,000ft (up from ~4,000) and the displaced thresholds (to maintain obstacle clearance on the exiting steep approaches) would leave the available landing distance close to the existing 4,000ft. .....so nowhere near the lengths needed to operate a 737, or anything larger in/out of the airport. If I remember correctly, the existing exclusion zones (in the lake, off either end of the main runway) were to stay the same size.....so technically the airport's footprint would remain exactly the same. Let's keep the facts straight. The media completely missed the mark (and most of the facts) on that issue. Most of the discussion at the time was based on factual inaccuracies..... or flat out lies. Whether or not the expansion should be allowed, on the basis of swapping some Q400 flights for A220s (the total number of available TO/LDG slots was to remain the same)...... is something we can discuss. ...... Granted, the issue may be moot now that Porter has committed to the Embraer E2, and operating them from YYZ.... a shame for Canadian Aviation, and a bit disgraceful IMO (but that's a matter of opinion/politics) DB

In the past 15 years, I have: - Lived in downtown Toronto - Spent lots of time on the waterfront near the airport (in all different atmospheric conditions which affect noise porpogation) - Spent lots of time on the island (on the park side) - Worked at the island airport - Flown out of the airport as a flight instructor - Been flown in/out of the airport as a passenger on Porter Airlines - Continued to visit the island park several times per year The airport property is about 212 acres while the adjacent park is about 600 acres. Accessibility problems (congestion) with the park are simply a problem of matching demand (for ferries) with supply and frequency of sailings (and maybe further upgrading the land-side facilities) . This has been an obvious issue for years, and as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to increase capacity during peak periods. Very little seems to have been invested in the park over the years to improve facilities there. Not sure if that was deliberate to keep it 'rustic'. The airport, on the other hand, has had massive investments (with public and private funds I believe) to improve connectivity. They're moving over 2 million pax per year through the facility fairly seamlessly (yes, there is a traffic problem at the foot of Bathurst street where the airport entrance is) Noise-wise, the airport / aircraft are far from the loudest / most aggravating sounds on the waterfront. You can barely hear them from the park (even in the absence of traffic noise). Removing the airport, besides the obvious downside of eliminating all the employment it provides, convenience for business/travellers, economic benefits, Medevac base, organ transfer options, tourism boost, etc...... to increase park space by 30% when the existing parkspace is underutilized (and underfunded) makes no sense. Not to mention that the crux of their argument relies on using the fixed (airport) tunnel connection to increase accessibility to the parks..... But it's on the wrong side of downtown, a couple kilometers away from the transit hubs (subway & regional trains), and not very convenient to get to (unless you enjoy standing in long lines for a streetcar at Union Station). The existing ferry terminal to the island park is a 5 minute walk from Union Station. Stop trying to create new problems instead of fixing the ones you have. I could go on..... DB

That's not how that works. Engine placement, proximity to the cockpit, insulation, prop size, shape, angle, RPM and shape of the fuselage all affect how aircraft sound. That's why King Airs, Piaggios, PC12s and Twin Otters don't really sound alike after the first few seconds of start/ignition. Apologies if I took your comment out of context. DB

Where have I ever said, or implied that the previous research was conclusive or definitive? What I said was: Do not discount the work that has already been done as invalid. i.e. - Valid scientific research has been conducted, and has come up with a whole bunch of "unknowns". I apologize if that was not clear, but please do not mischaracterize what I've said. Please take my words at face value. Re-read them if you must. Obviously there isn't any in the public domain. Yes, more research will add certainty to existing findings, provided the results are the same. For example, 10 results of "unknown" will add certainty that you're dealing with a phenomenon that is as-yet "unknown" to science. It would add further certainty that there is not a prosaic (easily understood) explanation for it. That's how it works. So what you're saying is there's an external bias (that takes many forms) that has prevented serious, large scale studies of the phenomenon to-date? Eye witness reports are not the only evidence in existence. Also, if you look up the work of those who have studied this phenomenon over the past 50 years, you will find a fairly common theme. Evidence seems to be hard to come by, despite their best efforts. It seems as if the phenomenon actively avoids being studied, or leaving evidence that can be studied. This sounds strange, but if you haven't heard of it, look it up. The lack of hard evidence is not due to a lack of effort. Again....it may not be that simple. DB

No, of course not, but why are you arbitrarily discounting existing scientific research until there is more of it? More research will add to certainty. That does not mean that work already done is invalid. Again, have a look at what's already been done. I'm not so sure it will be that straightforward. You might be on to something with the Mars bit. Going out there and finding something would be far more definitive than finding something on earth and trying to rule out a terrestrial origin. Again, we have no idea what extraterrestrial looks like, so no basis to compare against. What if we find commonalities in DNA, and it's not completely different? We could have already found ET life living on earth, and just don't recognize it as such. You've used the word bias more than once now. Consider that despite decades of evidence and credible witness reports, mainstream science has waited until the US government, a non-scientific body, admitted a phenomenon is real before deciding to take the subject 'seriously' and commit more resources to its study. The determination wasn't reached by following evidence and data, not by the scientific method, but by being told by a governmental body (which likely has an agenda) that the phenomenon actually exists. I'm not sure what you call that, but it's completely backwards. Bias might be the kindest word for it. The first link from Scientific American you provided even talks about how mainstream science has avoided the subject, despite its history. It seems in this case that mainstream science has a lot of catching up to do....50-70 years' worth, and it's self-inflicted. DB

Not a whole lot to speculate on. They saw something, and one or more elements of government would have preferred that they didn't. We can guess at their motives I suppose. It was either a military craft, or it wasn't. In either case, it was described as exhibiting maneuvering characteristics that put it outside of (known) publicly available technology at the time (and even now). It's quite similar to another incident in 1994 in Zimbabwe. About 60 kids saw a craft land behind their school ("Ariel" school I think), and 2 beings emerge. A well known psychologist from the UK interviewed most of the kids individually and found that their descriptions of the incident were corroborative. Apparently it does not match the typical signature of mass-hysteria, for a couple reasons: No prior exposure of the kids to UFOs/Aliens in pop culture, and their stories did not change over time. There's a fairly recent documentary out there about it, where they were able to track down the now-grown witnesses. DB

I only aim to point out the limits of science, and the fact that mainstream science is not a be-all, end-all.....even if it's the best tool we have to date. I am very familiar with how peer review works. I agree that the field needs to be opened up to study by more scientists. I'm just well aware of the possibility that the results may not be much different to what's already being done. The fact remains that there has been scientific study of this phenomenon in the past. Even if it's not "mainstream", or well known, some very smart people (experts in a very diverse set of disciplines) have put time and effort into studying it, and a not-insignificant amount of money has been thrown at it. What happens if all 20 of the further studies come to the same conclusion - "Unknown", or "not enough evidence to be definitive" or "further study required"? It's not exactly straightforward to form a testable (meaningful) hypothesis on this either....other than to potentially rule out a limited number of prosaic explanations, which still leaves the door open to "unknown phenomena". (To be clear, how can you test an extraterrestrial hypothesis if there is no established basis from which to draw your criteria? i.e. we don't know conclusively what extra terrestrial (or extra dimensional, or whatever else) is....it is not defined. So how can you test for it? Without a massive amount of extraordinary physical evidence from which to establish a new basis, science may get stuck. Not much left to do at this point but wait and see what the scientific community does with it. I won't be holding my breath. As for the "claims" made of (seeming) abnormal material....just because something hasn't made its way to 20 different labs doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can do the digging to find the information if you like. There is a lot that mainstream science hasn't deemed worthy of investigation....meanwhile those who bothered to look found indications of something extraordinary. Proof of the extraordinary is something entirely different and probably a long way off. Cheers, DB

I think we agree more than we disagree here, but there are a couple things: 1 - The line of what is considered 'acceptable' science (past a certain point) will always be arbitrary. How many studies will it take? How much peer review is enough? Exactly what qualifications are needed... and at what level? Do material scientists, astrophysicists and engineers count? (because they have been working on this as well) How many scientists does it take to form a consensus on a subject? Do they all have to be the same type of scientist, or can they have different backgrounds? Nobody is an expert on everything, so even if you're a computer scientist, it doesn't negate your ability to think, and call upon other specialists when needed. Also, for science to test a hypothesis, you need to be able to control conditions... that's part of what makes this so difficult....studying a phenomenon that is not predictable, and leaves little physical evidence. 2 - As far as I know, science does not actually deal in absolutes. That is to say, the conclusions of scientific studies tend to say things like "the results suggest that.....", rather than declare that X is true. So what would the standard of evidence need to be to develop a consensus around (for insatance) an extraterrestrial origin of UAPs? In the absence of a living being talking in plain English, there will always remain the possibility that "it was found on earth so it could be from here" (advanced science, secret programs etc). Science may only be able to tell us what they aren't.... probably...maybe. Finding a piece of physical evidence (metal, for instance) that appears to be bonded in a manner that defies explanation (this has happened) will leave us with "unknown" as the origin, unless or until the actual method of bonding can be determined...which could take some time.... Science will not ever say "definitely not made on Earth" unless there is a chain of custody document accompanying the fragment from wherever it was made to wherever it was found. We might be S.O.L. (I hope I articulated that well enough) 3 - Mainstream science is supposed to be based on evidence only. As I mentioned, 'science' is an ideal, people are not perfect, and many of the typical human behaviours that show up in other areas (like religion) also affect science. If the UFO/UAP phenomenon is real, and there is enough evidence to suggest the existence of something very odd (if not extraordinary), that could lead us to new scientific discoveries (in math, physics... or even just human psychology) .... why has the topic been ridiculed, downplayed and outright ignored by mainstream science for 70 years? That doesn't sound like a system that's operating based on evidence in this case. Please understand that I don't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm just trying to be realistic about how science makes progress, how it operates in practice, its inherent biases, and the conclusions drawn by the 'actual science' that has taken place on this topic so far. Come to think of it, maybe we should just wait for science to advance far enough that the phenomenon starts making sense, rather than the other way around. It might save a bunch of effort up front. Kinda like seeing a powered airplane in the 1870s....just wait 40 years and what you saw would make complete sense. Cheers, DB

Fun fact: This sometimes happens because these scientists literally "wrote the textbooks", or are paid to lecture on a specific subject, and have something to lose if the information in those books suddenly becomes obsolete. When there is money, pride or other factors at play, integrity can start to slip. ^^^^^ THAT is not the scientific method. That's a very human response....and sounds a bit like the grifters on the other end of this subject....though the methods and intentions used to draw their conclusions were likely more noble (i.e. NOT disingenuous or fraudulent). Not saying this is overly prevalent, but it definitely happens...and has been demonstrated to happen repeatedly in the scientific community, though it's rarely recognized in the moment. "Science" should not be subject to bias, but the humans conducting and interpreting Science...well...they're human. DB

It's not the opinion of one scientist. There are many scientists, with varied and distinguished backgrounds, who have been working on this for quite some time. You're making an assumption here that the scientists and researchers who've been looking at the UFO phenomenon are not 'talented'....and haven't applied the "proper" scientific method. That's a bit disingenuous if you haven't actually taken a look at it. Quantum leaps in scientific understanding don't always (I'd argue rarely) come from mainstream science. They come from the "fringes". Einstein's theory of General Relativity was once ridiculed as "totally impractical and absurd" by mainstream science because it contradicted the "mainstream" accepted theories at the time. Mainstream science often behaves like a religion, even though it's meant to be the opposite. I agree that Science is probably our best chance to "get to the bottom of this", but at the same time I'm pointing out that science has been befuddled by the subject for a very long time. Directing the full might of civilian scientific capability at this subject (at this time) may very well be the equivalent of trying to measure EM Waves with a super-accurate measuring stick. Well intentioned, but ultimately useless. If we are, in fact, dealing with something well beyond our current mainstream understanding (physics / nature of the universe etc.), then it would make perfect sense that scientific scrutiny of the subject would come up with more questions than answers. And it has. Approaching the deep end here: Heck, any "answers" may even have to come from outside of mainstream science (the "fringes" I guess?), until science has a chance to catch up. The difference would be: The fringes will give you the "What" and maybe even a "Why", then when Science catches up, you'll get the "How". I'll back off from the deep end now.... DB

No, civilian scientists. Look up Jacques Vallee and the invisible college. There is a modern version of the invisible college as well, with civilian scientists seriously looking into the phenomenon. (partially in-secret to keep their credibility intact I think) Here's a long, but very interesting read on Vallee and his 60-ish years of work: https://www.wired.com/story/jacques-vallee-still-doesnt-know-what-ufos-are/ TLDR:... and I'm paraphrasing a bit.... Vallee will be surprised and very disappointed if this turns out to be just physical vehicles and beings from another planet(s). .... and this is coming from a scientist who has been doing this work in-earnest for six decades (pre-Project Blue Book). This is one of the reasons I mentioned earlier that science may be missing something absolutely fundamental about the nature of the universe....maybe more than one 'something'. The diversity displayed by 'the phenomenon' may even suggest that we're not talking about A phenomenon, but multiple. RE: Shenanigans - Forming a modern task force only investigating sightings from one branch of the military, from the last 20 (ish) years, and completely ignoring mountains of older data is a joke, and sounds like a recipe for plausible deniability DB

I don't have the time to dig it up, but I believe there has been independent scientific analysis of this phenomena going on for quite some time. Their conclusion is that something very very strange is going on (and may go well beyond the 'aliens from space' conclusion.....though not to exclude it) It bothers me a little when people state there is "no evidence" for X, when it's clear they either didn't look, or their standard for evidence is 'exotic craft sitting on my front lawn'....or something to that effect.....That term 'no evidence' is mentioned in that Smithsonian article, and gives the impression of someone coming into a subject with bias. On that note. Have you ever seen this memo from 1947? It does indicate a "lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits", but otherwise acknowledges the existence of the phenomenon, and performance characteristics that mirror what's being seen today. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20797978-twining-memo Please consider as well that it has been demonstrated that there has been a fairly wide-ranging (and successful) effort, since at least the 1950's, to bury and/or discredit this subject throughout the military, government and media. Project Bluebook was all but mandated to debunk UFO sightings (regardless of the evidence), under the guise of investigating them. This is where the "swamp gas" explanation came from. The subject was pushed off to the fringes and kept there, so serious discussion / analysis was almost impossible to have. That alone is more indicative of shenanigans than grifters on the other side trying to make a buck. DB