AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1537320 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Update on Blair: I had forgotten he was killed right after I flew with him
« Reply #8550 on: January 17, 2018, 03:45:44 PM »

Did you ever know General Blair, the seaplane pilot who was married to Maureen O'Hara? I guess that was probably before your time.

I actually rode with Blair on a 'fam trip' (ATC people got to ride free in the cockpit of lots of commercial aircraft with the "familiarization with cockpit procedures" excuse  ;)) to STX (St. Croix) after a midnight shift. I did not know he was her husband until I read about it in the paper the next day. You see, we took off from Isla Grande airport seaplane launching area (you got in on the ground and the sea plane taxied into the water down a ramp) and took off in San Juan bay. I was in the right side enjoying all that water spraying around and observing how those water rudders work (I don't have a seaplane rating but I read  ;D). We landed at STX in the water without incident.

Grumman Goose like the one I rode to STX

He made a nice water landing but I was not impressed with how mch sea water sprayed all over the windshield and the engines. Those planes are a corrosion nightmare for maintenance. I walked into town to buy some bottled booze. The plan was to get back for the next flight a few hours later after this flight round tripped back to Isa Grande and back to STX.

It turned out I had to wait a few more hours for another plane. The plane I rode on crashed on takeoff on a reef. The Goose seaplane gets on what is called "on the step" during takeoff. Since you are an experienced sailor, you know about hull speed on boats. Too high a hull speed will suck them into the water and possibly sink them. It happened in San Juan Bay. A U.S. Navy submarine was cruisng in and a guy yelled from his sailboat for a tow for some reason. They threw him a line, he secured it and his boat sunk shortly. LOL!  Well, seaplane hulls have the same problem. So, they have to get as much of the plane out of the water as possible before they try to power them off. It's a weird hydrodynamics physics situation most people have trouble understanding. Water is really VERY sticky stuff!

Blair was a great pilot. He had flown with Pan Am and had thousands of hours of experience on the big ones. Apparently the tide was a tad lower than he expected and a reef where he usually took off was too close to the surface. When he got the Goose on the step, and almost at takeoff speed, the keel hit the reef just beneath the surface. It opened the belly like a can opener. There were injuries and at least one person died.

The FAA called it pilot error. I'm not sure but I think Blair retired after that. His efforts after the crashed takeoff made a bad situation less bad. He was a professional and he did his best to save his passengers.  :emthup: I think the FAA gave him a bum rap. :emthdown:

At the time of the accident, I was glad I just missed it. I learned about who Blair was when I read about it in the paper.

All this happened so long ago. I apologize for any errors in the details. I am writing from memory.

Oh, and I hear ya on the not flying thing. My life insurance would not cover me if I flew ultralights, so I did not fly them. After the 1988 divorce, I did fly them.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

About the Piper Colt: That aircraft had the glide path of a rock and the climb rate of a dog. :emthdown: I had some real pucker factor experiences taking off from STT where I had to do the 'weave between the hills' maneuver. :P It is very turbulent and not fun at all.

On subsequent trips I ended up routinely asking for a downwind takeoff (heading west) just to avoid that hill. The tower didn't like it because  it was against the traffic but I did like it because all I had to do was clear the water at the end of the runway. ;D  So, I would wait for a downwind takeoff slot.  8)

Eddie, I just did some research and dug this up. I did not remember any of it. But, the following leaves out the fact that the reef did rip open the belly of the Goose. The narrative below states that he had engine failure and landed in the water. He was alive then. Apparently he got that engine that failed going again and tried a takeoff when he hit the reef. I can see no other explanation for why he simply did not just sit in the water and wait for a boat. The Frequency 121.9 is a ground control frequency, not an emergency frequency (e.g. 121.5).

Also, I was unaware that it was going to STT before going back to Isla Grande.

Quote
Type: Silhouette image of generic G21 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different

Grumman G-21A Goose

Owner/operator: Antilles Air Boats

Registration: N7777V

C/n / msn: B-111

Fatalities: Fatalities: 4 / Occupants: 11

Other fatalities: 0

Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)

Location: near St Thomas, VI -    U.S. Virgin Islands 

Phase: En route

Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger

Departure airport: St Croix, VI

Destination airport: St Thomas, VI

Narrative:

Crash landed in the sea after engine failure; pilot & owner Capt. Charles Blair (69) killed. I was on duty in the FAA Control Tower working the ground control position . I received a call on frequency 121.9 from Capt. Blair. There most certainly was a recording of this entire scenario to be found on the FAA tape that was made as the incident occured. Blair asked me to contact his company, Antilles Airboats, and ask them to send a boat out to his aircraft to pick up passengers. He said he landed south of Water Island after losing one engine. I looked toward that location with binoculars and observed the seaplane upright on the water. When I contacted the airline in the phone they told me they had been listening on the frequency and that a boat was on the way. When I looked back toward the boat ready to inform Blair of my phone call to his company I observed the aircraft upside down in the water. This happened 34 years ago and is my best recollection of what took place.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=9685
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 03:58:50 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8551 on: January 17, 2018, 04:14:04 PM »
That's a great story. I'm glad I asked. Thanks for sharing it.

You know me, I'm always interested in history, so I looked him up because the seaplane terminal in Charlotte Amalie bears his name. Before that I had no idea who he was, or that he was married to a movie star, or any of that. I read that he crashed but wasn't privy to any of the particulars. Your explanation makes sense. Otherwise why would it have been upside down after being upright in the water?

It sounds like he was one of those guys who started out in aviation when it was still really exciting, back in the 30's. Not afraid to try something difficult.

I learned about "step hydroplanes" back when I was interested in restoring wooden boats. The concept in boats and in seaplanes probably evolved together. The first step hydroplane boats were built around 1910.

I know there have been lots of crashes around the islands. I have seen the wreck in Cinnamon Bay. Not much left of the plane, but you can still identify the familiar Continental piston engine of the Cessna or whatever it was.

My friend the late Captain Jack Holmes lost a 100 foot wooden boat somewhere in USVI waters. It sank in one of the 90's hurricanes, and they  managed to raise it with air bags....but then lost it again before they could get it towed in for repairs. A very sad story.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Social Justice In Corporate Culture is a Contradiction in Terms
« Reply #8552 on: January 17, 2018, 04:31:49 PM »
BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate Culture

January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Laurence D. Fink

Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why? Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more than $6 trillion in assets. That’s the kind of clout that gets a person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of the major business corporations in the world received a letter from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their business.

A Letter, But So Much More

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate,” Fink writes.

What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has Milton Friedman’s bust been removed from the Economists’ Hall of Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite, but close.

BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the company be more open about its exposure to climate change related risks. That initiative would have failed without BlackRock’s support.

What are the implications of Fink’s letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells the New York Times he has seen “nothing like it’’ before. “It will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions investing other people’s money,” he says. “It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.‘‘

The Social License Concept

The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the community may lose what is known as its “social license to operate.” According to Investopedia, “The Social License to Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance of a company or industry’s standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the general public. The concept of social license is closely related with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.

“Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over time as the actions of a company build trust with the community it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or the social license to operate is put in danger.”

In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current administration, saying “many governments [are] failing to prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and infrastructure to automation and worker retraining.” He added, “As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal challenges.” If a company fails to respond, however, “it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”

A Contrary Opinion

Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink’s newfound social conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described Fink and others who think like him as “extraordinarily hypocritical.” Zell heads one of the largest real estate investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the bottom line is the raison d’être of business and makes no apology for his point of view.

“They talk about the fact that they’re in effect going to do exactly what the market does,” says Zell, “and then they put up public policy statements that suggest that they’re going to advocate the market doing things other than what happens every day. Either they’re a passive fund that follows the market or they’re a leader that’s setting the tone. I didn’t know Larry Fink had been made God.”

The Milton Friedman Fallacy

Zell’s remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the New York Times, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” Ebenezer Scrooge couldn’t have put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010, in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free speech because they are a “person” within the purview of the Constitution. That “fact” was presumed by the court to be one of those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts an odd twist on Friedman’s pronouncement. If a corporation is just another “person,” does it not follow that it owes the same duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers, skies, lakes, and oceans?

Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All

And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about untaxed negative externalties we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of doing business so others have to pay them.

For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s business. Why should that be the case? Why should “Always Low Prices” translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the general benefit of Walmart’s owners?

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn’t add up, which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept. Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won’t be known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first step and long overdue.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/

Agelbert COMMENT:
Quote

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some.

Exactly RIGHT!   

Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist. Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new "We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.

It's like this:

Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what the leaders of society  must do if they are serious about acting in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for what those actually DOING over 90%  (about ONE percent of the world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e. environmental damage through government policies subsidizing polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk propaganda born of corporate corruption).

IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation of Agency". 

The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm. 

"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and eventually repair said harm.

Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:


The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers  will try to pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto we-the-people.

We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.

What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future  by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 04:36:59 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice In Corporate Culture is a Contradiction in Terms
« Reply #8553 on: January 17, 2018, 04:46:03 PM »
BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate Culture

January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Laurence D. Fink

Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why? Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more than $6 trillion in assets. That’s the kind of clout that gets a person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of the major business corporations in the world received a letter from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their business.

A Letter, But So Much More

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate,” Fink writes.

What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has Milton Friedman’s bust been removed from the Economists’ Hall of Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite, but close.

BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the company be more open about its exposure to climate change related risks. That initiative would have failed without BlackRock’s support.

What are the implications of Fink’s letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells the New York Times he has seen “nothing like it’’ before. “It will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions investing other people’s money,” he says. “It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.‘‘

The Social License Concept

The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the community may lose what is known as its “social license to operate.” According to Investopedia, “The Social License to Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance of a company or industry’s standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the general public. The concept of social license is closely related with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.

“Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over time as the actions of a company build trust with the community it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or the social license to operate is put in danger.”

In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current administration, saying “many governments [are] failing to prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and infrastructure to automation and worker retraining.” He added, “As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal challenges.” If a company fails to respond, however, “it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”

A Contrary Opinion

Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink’s newfound social conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described Fink and others who think like him as “extraordinarily hypocritical.” Zell heads one of the largest real estate investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the bottom line is the raison d’être of business and makes no apology for his point of view.

“They talk about the fact that they’re in effect going to do exactly what the market does,” says Zell, “and then they put up public policy statements that suggest that they’re going to advocate the market doing things other than what happens every day. Either they’re a passive fund that follows the market or they’re a leader that’s setting the tone. I didn’t know Larry Fink had been made God.”

The Milton Friedman Fallacy

Zell’s remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the New York Times, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” Ebenezer Scrooge couldn’t have put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010, in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free speech because they are a “person” within the purview of the Constitution. That “fact” was presumed by the court to be one of those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts an odd twist on Friedman’s pronouncement. If a corporation is just another “person,” does it not follow that it owes the same duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers, skies, lakes, and oceans?

Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All

And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about untaxed negative externalties we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of doing business so others have to pay them.

For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s business. Why should that be the case? Why should “Always Low Prices” translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the general benefit of Walmart’s owners?

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn’t add up, which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept. Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won’t be known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first step and long overdue.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/

Agelbert COMMENT:
Quote

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some.

Exactly RIGHT!   

Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist. Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new "We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.

It's like this:

Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what the leaders of society  must do if they are serious about acting in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for what those actually DOING over 90%  (about ONE percent of the world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e. environmental damage through government policies subsidizing polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk propaganda born of corporate corruption).

IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation of Agency". 

The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm. 

"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and eventually repair said harm.

Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:


The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers  will try to pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto we-the-people.

We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.

What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future  by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz


I saw the headlines on the Fink story. I figured him for an apologist looking to absolve himself of a little billionaire guilt, so I didn't read it. Still, to me he compares very favorably to the Mercers, Kochs, and Trumps of the world.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Some Aviation History
« Reply #8554 on: January 17, 2018, 05:19:46 PM »
That's a great story. I'm glad I asked. Thanks for sharing it.

You know me, I'm always interested in history, so I looked him up because the seaplane terminal in Charlotte Amalie bears his name. Before that I had no idea who he was, or that he was married to a movie star, or any of that. I read that he crashed but wasn't privy to any of the particulars. Your explanation makes sense. Otherwise why would it have been upside down after being upright in the water?

It sounds like he was one of those guys who started out in aviation when it was still really exciting, back in the 30's. Not afraid to try something difficult.

I learned about "step hydroplanes" back when I was interested in restoring wooden boats. The concept in boats and in seaplanes probably evolved together. The first step hydroplane boats were built around 1910.

I know there have been lots of crashes around the islands. I have seen the wreck in Cinnamon Bay. Not much left of the plane, but you can still identify the familiar Continental piston engine of the Cessna or whatever it was.

My friend the late Captain Jack Holmes lost a 100 foot wooden boat somewhere in USVI waters. It sank in one of the 90's hurricanes, and they  managed to raise it with air bags....but then lost it again before they could get it towed in for repairs. A very sad story.


Bummer. After all that work, it sank again. 

Yes, Blair was an old timer. He looked old in the cockpit. I still remember him. Back in those days a hated to see retired airline pilots who were rolling in the dough flying air taxis because they were taking jobs away from hungry young pilots like me. 

My flight instructor at Sunline Helicoters (that was the name but they had mostly fix wing Piper Cherokee trainer aircraft) was one of those SUPER old timers. Here's some history fer ya. Mr. Trunnel, my flight instructor in 1966, was a crusty old fellow (he had to piss by the wing between one hour training flights becasue he couldn't make it into the building ;D).

I learned to fly in Piper Cherokee 140 trainers like the one above.

I already had a private pilot's license when I started with him. He was my instructor for the commercial pilot phase (from about 40 hours of flying to 160). My license number was 1346857 (unlike social security numbers, pilot licenses just keep adding up). Mr. Trunnel's license number was so ancient it only had FIVE DIGITS! This guy used to make money by charging tourists for a ride flying a Curtiss Junior and/or a Curtiss Jenny on Daytona Beach in the 1920's and 30's.

Curtiss Junior

Curtiss Jenny

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Curtiss-MailJenny/IMAGES/Curtiss-Jenny-Callout.jpg

 I mean, this guy was a barn stormer veteran! He was a good teacher, too. He taught me so well that we were basically done about 20 hours too soon.  :icon_sunny:

So, he started showing me some tricks. He showed me how to crop dust. THAT was exciting. You fly low over a field, of course. But before you do that, you figure out where the wind is and where those telphone poles are st, REAL CAREFULLY.  ;D Then, you line up and go low. I wasn't flying a duster so I didn't need to pull any handles to shoot poison over the crops. We were just flying over low land northeast of Ft. Lauderdale.

Well, when you get to the end of the field, you have to pull up hard and to the right (usually that is where those pesky telephone poles and wires will be located - there are a LOT of crop dusting accidents that nobody hears about because it is just one guy and he usually doesn't get killed, even though the repairs are not cheap). As you are in that steep right climbing turn you suddenly have to bank hard levft, lower the nose and bring her around to face the fleld just next to and parallel to the part you just flew over (in the opposite direction) WITHOUT hardly any overlap because overlap costs money.

Flying that close to the ground and making hard banks this way and that as you ra]idly climb and descend is a BEAR and very tiresome. I'm glad I didn't go into crop dusting. Most of those guys get cancer. I can't imagine why...



Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8555 on: January 17, 2018, 05:26:06 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.


What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
I don't think people who have become billionaires have a clue what guilt is.
« Reply #8556 on: January 17, 2018, 05:33:53 PM »
BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate Culture

January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Laurence D. Fink

Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why? Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more than $6 trillion in assets. That’s the kind of clout that gets a person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of the major business corporations in the world received a letter from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their business.

A Letter, But So Much More

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate,” Fink writes.

What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has Milton Friedman’s bust been removed from the Economists’ Hall of Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite, but close.

BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the company be more open about its exposure to climate change related risks. That initiative would have failed without BlackRock’s support.

What are the implications of Fink’s letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells the New York Times he has seen “nothing like it’’ before. “It will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions investing other people’s money,” he says. “It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.‘‘

The Social License Concept

The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the community may lose what is known as its “social license to operate.” According to Investopedia, “The Social License to Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance of a company or industry’s standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the general public. The concept of social license is closely related with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.

“Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over time as the actions of a company build trust with the community it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or the social license to operate is put in danger.”

In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current administration, saying “many governments [are] failing to prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and infrastructure to automation and worker retraining.” He added, “As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal challenges.” If a company fails to respond, however, “it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”

A Contrary Opinion

Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink’s newfound social conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described Fink and others who think like him as “extraordinarily hypocritical.” Zell heads one of the largest real estate investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the bottom line is the raison d’être of business and makes no apology for his point of view.

“They talk about the fact that they’re in effect going to do exactly what the market does,” says Zell, “and then they put up public policy statements that suggest that they’re going to advocate the market doing things other than what happens every day. Either they’re a passive fund that follows the market or they’re a leader that’s setting the tone. I didn’t know Larry Fink had been made God.”

The Milton Friedman Fallacy

Zell’s remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the New York Times, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” Ebenezer Scrooge couldn’t have put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010, in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free speech because they are a “person” within the purview of the Constitution. That “fact” was presumed by the court to be one of those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts an odd twist on Friedman’s pronouncement. If a corporation is just another “person,” does it not follow that it owes the same duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers, skies, lakes, and oceans?

Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All

And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about untaxed negative externalties we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of doing business so others have to pay them.

For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s business. Why should that be the case? Why should “Always Low Prices” translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the general benefit of Walmart’s owners?

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn’t add up, which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept. Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won’t be known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first step and long overdue.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/

Agelbert COMMENT:
Quote

Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some.

Exactly RIGHT!   

Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist. Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new "We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.

It's like this:

Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what the leaders of society  must do if they are serious about acting in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for what those actually DOING over 90%  (about ONE percent of the world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e. environmental damage through government policies subsidizing polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk propaganda born of corporate corruption).

IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation of Agency". 

The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm. 

"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and eventually repair said harm.

Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:


The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers  will try to pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto we-the-people.

We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.

What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future  by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz


I saw the headlines on the Fink story. I figured him for an apologist looking to absolve himself of a little billionaire guilt, so I didn't read it. Still, to me he compares very favorably to the Mercers, Kochs, and Trumps of the world.


I don't think people who have become billionaires have a clue what guilt is. The bill for all this biosphere damage is coming due. They want to socialize the costs while continuing to privatize the profits, period. Sure, their PR is better than that of the in-your-face fascists like Mercer, Kochs, etc. et al , but IMHO it's just CYA to set we-the-people up for the MASSIVE (REALLY MASSIVE!) socialized costs that Catastrophic Climate Change will, do not pass go, do not collect NOTHING, saddle human civilization with.

I'm am not buying Fink's line UNLESS he puts a LOT of Climate Change Mitigating Money where his mouth is. I have seen ZERO evidence of that. Money talks, and bullshit walks. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33710
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8557 on: January 17, 2018, 05:40:07 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.



You could still fly an ultra-light.


RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: The King is a Fink
« Reply #8558 on: January 17, 2018, 05:45:28 PM »
Yeah, I guess so. I doubt he plans to give his fortune for climate change mitigation. Or that he thinks through the process of how guys like him have so much more impact on the environment than most people, because their money supports a global extractive colonial economy. He's just some amateur social theorist with the bully pulpit that comes from being the richest guy in the room most places he goes.


What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8559 on: January 17, 2018, 05:51:36 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.



You could still fly an ultra-light.


RE

They have a little airstrip out in the community where the lakehouse is. Somebody has those motorized parachutes they rent. Looks pretty cool...but my partner would freak out.....and I do still have an obligation to stay alive for her, as long as I can work anyway.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33710
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8560 on: January 17, 2018, 05:59:49 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.



You could still fly an ultra-light.


RE

They have a little airstrip out in the community where the lakehouse is. Somebody has those motorized parachutes they rent. Looks pretty cool...but my partner would freak out.....and I do still have an obligation to stay alive for her, as long as I can work anyway.



The parachutes are a little dicey, but the ultralights are quite stable long as you only fly them in light wind 10mph or less.  It would be no different than oe of the old fabric biplanes.  You can buy plans and kits for around $3K.  Fully built ultralights available for under $10K.  Chump Change.

You could also try an auto-gyro copter.  Those need even less takeoff/landing space than the ultralights.  It's not vertical though, you do need some runway to get up to speed.


RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
As to the romance of flight, I'll give you the benefit of my experience.
« Reply #8561 on: January 17, 2018, 06:07:52 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.




My Piper Colt had cloth/canvas over a metal tubular frame. As to the romance of flight, I'll give you the benefit of my experience. I have a little more than 2,000 hours of flying. An early morning flight, before the cumulus cells build up. with the sun behind you as you approach an airport in absolutely calm flying conditions is mezmerizing and can bring tears to your eyes because of the beauty of the landscape beneath you majestically going by.

Night flying has it's beauty with all the various light patterns. Also thunderstorm lightning from he air is a treat the ground pounders never get to feast their eyes on.

What takes all the fun out of flying is radio communications with air traffic control. Also, when you fly high performance aircraft, you are basically a machine operator. The faster the aircraft, the less feel you have for the air around you and the more you need to rely on what the instruments tell you.

That is why I love ultralights. They are IT as far as freedom in flight is concerned. You fly at around 40 - 60 mph. You do need head gear, ear plugs and eye protection so your eyes don't dry out but you are REALLY ONE with the sky when you fly an ultralight.  :icon_sunny:

You are like a bird. You feel every puff, every wind change, every gust and every thermal coming up from the ground. The visbility is TOTAL. You don't have a windshield in the way of your sight. Ultralights are better than the early aircraft because they are lighter and safer, while being actually slower too! The BRS system (looks like a mortar shell housing) attached to the ultralight fires a parachute if you trigger it with a cord pull that brings you and the aircraft down gently. You cannot really crash unless you lose consciousness for some reason like a heart attack.

THIS is REAL FREEDOM FLYING!


« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 06:16:06 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15798
    • View Profile
Re: As to the romance of flight, I'll give you the benefit of my experience.
« Reply #8562 on: January 17, 2018, 06:21:49 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.




My Piper Colt had cloth/canvas over a metal tubular frame. As to the romance of flight, I'll give you the benefit of my experience. I have a little more than 2,000 hours of flying. An early morning flight, before the cumulus cells build up. with the sun behind you as you approach an airport in absolutely calm flying conditions is mezmerizing and can bring tears to your eyes because of the beauty of the landscape beneath you majestically going by.

Night flying has it's beauty with all the various light patterns. Also thunderstorm lightning from he air is a treat the ground pounders never get to feast their eyes on.

What takes all the fun out of flying is radio communications with air traffic control. Also, when you fly high performance aircraft, you are basically a machine operator. The faster the aircraft, the less feel you have for the air around you and the more you need to rely on what the instruments tell you.

That is why I love ultralights. They are IT as far as freedom in flight is concerned. You fly at around 40 - 60 mph. You do need head gear, ear plugs and eye protection so your eyes don't dry out but you are REALLY ONE with the sky when you fly an ultralight.  :icon_sunny:

You are like a bird. You feel every puff, every wind change, every gust and every thermal coming up from the ground. The visbility is TOTAL. You don't have a windshield in the way of your sight. Ultralights are better than the early aircraft because they are lighter and safer, while being actually slower too! The BRS system (looks like a mortar shell housing) attached to the ultralight fires a parachute if you trigger it with a cord pull that brings you and the aircraft down gently. You cannot really crash unless you lose consciousness for some reason like a heart attack.

THIS is REAL FREEDOM FLYING!


Sounds very cool. Very cool indeed.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Pretty sight from the air
« Reply #8563 on: January 17, 2018, 06:36:52 PM »
I always wanted to fly (or even ride) in a Pietenpol Camper or even a fabric biplane. I guess it's that romantic idea you can just fly and land and take off just about anywhere, like they did in the barnstorming days. They used to have this thing....FREEDOM!  LOL.




My Piper Colt had cloth/canvas over a metal tubular frame. As to the romance of flight, I'll give you the benefit of my experience. I have a little more than 2,000 hours of flying. An early morning flight, before the cumulus cells build up. with the sun behind you as you approach an airport in absolutely calm flying conditions is mezmerizing and can bring tears to your eyes because of the beauty of the landscape beneath you majestically going by.

Night flying has it's beauty with all the various light patterns. Also thunderstorm lightning from he air is a treat the ground pounders never get to feast their eyes on.

What takes all the fun out of flying is radio communications with air traffic control. Also, when you fly high performance aircraft, you are basically a machine operator. The faster the aircraft, the less feel you have for the air around you and the more you need to rely on what the instruments tell you.

That is why I love ultralights. They are IT as far as freedom in flight is concerned. You fly at around 40 - 60 mph. You do need head gear, ear plugs and eye protection so your eyes don't dry out but you are REALLY ONE with the sky when you fly an ultralight.  :icon_sunny:

You are like a bird. You feel every puff, every wind change, every gust and every thermal coming up from the ground. The visbility is TOTAL. You don't have a windshield in the way of your sight. Ultralights are better than the early aircraft because they are lighter and safer, while being actually slower too! The BRS system (looks like a mortar shell housing) attached to the ultralight fires a parachute if you trigger it with a cord pull that brings you and the aircraft down gently. You cannot really crash unless you lose consciousness for some reason like a heart attack.

THIS is REAL FREEDOM FLYING!


Sounds very cool. Very cool indeed.

  I took the following photo in 1992. We were flying northeastbound along the coast of Puerto Rico at Yabucoa. Now THAT is what I call beautiful scenery with total visibility!

That's my student's shoe, not mine.  8)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 06:39:40 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14099
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8564 on: January 18, 2018, 12:57:45 AM »

You could also try an auto-gyro copter.  Those need even less takeoff/landing space than the ultralights.  It's not vertical though, you do need some runway to get up to speed.


RE

Plus, perfect for mixers in the coming apocalypse.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1434 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
425 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
402 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo