Aviation tweets links to Amusing aviation pics #humour #aviation

Comments added by SG WALTHER 2014

 

 

Did someone say Taxi? Never one when you really need it. Gotta be quicker than this.....

 

Siegfried Walther ‏+SG_Walther 1m

+AviationHumor http://aviationhumor.net/the-birth-of-a-flight-attendant/ … If she only turned around that "Don't forget the coffee," Joke might come to mind. +FsxSimulator

 

aviationhumor.net/what-happens-when-two-real-life-pilots-play-microsoft-flight-sim/ …  +AviationHumor Getting a bit carrier'ed away

 

 

Ah, so you all wanted definitive irrefutable, hard evidence that the moon landings actually happened. Well, you've got your wish...and HERE IT IS>>>>>

 

Siegfried Walther ‏+@SG_Walther 8m

+AviationHumor http://aviationhumor.net/did-apollo-11-land-on-the-moon/ … And the proof is.... One small piece of red tape, completed by one man....

 

siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/08/king-julien-iii-of-montuga-refuses-to.html … King Julien III of Montuga refuses to hand 12 year old boy to French Envoy. +iBooks +Smashwords +ebook

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/467833

#humour

#aviation

+Aviation Humor 

King Julien III of Montuga refuses to hand over 12 year old boy to French Envoy

‘The boy is not going anywhere. He is not on your list,' the king announced.

‘He is a citizen of France, the son of someone whose name indeed appears on the list. I must insist that he sails with us,' Envoy Du Pont declared emphatically.

‘I do not intend to deliver him to you. As I mentioned yesterday, I had no choice about handing over the others. The kingdom of Montuga cannot be seen to be harbouring enemies of France. But the boy is only twelve. He presents no danger to France. I will not countenance his execution.’

‘I give your majesty my assurance that he will not be executed. But the fact remains that his place is in France.’

‘I beg to differ. He is the son of a noble. There is no future for him in France. I will see to it that he has a good life here in Montuga. A life he is accustomed to.’

‘You suggest that it is not possible to have a good life in an egalitarian society?’ Du Pont was clearly annoyed.

‘I make no comment on an egalitarian society,’ the king responded diplomatically. He smiled benignly at Du Pont. But, before he could stop himself, however, the king added: ‘Although one cannot help but wonder what the nobles in France would say about your ‘egalitarian society’ if their power of speech were not so restricted by the absence of their heads.’ Several discrete sniggers emanated from those in attendance at Court.

Du Pont glared menacingly at the king. Such was the rush of blood to his face that his hue almost turned a royal shade of purple.  

 

 

Available at iBooks, Smashwords.com, Barnes & Noble, Scribd, Sony, iTunes and other eBook stores worldwide. Special offer of free download persists for a short while longer before it returns to regular price of $3.99

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/321818  and see:

Also: See Air Crash SA 252, a high altitude aviation & court room drama also by Siegfried Walther

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/388676  at $3.99. Also at all the above fine eBook stores around the world.


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/10/djsgwalther-music-charts-31-october.html @DJ SgWalther's Current Top 125 songs! 31 October 2014
+iBooks Author

+iTunes

+iBooks Store
#iBooks

#iTunes
#eNovels
+eBOOKS APP

+Smashwords

The Malema Dilemma. Two Urgent constitutional changes required.

The growing arrogance of the present South African Government has much in common with that of the racist government which preceded it.

The increasing contempt shown for the office of the public protector, the rule of law, for parliament and for the need to answer to the people is a matter of concern.

The President, and the ruling party appear to think that they are our Masters. In a democracy, the people are the Masters and those who they elect are in fact their servants. (Refer to my previous Blue Lights for servants article)

It's only at election time that many of the ruling party members queue for last-minute drama classes to assist them to project expressions of humility and concern whilst interacting with voters.

Like the National Party of old, the present government has a loyal support base which, despite its slow decline, repeatedly returns them to power.

The ruling party would do well to remember, however, that numerical superiority is not a substitute for achievement. Nor does it provide any guarantee of good governance. 

In the old South African parliament, the National party members at one stage held all but one of the seats. They shouted down the sole member of the opposition, Helen Suzman, whenever she spoke. We all know, however, that their numerical superiority did not mean they were right. In fact, history shows they were all wrong and only one person, Helen Suzman, a tireless anti-apartheid campaigner was indeed widely and internationally regarded as in fact being right.

We should guard against the tyranny of the majority in South Africa and the place to start is in Parliament.

Parliament is a place where the President and his cabinet are answerable to the people. The President, however, failed to answer the direct questions put to him by EFF leader Julius Malema. As the ruling party resorted to shielding the president by resorting to points of order, it was incumbent upon the Speaker to remind everyone that Julius Malema, and indeed, the voting public in general, were entitled to a proper answer.

The president has also failed to respond properly to questions put to him by the public protector. This undermines the dignity of Parliament and the entire democratic process.

Despite that the Speaker is required to remain neutral at all times, her behaviour was decidedly partisan. This detracted from her position and from her duty to ensure that Parliament is accountable to the people.

The reaction by the EFF was understandable, although regrettable, and so was the hullabaloo which followed.

Julius Malema's conduct in Parliament, and the legal difficulties which threaten to exclude him from Parliament, present our democracy with two rather novel constitutional challenges.

I would suggest two constitutional amendments ought to be considered as a matter of urgency to better provide for proper debate, greater parliamentary accountability and to protect the institution of parliament itself.

Firstly there is a need to eliminate any bias in favour of the ruling party by the Speaker. The Speaker should, instead of being an MP, elected by the majority of MP's, be a Judge of the High Court who should occupy the position for no more than a week at a time on a rotational basis.
Not only will a Judge, by virtue of his or her office and training, be far more impartial, a Judge will also be able to make impartial rulings about Parliamentary procedure and about whether or not a question has indeed been answered, and this would certainly go a long way to make Parliament more accountable.

In addition, a Judge sitting as Speaker could be empowered to warn Parliament when, in his view, a proposed Bill contains an unconstitutional provision, although he ought not have any power to make a ruling to that effect.

The Judge sitting as Speaker could also make non-binding suggestions as to how Parliament might improve the wording of a Bill so as to give effect to its intention and to avoid ambiguity. This could save the citizens thousands of rands in legal costs in later Court cases to deal with ambiguous legislation or legislation which is worded in manner which has unintended consequences.

Of course, Parliament would be free to ignore the Judge's advice or guidance as to the wording or constitutionally of proposed Bills. One cannot have a Judge exercising any Judicial powers in a Legislative House. Save for the said practical and sensible power to advise or guide on legislation, I propose that the Judge would be limited to the exercise of the powers and functions presently exercised by  Speaker.

Secondly, there are many who await the possible final sequestration of Julius Malema with glee, because the Constitution provides that a person who is sequestrated cannot be a Member of Parliament. I do not share in this view.

Whether one agrees with his views or not, and surprisingly, I agree with some of them, Julius Malema and the EFF are in Parliament because around a million South African voters put him there. They have decided that he is to be their voice in Parliament.

I submit that prospect of Julius Malema's not being able to continue to represent the constituency who voted for him in Parliament because his estate has been declared insolvent, to be untenable. There is no good reason why the people cannot be represented by an insolvent person.

It is not always the case that a person declared insolvent is necessarily at fault. These days, many decent business folk find themselves forced to stand surety for their companies by greedy banks, and then, when their businesses go under due perhaps to the major creditors of the company being unable to pay or being liquidated, this leads in turn to the liquidation of that company and often too to the sequestration of its shareholders.

I realise of course, that in the case of Julius Malema, his problems are due to unpaid taxes.

If that is the evil the Constitution intended to deal with, perhaps on the grounds that those who have the power to vote to raise taxes should also be seen to be paying their taxes, then instead of the prohibition on insolvents being MP's, the prohibition could instead provide that no person who has a judgment against him by SARS over a fixed amount, which should not be negligible, will be permitted to vote, to speak or to take up his seat in parliament, until such judgement is satisfied or until a certificate from SARS declaring that the MP has concluded a suitable agreed settlement arrangement with it.

The only other purpose the present prohibition on insolvent MP's in Parliament could serve is to prevent the possibility of an insolvent becoming a Cabinet Minister or from holding some other responsible position involving control of or responsibility for public funds where perhaps, their ability to manage their own funds MAY be subject to question.

If the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent insolvents from having such responsibility in regard to public funds, then the prohibition should not be on insolvents being MP's, but instead it could be appropriately narrowed down to prevent insolvents from serving in as Cabinet Ministers or, as a member of any committee involving Finance.

If Julius Malema's voice in Parliament is silenced by a Constitutional prohibition which is far wider than is necessary, and possibly even outdated, it would serve only to bring Parliament and our Constitution into disrepute amongst the general voting pubic. This would be damaging to the credibility of the Constitution and our democratic process.

The People have spoken. Many of them chose Julius Malema in a democratic election. I consider it our duty as a nation to ensure that nothing prevents him from continuing to represent his followers in Parliament.  +Julius Malema  +Economic Freedom Fighters 

See also: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/08/well-done-to-man-in-red-helmet-and.html Hats of the man in the red overall


And:

Status Update

By Pierre De Vos

"Let's focus on substance and avoid the empty noise on Nkandla. Substance is: President breached Ethics Code and must pay back; others who cheated must pay back and/or be prosecuted. National Assembly must ensure this happens. If they don't they fail in their constitutional duty. Rest is just empty noise created to avoid talking about the heart of the matter."

 

I fully support the views of the learned professor. But I only have  an LLB & ova 20 years of practice tho, not nearly enough 2 permit me to differ with ANC.

 
Seriously though the Public Protector has acted bravely, correctly. She is a credit to her position, to Parliament and to South Africa. We should be proud of her. She deserves our unqualified support in the face of the governments attempts to undermine her, her position and her status.

#ANC
#EFF
#JuliusMalema
#PublicProtectorSA

Julian Assange entitled to avoid extraditon to Sweden #Extradition #Wikileaks

Julian Assange to end 2 year embassy sit in?
Sky News are reporting that WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange, who sought diplomatic refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London two years ago, is considering leaving the embassy and submitting to arrest by the British Authorities.

Apparently wanted in the US
Julian Assange is apparently wanted in the United States on possible espionage or treason charges in regard to his role in the release and online publication by Wikileaks of secret US documents.

But this is not the reason for Julian having fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Swedish Rape Charge
Julian Assange is a wanted man in Sweden. They sought his extradition from the UK to Sweden to face a rape charge.

If I recall the facts correctly, Julian claims that there is no substance to these Swedish charges. He has also said that he would have no problem facing and refuting these charges, but for the fact that he fears that one he does so, the Swedish authorities will simply accede to a US extradition request.

Circumstances relating to Swedish charges allegedly suspicious.

Julian's version is that the charges in question were not only without much merit, but apparently, the Swedish authorities had either withdrawn or agreed to withdraw these charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

US behind the Swedish charges

I recall seeing a documentary dealing with these charges and there certainly appeared to be some substance to Julian's claims that the reinstatement of these charges by the Swedish authorities is nothing more than a mechanism to have him extradited to Sweden in order to facilitate his extradition to the US. This is reportedly planned for when the Swedish charges are either dropped or Assange is found not guilty.

US authorities can't obtain Assange's extradition to the US
As I understood it Julian argues that all this is necessary because the extradition treaty between the US and the UK apparently does not cover or apply to the proposed charges the US seeks to bring against Assange. It seems the Swedish-US extradition treaty is wider and does cover the charges the US intends to bring.

Solution
There is a simple solution to this problem. The Swedish and UK authorities should simply agree that the extradition of Assange to the Sweden must be subject to the condition that if and when he is aquitted  or the charges are withdrawn, Sweden will return Assange to the UK. 

Conditional extradition is a common occurrence as I indicated in an earlier blog. See link below.:


Alternatively, Assange's lawyers could ask the UK Court to order that the extradition will be subject to the Swedish authorities agreeing to such a condition.

Can't imagine why this was not done 2 years ago?

UPDATE: 1100 CAT. At a news conference held a few minutes ago, Julian Assange confirmed that his lawyer had proposed all nature of solutions to the UK & Swedish authorities, no doubt including the one I referred to above, apparently all such overtures on his part and those of his lawyers were rejected.

Julian quite right to avoid extradition
It seems to me that if Assange enjoys a benefit of not being liable to extradition to the US from the UK, then he is quite right to avoid the Swedish authorities until they guarantee that they won't extradite him to the US if the Swedish charges are withdrawn or if he is acquitted.

His extradition could also be made subject to such condition by the UK. However this is solved, extradition orders ought not to be granted in situations where an Accused's legal position would be made worse.

If, as +SKY News reporters suggest, he simply submits to Swedish Justice in the absence of the suggested guarantees, his position is likely to be made worse.



http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/extraditon-to-south-africa-human-rights.html

See also AF447: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/05/air-france-447-bea-whitewash-af447.html

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/467833  Oscar Trial Judge Knott's verdict

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/06/boxers-lucky-glove-stolen-ahead-of.html - Russian Boxer loses lucky glove

+Julian Assange
+Wikileaks
#Extradition

Treaty of Montuga 1592 #Treaty #France #PrincipalityofFrance

“By this Edict & Treaty of Montuga, his most benevolent Majesty, the King of France henceforth grants to the kingdom of Montuga, heretofore conquered by France, his royal  sanction of Montuga’s existence as a kingdom on French soil and a principality of France, subject to the stipulations hereunder:

I – If the Montugan throne suffers a vacancy for want of a direct male heir, Montuga shall revert to the status of a province of the kingdom of France and the Garibaldi lineage shall forfeit all claims to royal title;

 II – Save for the palace guards, who may not exceed five hundred in number, no military is permitted to Montuga;

 III – Neither party hereto shall afford passage or sanctuary to proclaimed enemies of the other;

 IV – Montuga shall fashion no alliance with anyone engaged in hostilities with the kingdom of France;

 V – No alienation of Montugan territory to a beneficiary other than the French Monarch is countenanced;

 
VI – The kingdom of France guarantees the sovereignty of Montuga for the duration of and subject to due compliance with these presents.”

The above is an excerpt from the Treaty of Montuga, in terms of which France permitted the existence of the kingdom of Montuga.

But 200 years have passed and the French Monarchy is facing uprisings by republicans and revolutionaries.  In towns where Republicans have gained control, French nobles have been publicly executed. 

Many French nobles flee France and decide to seek sanctuary in Montuga. This places King Julien III of Montuga in an invidious position. He is uncertain whether the French Monarchy or the Republicans will ultimately prevail in France. If Montuga grants sanctuary to French aristocrats, and if the republicans were to prevail in France, this will eliminate what little hope he has that a new Republican government in France will honour the Treaty of Montuga.

On the other hand, if he turns the French nobles away and the Bourbon Monarchy survives, the French Aristocracy will pressurise the King of France to regard this refusal as an indication that Montuga has chosen to side with the Republicans. Surely this will be touted as a breach of the terms or at least the spirit of the Treaty of Montuga.

What is he to do?

The Marquis D'Artois, a French noble and his son are fleeing execution by French republicans. What are they to do when they learn that the border post between France and Montuga has been closed?

What is Lord Jason Cavendish, a British maritime trader operating from Montuga's capital, Monte Vista, to do when he realises that France might invade Montuga at any moment? Should he find another port for his fleet of trading ships?

And what of the Monte Vista Trade Centre, a company in which he and the Montugan royal family have shares? Should he side-line the Garibalidis and attempt to motivate the other traders to relocate the Trade Centre to another European port, in Italy perhaps? If so, this risky plan will have to be executed without any prior knowledge of it coming to the attention of the Montugan royal family.


+France
+Treaty
+Royal Family
+Principality
+IN GUARDS WE TRUST. The thrilling eBook by Siegfried Walther. Now available throughout the world at most major eBook stores, iBooks, Smashwords, Kobo, Scribd, and many more.  PROMOTIONAL PRICE OF $0.00 to end in days and usual price will then apply.

+Historical Fantasy
+Royal Family
+Monaco

#MH370 Update10 August 2014 Houston, still think u gotta problem

First: Introduction:  Second: Summary of My blog on 24 April re lack of debris Third: LATEST re MH370 search:  News.com. Au  9 August 2010 - A few paragraphs down. In previous blogs I have mentioned that I hold Angus Houston who is the Australian Air Chief Marshall in high regard. He seems a cautious sensible man who has never shied away from the enormity of the challenge faced by those  searching for #MH 370 and who has always made an effort to be sure of his facts, and most of all, who has tried not to raise the expectations  of those waiting for news of loved ones.  On 24 April 2014 I wrote the following regarding the absence of any debris. (  See:  http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/06/mh-370-new-atsb-theory-does-not-exclude.html   This contains most of my #MH370 posts .)


" However, the absence of any debris from the aircraft is becoming a serious concern, particularly since seven weeks have elapsed since it vanished.

Experts in Ocean currents have suggested that debris from the search areas linked to the Southern Corridor is likely to travel westwards, and could end up either on the Western Australian Coast  or the Western Tasmanian Coast. This ought to have occurred by now. Yesterday at 11 am UK time, it was reported that debris which may be linked to the missing MH370 airliner may have washed up on a beach to the south of Perth, Australia. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau have reported that this debris is NOT part of flight MH370. I assume that regular searches of the entire Western Australian Coast, much of which is apparently remote, are being conducted in addition to the searches at sea. If not such searches should be initiated at once.

If debris which is identified as coming from the aircraft does not turn up on the said coasts reasonably soon, it will raise serious questions as to whether the missing airliner's black boxes were indeed the source of the pings which were detected. The chances that the aircraft remained intact after it crashed, or even a pilot controlled water landing at sea are highly remote.

It is so that the aircraft remained intact during the recent miracle landing on the Hudson river in New York. Firstly, the river was relatively flat, and the pilot involved demonstrated superb airmanship. One cannot, however, compare a river to that part of the Indian Ocean, which usually has high swells. If a wing or an engine of the aircraft, were to strike the a wave or the water, slightly before the other engine or wing, the forward momentum of the remainder of the aircraft would force the plane to cartwheel around the point of that strike and a partial or total breakup of the aircraft would be inevitable. I refer people to the Ethiopian Airlines crash off the Seychelles, which was filmed and is available in the Internet.

If we accept the "suicidal pilot" theory, and further accept that he was alive and in control until the end, then its likely he tried to replicate the Miracle landing on the Hudson. After all, if his plan was to make the aircraft disappear in a deep part of the ocean where it would be difficult to find, it would make sense to make the plane's recovery even more difficult by attempting to land it intact so it could sink intact. However, as stated above, it is unlikely that such an intact landing and sinking at sea would be successful.

It can thus be assumed that the aircraft is likely to have broken up and that significant floatable debris, from seat cushions to items of luggage would have been strewn across the point of impact. Further items would have floated to the surface later.  


Given the costs involved of an expanded underwater search, it is now imperative that debris from the plane is found. Although I still favour the generally accepted theory that the Southern Corridor is the likely route the aircraft followed, and I also accept that the pings are most likely to have originated from the aircraft, the absence of any debris after all this time is causing me, and others, to wonder whether the Northern Corridor, or perhaps other flight paths were perhaps prematurely excluded. The longer the period without any debris becomes, the more the view that everyone in the search may have to go back to the drawing board will continue to gain ground. "

  Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston Source: News

Corp Australia

 

News.com. Au  9 August 2010

THE SEARCH
Despite massive international search efforts there has been no sign of MH370, since it went missing. This week, the Australian government signed a $52 million contract with Dutch company Fugro Survey, who will scour 60,000 sq km of the ocean floor — an area about the size of Tasmania — for the plane.


MORE: Will Fugro be able to solve one of the world’s greatest mysteries?
The search will focus in the southern Indian Ocean, off the coast of Western Australia, where Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said he is “cautiously optimistic” it lies.
The company will use two ships towing submarines equipped with sonar and video to scan the depths in a search made even more complicated by underwater volcanoes and ocean trenches up to 4.8km deep.


COMMENT 10 August 2014: HOUSTON, still think you gotta problem.....

My opinion on 24 April 2014 (over 3 months ago) is that proceeding with the search in the Indian Ocean remains a waste of time until some item, preferably items of debris turn up.  I predicted then that proceeding to search without debris to serve as a pointer at least towards the "the haystack", the search is likely to be a waste of money and time. In fact, I said that that the longer it is that no items of debris surfaces, the more questionable the location of the aircraft in the estimated search area becomes. I won't repeat the reasons.

I remain of this view. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong and I wish the search parties everything of the best.  I would wait for debris despite the  obvious pressure to solve the mystery of the aircraft's final location..
SG WALTHER 10 August 2014

+Angus Houston

#MH370

+MH370 Update

+ MH 370

+Malaysian 370

#MH370News

SEE ALSO my blog On AIR FRANCE 447: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/05/air-france-447-bea-whitewash-af447.html    SHOCKING WHITEWASH BY AUTHORITIES!


AND http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/08/aircrash-ntsb-of-us-and-nab-of-south.html
 

#Aircrash #NTSB of US and NAB of #South Africa at odds over cause of #crash

Several months after the horrific crash, and as yet unexplained crash of SA252 into a Cape Town Suburb, South African authorities learn that a stricken British Boeing 747-400 has no crew or functioning autopilot and its heading to  Cape Town International under control of someone whose flight experience is limited to a computer Flight Simulation Programme.

The South African NAB (National Aviation Board) and the NTSB come to different conclusions as the cause of Flight SA 252. Bella Omondi, whose husband was a killed after the Boeing 777 airliner crashed into Gugulethu township, realises that she needs to discover the truth about what really happened if she is to have any chance of  a loss of support claim against Air South Africa.

A high altitude aviation thriller, with plenty of action in the air and in Court.

Air Crash SA 252 by Siegfried Walther
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/388676?ref=swalther     Also in iBook stores, Kobo, Scribd and many other fine eBook stores, worldwide. Available in all formats for all eBook readers especially iPad and Kindle

#Aviationfiction   #Aviation thriller #Aviationbooks  Read more (15 lines)Show less