unicorn

I definitely understand the banning to prevent citizens putting themselves in dangerous situations. They also ban their citizens from travel to Syria or Sudan. One has to consider how governments should respond to their citizens knowingly putting themselves in danger by traveling to places known to kidnap or wrongfully detain citizens in order to try to shake out money and/or other concessions. I shake my head sometimes as I watch videos from Drew Goldberg/Binsky, who put himself in danger multiple times going to hostile countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria in his (ultimately successful) goal of traveling to every country on the planet. (I will confess that I find the videos entertaining, albeit cringe-worthy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Binsky#:~:text=Drew Goldberg (born May 24,and other social media accounts. My idea on how to deal with hostile countries would be not so much a total ban, but rather to require anyone who wishes to travel to hostile countries to sign and submit a government form which states something on the lines of "The country to which I intend to travel is known to wrongfully detain our citizens with the goal of gaining money and/or political concessions. I understand that my government strongly recommends against traveling to this country. I further understand that if I'm wrongfully detained in this country, that my government will not negotiate or assist me in any way in an attempt to secure my release, and will prosecute anyone who tries to do so."

Yikes! I wouldn't want to live in such a soggy country as the UK, either. You Northern Irish are the luckiest UK residents, as you're free to live and work in any EU country with much nicer climates!

As much as I sympathize with the sentiment, as a former government employee and union member, I must note that government employees must be careful both of what they do during work hours, and of taking work actions while under contract/MOU. We did organize and protest the murder of George Floyd, but we did the protest during our non-work hours. Protesting during their non-work hours (such as during the week-end) should not be problematic. Our union leaders made it very clear that even such a minor action such as delaying submission of billing sheets could lead to suspension or termination. There are ways to make our voices heard without breaking the law.

In terms of Spanish locations, I have some great memories (way in the past) or Ibiza, Sitges, and Torremolinos. Nothing tops Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, though, for my tastes.

Well, I guess these lists are subjective, but WTF? Skip Venice or Iguazu Falls--go to Hurghada instead! Ridiculous.

It would be nice to receive an update from @Menaughty to see how he's doing...

I think it would be more accurate to say "it is shocking and hard to process for some inhabitants of less developed countries that they are not as wanted in rich countries as they think they should be." I think Brazil will figure that out with their travel statistics if they go through with their plans. I don't exactly remember the rationale at the time, but there was a year in the early 90s, I believe, in which France (but no other European country) required visas for US citizens. Tourism from the US plummeted by over 50%. I don't think the US has ever required the French to have visas in advance for tourist travel.

I don't let visa requirements deter me much if I really want to go somewhere, but they do for a lot of people, and in general I'll look at other countries first for anything more complicated than an eVisa or visa on arrival. Requiring visas in advance for tourists from wealthier countries is simply shooting oneself in the foot. There is no rational reason to do so. The only country I can think of for which I'd be willing to go to the trouble of getting a visa in advance at this time is China, since it's a really large and unique country. Once we need a visa to Brazil, that might be the only other exception if they go through with their plans. Countries in gray require a visa in advance from US citizens:

I'd think Mr Phumiphiphat should know better than to waste his time. US visa policy is dictated neither by negotiation nor by a "monkey-see, monkey-do" policy (in which the terms are reciprocal). Decisions on which citizens are entitled to visa waivers are based on the statistics for the previous year from that country, namely what percentage of those granted tourist visas overstay their visa, and/or otherwise violate the terms of the visa, and on the visa refusal rate from citizens of that country. The US cannot safely handle the number of illegal immigrants into the country, and must base its visa policy on the likelihood that the citizens of that country will overstay. This seems to be the only intelligent visa policy. There are, of course, poorer countries who require visas of citizens of any country that requires visas of their own country. This is highly unwise, as it simply reduces the tourist dollars to that country without a commensurate decrease in risk in illegal immigration. https://skift.com/2023/04/17/brazils-retaliatoryvisa-rules-would-hurt-its-international-tourism-recovery/

Not a bad idea, but difficult to implement in practice. Airlines don't often label the aircraft as such on their websites. Plus, aircraft changes can happen between when you buy the ticket and when you fly. Will you deplane if, upon entering the aircraft, you find out it's a MAX?

Well, that link is misleading, since it refers to problems with the rudder control system: "The Federal Aviation Administration says it is closely monitoring inspections of Boeing 737 MAX jets after the plane-maker requested that airlines check for loose bolts in the rudder control system...". Plenty of loose screws to go around, though. "The problem here is relatively insignificant, but it does speak to continued serious problems with the production ramp, both at Boeing and with its suppliers."

The latest news is that there were some screws loose. Perhaps someone sleeping on the assembly line?

Glad to know that the iPhone (presumably Siri) was tactful! 😄

Or 70s/80s singers who never came out...

Speaking of 60s singers who never came out...

That song is liable to get @EmmetK to cum in his pants! 😄

The loquacious title goes to another one of our regular posters. And certainly not pompous, maybe pumpus--and right! 😄

While that statement is true, the issue here is not one of an intentional act, but one of gross negligence, due to not following standard, universal procedures. Another surgical example is the leaving in of instruments or equipment in the patient during a surgery. There are strict procedures to prevent this, and it's not simply a matter of looking carefully. Before closing a patient, the scrub RN must count out all pieces of equipment, including sponges, gauze, needles, and so on. The number must be the same as those the procedure started with. The RN must declare "The count is correct," before the surgeon can close. If it's not, the surgeon must look again, and if the item cannot be found, take an X-ray while the patient is still on the table to either find the lost object or ascertain that the lost object is not in the patient (even gauze pads have strips of metal in them which will show up on X-ray, for just this reason). If an instrument or needle, etc., is left in the patient, no extenuating circumstances can be claimed to avoid guilt. The circulating RN has recorded the procedure. Either the scrub RN miscounted (in which case there's liability on both sides, but especially the RN), or the surgeon ignored the miscount. Similarly, there are strict rules that a plane does not enter a runway without clearance from the air traffic controller. In these circumstances, the fact that an accident occurred demonstrates that either the air traffic controller or the pilot didn't follow the rules. The transcript of the conversation and the flight data recorder will determine who didn't follow procedure.

You don't understand what seems pretty obvious to most people. Yes, of course the investigation needs to be completed. And, yes, the pilot is entitled to due process before any criminal conviction. However, if the control tower recordings are accurate, this pilot's career is over (at best). I can guarantee that if a surgeon amputates the wrong limb, he will never be allowed to operate again. The error is so egregious that it's career-ending. If the reported communication transcripts are verified as accurate, I'd be astonished if this pilot's error wasn't career-ending as well. And res ipsa loquitor is a recognized legal term, which a judge can inform a jury about when it applies.

Yikes! 😬 I wonder what percentage of their fleet are 737Max's. I'm scheduled for some Alaska Air flights in June. Update. Google's great. "Boeing Max 9 Makes Up 29% of Alaska Air Passenger Fleet...". Double yikes. That's a whopping percentage. I hope our flights don't get cancelled. I don't know how they can find so many planes in such a short amount of time. 😩 The flights are listed as Alaska Airlines 1041 Boeing 737-900 (Winglets) I wonder if those are the 900 Max's.

Well, the analogous situation might be a surgeon who amputates the wrong leg, instead of the one with the cancer. There are hard-and-fast procedures that are standard policy at all hospitals. Before surgery begins, there is a "time-out" in which the surgeon, operating room RN's, and anesthesiologist review and sign off on which side is being operated on, and so on. Failure to follow those protocols is considered a gross violation and will result in those involved being barred from the operating room. While they could fight the charges, most do not, since operating on the wrong body part is pretty much black-and-white evidence of gross negligence. Claiming "I thought I knew," "the other leg looked bad, too," or "the stop lights weren't working" will not cut it. Now there are other cases in which there are more shades of gray. I remember being in a panel judging a surgeon (fairly new to our staff) who'd had two serious surgical complications for a similar procedure. There were no violations of protocol, but other surgeons questioned the adequacy of his surgical skills. He fought the charges, and there were witnesses on both sides due to extenuating circumstances (the cases were difficult), but eventually the surgeon had his privileges revoked. Assuming those transcripts are accurate, this pilot's situation is more akin to the wrong-side surgery than to that of the new surgeon with the complications. Again, assuming those transcripts are accurate, being on an active runway without clearance is simply an inexcusable no-no. In legal jargon, it's called res ipsa loquitor: the act speaks for itself. One "can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context..." (Wikipedia definition).

I'm not convicting anyone. He's entitled to due process. That being said, this does not seem to be an issue filled with nuance or room for interpretation. Stop lights or not, a pilot should not move his aircraft into a runway unless he's been cleared by the control tower. Period. If the transcripts are accurate, things are looking pretty bad for the CG pilot. The instructions are not "guidelines" subject to the pilot's interpretation. They're hard and fast rules.