There's more...

As for the landing, perhaps the best advise I read was from Bob Hoover (aerobatics in a twin Aero Commander): If you’re faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.

The key word: fly. You are not flying if you are stalling. And you only have positive control if you're flying. Or also: don't stop too abruptly.

Third time’s the charm?

By all means let Senators defend and protect him. Maybe they don't care about their historical reputation

Under subparagraph f)A seller or lessor shall not impose a surcharge if a customer elects to pay for goods or services by Check, cash, debit card, processing as a debit payment, or gift card.

eCheck is considered a check.

https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_5-2-212

If I know I'm paying for my own rewards, I'd choose a card that keeps more money in my pocket. I'd go as low as the PITA factor of cash.

It's not clear to me what the net benefit is of a credit card over a debit card.

But for sure the confusion ensuing from allowing debit cards to be charged as credit cards should be illegal. The merchant account providers are probably the ones reaping the free money on the racket.

Credit is the POS default, for whatever reason. Not all POS are the same. e.g. US Post Office consistently knows if I am using a debit card, and it prompts for a PIN when I do. Every restaurant, bar, service does not ask for PIN, and the handful of merchants I've inquired with say their debit card fees changed by the merchant account providers are the same as credit. Scammy.

At least in Colorado it's legal for businesses regardless of the TOS contract with a merchant account supplier to pass on the transaction and processing fees of credit cards. It's not legal to pass on cost/fees for debit cards, ACH, or cash.

Once the accident flight requested and received a visual approach clearance ~30 miles out, terrain and obstacle avoidance becomes pilot responsibility. It seems likely to me that whether GPS was working or not, whether RNAV 24 or ILS 24, they'd have requested a visual approach. And the pilots did not adequately account for the terrain between the flight and the airport when they initiated the descent, and descended below minimum safe IFR altitude.

Further due to this flight operating under 14 CFR 135, there's a regulatory bridge to bind the flight to the (Part 135) Certificate Holder's operation specifications (OpSpecs). Pilots cannot operate outside of OpSpecs.

It's possible the medivac company's OpSpecs require mandatory direct visual contact with terrain and obstacles - something that could not be achieved with 0% illumination due to no moon. Some OpSpecs will prohibit visual approaches at night to non-towered airports. SRR airport has no tower. I'm not familiar with this operator's OpSpecs.

That has less to do with GPS jamming than it does accepting a visual approach from 14 miles out with an enormous mountain they couldn't see between them and the airport.

The error as I see it is abandoning the safeguards of flying a standard instrument approach procure. RNAV or ILS, the terrain clearance is backed into the procedure. They descended below minimum safe altitude.

See AIM 1-1-8. NAVAID Service Volumes https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...

"documented network of airports" is a poorly worded reference to MON airports as distinguished from MON navaids.

They are enhancing the navaids that remain. Greater range, and a documented network of airports serviced by ground based instrument approach procedures.

The shrinkage of total number of navaids concerns me from a rural support perspective but less so as a pilot. What does concern me as a pilot is even the MON navaids are having maintenance issues resulting in outages.

If GPS signal is sufficiently degraded or lost, TAWS is probably unavailable (highly dependent on what navigation system is on board). TAWS might have saved them. But needing TAWS implies loss of situational awareness.

This flight crashed in the mountains ~6 miles north of the ILS 24 approach course. At ~12 miles out on the approach course, the ILS course width is ~1 mile. A full needle deflection translates to 1/2 mile off the course. A flight is not established on the approach course with a full needle deflection. Course intercept with localizer or VOR is basic instrument work - GPS not required.

The flight requested ILS 24, later they indicated airport in sight, requested and received a clearance for a visual approach. That means pilots have full responsibility for terrain and obstruction clearance. The visual approach requirement is to maintain contact with with airport.

It seems to me they went off course, by a lot, for reasons I'm not clear on, and then descended prematurely into hostile terrain at night, which is likely why they lost visual contact with the airport. The terrain blocked their view and by the time they realized they were descending into hostile terrain they crashed.

If that's what happened, GPS signal loss is perhaps an instigating source of distraction and confusion but I do not see how it's a primary factor. If the signal becomes degraded, navigation should indicate it (auditory and visual) and that source is ignored entirely. Falling back to ground based navigation should be familiar, it doesn't need to be as precise as GPS, the instrument approach procedure has terrain clearance baked into it.

Best practice is to follow the instrument approach procedure to the final approach fix, then do the visual approach - especially at night which many have argued constitutes instrument flight conditions - mountains will be invisible. Pitch black on black.

Resource control via cgroupsv2 sounds better for both desktop and server use cases, differing by what processes receive minimum resources. But IO isolation remains elusive. Some suggest a database of hardware capabilities, I wonder if a cheap estimator of throughput and latencies could do this dynamically.

Anyway, I'm not convinced user space should care about or rely on the kernel oomkiller. Well before it even considers the situation human interactivity with the system was lost.

I wonder if Gaudi gets a cut!

I shouldn't have to consider getting a parent an under 18 account to protect them better.

Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to allow Trump to do as he wishes.

>A populace with a functioning representative democracy deserves its leaders.

Yes. Despite Trump himself being a fascist, the government continues to operate as a representative democracy. Most Congresscritters have their thumbs up their asses waiting for things to get much worse, which mirrors the vast majority of voters.

Is it national apathy? Decadence? Addiction to the drama, anger and depravity of Trump TV?

Elect an abuser, get abused. Is this surprising?

If they refuse, sue them in small claims court.