What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:40 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0908.shtml

Has sci/tech really gotten so boring that even Google can't find any stories in the news?

And what about that rather damning footage from my video? Is this clearly not a case of someone deliberately misleading councilors -- or did the Mayor realise that this was a lie and attempt to shut up the Asset Manager for fear that this would expose the culture of contempt for the facts?

You tell me.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:54 am

Oh dear, things just keep getting worse for the SWDC:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11916767
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby phill » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:12 am

its probably just an interpretive thing
it will create ~ 200 direct jobs
of which
~193 will be done by bots
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:32 am

No, the SWDC justified *giving* $1.2m of "community funding" to a local trucking contractor on the promise that it would create 36 jobs.

As far as I'm aware, more than a year after the money was spent, the total number of jobs created is less than three (and some of those may be part-time).
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby DigiDog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:36 am

Help me out here Bruce. What exactly are "shielded operations"?
User avatar
DigiDog
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 10:44 am

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:40 am

Shielded operations are designed to allow the safe operation of small models and drones when performed within 4Km of an airfield.

The requirements are that you fly below the height of the tallest natural or man-made object within 100m and that there is some form of barrier between your flying area and any airfield or helipad within 4Km. The nature of that barrier is not defined but it can be a row of trees, the contour of the land or even the distance itself -- the only qualifying factor is that it must be capable of arresting the path of your model, should it drift towards the airfield.

CAA introduced this for two reasons:

1. they realised that their regulations applied to everything including childrens small flying toys so there needed to be a way of letting kids fly these things in parks and even their own back yards when they lived within 4Km of an airfield.

2. they realised (quite sensibly) that any model flown in such an environment represents no threat to manned aviation -- ie: if a manned aircraft finds itself lower than a tall tree in a park then it has more to worry about than a small drone or model.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby BruceNZ » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:41 am

DigiDog wrote:Help me out here Bruce. What exactly are "shielded operations"?

Taken from here: https://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/: "A shielded operation is a flight where your aircraft is within 100 m of, and below the top of, a natural or man-made object. For example, a building, or a forest of trees."
BruceNZ
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:21 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby phill » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:59 am

aardvark_admin wrote:No, the SWDC justified *giving* $1.2m of "community funding" to a local trucking contractor on the promise that it would create 36 jobs.

As far as I'm aware, more than a year after the money was spent, the total number of jobs created is less than three (and some of those may be part-time).


thats ok they would have put in a return clause if the agreed conditions were not met .. like what any competent organization would do
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:19 am

The councilor championing this "give-away" told me that they were creating a "public/private partnership" -- so I asked him what the name of the entity was and what shareholding the council had in return for its $1.2m.

He told me "oh, we don't own anything".

Clearly this guy (who was just a wage slave at the local mill before being elected to council) has no idea how PPPs should be set up or that the shareholding should be apportioned on the basis of the amount of capital provided.

There is so much "suspicious" stuff going on in this council that the relevant authority could have a field-day if they investigated.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: What the? and shhhhh! (8 Sep, 2017)

Postby GoGijoe » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:25 pm

And you wonder why nz is slowly climbing the corruption index.

I think googles hit a Plato an increase in tech articles wont result in an increase in traffic, they they cut the number and amount of effort in, to coast along on a higher ROI for the articles they do post to.

Ive drifted away from google news, theres other better ways to get news now
GoGijoe
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:51 am

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron