New_Earth_Mud

Chevy. Draft and develop was and is the plan. 5 years to get the team where they want it.

I said build... not re build. From day 1 it was said that it would take 5 years to build the team to a playoff team.

I cant really agree with that.... you need a mix of both. Most if not all teams that win Cups have a mix. Like ive said before... It took the Hawks 8 years to build a contender it took LA 8 years also. It took Pitts 6. We are in year 4. I dont know whats going to happen with Buff or Ladd. If i had to guess... I think both stay.

Jus my 2 cents about Buff. Hes better when he plays with a more stay at home D man like say Chiarot or Enstrom.

Took teams like the Hawks, LA 6-7-8 years to learn how to win these types of games and get that killer instinct.... We are in year 4 and need time to learn these things. We are a better then avg team thats still got aways to go before we learn what it takes to be champs. There is no doubt we can play and beat any team in the league, its just going to take some time.

As for Little and Chairot, Maurice speculated they may be back vs Vancouver following the three day break after the Rangers game. #NHLJets

He wont.

Start scoring

Ladd will stay IMO because hes our captain and he wont get that role if he leaves. That role means alot to him.

No Morressey? And you think they break up Scheif, Wheels and Staff?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges. You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument? . Yes and then specified why. Because their concerns have nothing to do with privacy. You seem to keep going away from the question i ask. I dont care about your comp and what they see you look at. If your boss said hes putting a camera right in your desk pointed at you every day all day would u be ok with it? Not just the general area but right on you. All day every day.

Tis Sad

Off topic a bit maybe.... But news seems to more focus on the bad. CNN is always bad news.... breaking news as they call it it pretty well something bad. There never ever seems to be breaking news thats good. Good news becomes a special that they put together and promote the **** out of it. Its on for an hr and then its gone and we go bk to the bad stuff. Just a thought but why cant they pump ump the good **** that goes on and end it with the bad?

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested. Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday. Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators. Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm Well..... This has nothing at all to do with a camera in the cockpit. Other then this.other then this.... -Federal safety officials have recommended installing cameras in the cockpit as a way for accident investigators to review pilots' performance after a crash. Pilots have strongly objected to that use for cameras because of privacy concerns.- This whole thing talks cameras to watch the cabin and passengers. Speaking of weak arguments,, let me point something out that you don't seem to be aware of. The agency referred in the article is the Federal Aviation Administration. They have regulatory authority for any aircraft in the US. Therefore, if they really felt that there was a pressing need for cameras, if they really felt that cameras are integral to passenger safety and accident investigation, guess what? Cameras would be mandated, period. They are not though. This tells me that the FAA is not too concerned with having them because they can already, through the avenues already available, do their jobs. You, and a few others want them, but it would seem that the real experts are managing just fine. But hey, what do they know. th Me? lol

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges. You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument?

Again ill ask you. If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

Well you should be on CNN as an expert to this then. Im not arguing with you ... im only saying what the experts in the field seem to be saying... ive been watching this crap all day.. Its not just my opinion its what the people that do this **** for a job are saying.

And from what they been saying that 100 feet from the actual altitude of the plane was 98 feet below ground level..... So thats why its being said he wanted to destroy the plane and it cant even be said he might have wanted to land it. The course or ark he set it to was 98 feet bellow the ground... even on flat ground the plane would have been destroyed.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested. Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday. Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators. Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm Well..... This has nothing at all to do with a camera in the cockpit. Other then this.other then this.... -Federal safety officials have recommended installing cameras in the cockpit as a way for accident investigators to review pilots' performance after a crash. Pilots have strongly objected to that use for cameras because of privacy concerns.- This whole thing talks cameras to watch the cabin and passengers.

Like this.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2894223/First-Air-installs-flight-tracking-designed-FLYHT-Aerospace-Solutions.html

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... This ^^^^ Not one investigator or really anyone has said a camera will do squat. It servers no real use to them and this is what they do. Now if the camera was a live stream then it may do something but then as its been said it could just be covered up if they dont want anything seen. From what ive seen today from all these experts is that what needs to be looked at is how to prevent these things that can happen. And a camera wont do that. Something i think may be more of a use is ground to air contact at all times live from the flight deck and cabin. If billions are going to be spent then thats the first thing id look into. Again it wont prevent anything but if you really want to know exactly why and whats going on then thats the way to do it.

This is flat wrong. How would a camera stop this? It wouldnt. No one is suggesting that. A camera, like a voice and data recorder gives us a picture of what happened AFTER THE FACT. Two people in the cockpit MIGHT help but quite honestly, not really. Look at AirEgypt which I have references several times. A pilot would have to physically overwhelm and subdue the co-pilot who's efforts would be in pushing, pulling, turning etc to crash the plane, all in a very tight area. VERY difficult to stop a pilot from crashing a plane if thats what he wants to do. The idea that one pilot should never be allowed to leave the flight deck is also somewhat ridiculous. At this point, there is a far greater chance of some sort of malfunction occuring than a pilot deliberately crashing and yet pilots are allowed to leave the flight deck to use the bathroom or whatever reason. if they dont require both pilots remain in the flight deck for the incidents that happen more frequently, why should they require it for the incidents that almost never happen? The key is knowing beyond all doubt what happened. Watching all these experts and pilots and investigators and safety experts on CNN seem to all say cameras wont do much at all. Some think at some point you will see some install cameras but it wont be rushed to do. I believe all USA airlines have a policy that 2 people must be in the flight deck at all times. Dont have to cover a camera with spray paint... jacket, hat, gum. band-aid all would work.