Nice suggestion, I just found it on YouTube, going to have to watch this over the weekend.

(Written on 11/05/2022)(Permalink)

Can you use more caps?

(Written on 04/22/2022)(Permalink)

Steven Slater did this in 2010 and was charged with "criminal mischief".

(Written on 04/22/2022)(Permalink)

This woman isn't even original, Steven Slater did this in 2010. From what I can find he paid the airline $10k for restitution and figure for the replacement are quoted at $25k. I would think it would be more than that...

(Written on 04/22/2022)(Permalink)

I was wondering about that other airframe as well, hopefully it will be completed at some point so the world can have another 225. I was more than upset when I heard the plane had been destroyed, hopefully this conflict will end soon.

(Written on 03/04/2022)(Permalink)

Opsec was violated. "Four enlisted sailors and one junior officer are now facing charges in connection to the unauthorized release of footage from last month’s crash of an F-35C Lightning II jet on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson while the ship was operating in the South China Sea." https://taskandpurpose.com/news/sailors-charged-f-35-crash-video-leak/

(Written on 02/23/2022)(Permalink)

Opsec was violated."Four enlisted sailors and one junior officer are now facing charges in connection to the unauthorized release of footage from last month’s crash of an F-35C Lightning II jet on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson while the ship was operating in the South China Sea." https://taskandpurpose.com/news/sailors-charged-f-35-crash-video-leak/

(Written on 02/23/2022)(Permalink)

It does not have to be "classified", read the definition of opsec, part of it is specifically around securing multiple sources of seemingly non-sensitive data that can be assembled together to provide valuable intelligence.

(Written on 02/16/2022)(Permalink)

Go read the definition of opsec - and before you respond back with some bs like you already know it, it is painfully obvious that you do not. Opsec is the process at which there is an attempt tp prevent the acquisition of multiple different data sources that may appear benign individually but when are assembled together can provide intelligence. I shouldn't need to get this much into detail but apparently it's necessary. If an enemy acquires a series of multiple different recent air carrier operations failures by video and they all show that operations are down for an average of 15 minutes on the flight deck before another plane can be launched they can use that understanding to their benefit during a conflict. That is just one single use case, and as I've already said, violating the process of containing those different and separate data points is a violation of opsec. Apparently we've descended to playground "is not", "is so" levels of communication here. Opsec was violated, regardles

(Written on 02/12/2022)(Permalink)

You are implying that no enemy could possibly gain anything of use from viewing this accident footage, you have also implied that this leak could've potentially been officially approved for release - as if a smart phone filming the display of it on a monitor is the mechanism in which the footage would be officially released. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous those things sound? You are just as bad as the person who violated opsec in that you are using your own personal judgment on whether this was something sensitive to release or not. The entire point is that it's not the person's right who leaked this to make that decision, and by doing that, they violated opsec. The initial point here wasn't whether this data is useful, it's whether opsec was violated - which it was.

(Written on 02/12/2022)(Permalink)