AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailEmailShare to RedditRedditRedditShare to MoreAddThisMoreEDITOR’S BLOG As I touched down on U.S. soil late yesterday in a British Air jet, after having shepherded a group of teenagers through multiple screening and searches at London’s Heathrow airport, I was happy to be landing. I was even more delighted that the kids and adults on the plane were offered the opportunity to contribute their loose change and foreign currency to the UNICEF Change for Good program. British Air flight stewards announced there would be a special collection and provided the envelopes for our goodwill donations. (right) They have been collecting change for twelve years with magnificent results… ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ The UNICEF program was launched in 1991 with the help of a few international airlines, but its biggest boost came when British Air joined the Change for Good team in 1994. To date, more than 53 million dollars have been donated by international travelers — $38 million from British Air customers. All the coins and currency collected are used to buy food and medicine, and build schools, for poor children around the globe. Congratulations to UNICEF for starting such a clever and easy way to raise money for kids who need our help. Cheers, and my best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to British Air and to their employees who remained quite helpful, friendly, and not without a sense of humor, even through these challenging days. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailEmailShare to RedditRedditRedditShare to MoreAddThisMore
Christine Reeves v Beatrice Blake: CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Mummery, Moses, Etherton): 24 June 2009 Nicholas Isaac (instructed by Penman Johnson) for the appellant; Stephen Bickford Smith (instructed by Child & Child) for the respondent. Excavation – Nuisance – Party walls – Surveyors The appellant (R) appealed against a decision concerning the ability to provide for payment of legal costs under a party wall award. The respondent (B) owned a house, the flank wall of which abutted R’s driveway. B proposed to demolish the house and replace it with a new building. B served on R a notice under the section 1(5) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and a second notice under section 6(1). The first notice was served on the basis that B proposed to construct a new wall on the boundary with R’s driveway. The second notice was served because the level of B’s new basement would be substantially below the level of the foundations of R’s garage. The parties appointed surveyors who appointed a third. The third surveyor determined in an award that the first notice was invalid but that the second notice under section 6 was valid. B took the view that the award authorised works in respect of excavations and foundations and those works were begun on her instructions. R considered, correctly, that a further award was necessary before the works could proceed. She consulted solicitors who advised her to take High Court proceedings for an injunction. Counsel settled draft particulars of claim and draft witness statements were also prepared. B gave an undertaking not to carry out further work for the time being and no proceedings were ever begun. The surveyors then produced an award authorising the work to be carried out and directing B to pay R’s solicitors’ and legal fees in respect of the contemplated proceedings. On appeal to the county court, the judge ordered that the second award be varied by deleting the legal costs direction. R submitted that the surveyors had authority to give the legal costs direction in the second award under section 10(12)(c), under which an award might determine ‘any other matter arising out of or incidental to the dispute’, and section 10(13)(c), under which the reasonable costs incurred in ‘any other matter arising out of the dispute’ were to be paid to such of the parties as was determined by the appointed surveyor or surveyors. Held: In view of the nature of disputes referred to surveyors under the 1996 act and the wide wording of sections 10(1), 10(10), 10(12)(c) and 10(13)(c), there might be circumstances in which appointed surveyors had the power under section 10 to order payment by one adjoining owner of legal costs reasonably and properly incurred by another, Onigbanjo v Pearson  BLR 507 MCLC approved. The power to order payment of such costs was, however, restricted to costs connected with the statutory dispute resolution mechanism. As a matter of interpretation, the dispute mentioned in those provisions of section 10 was a dispute arising under the 1996 act. By contrast, proceedings in court to enforce common law or equitable remedies, such as damages or an injunction for trespass or nuisance or the threat of them, fell outside the 1996 act, as did preparations for such proceedings. The purpose of the 1996 act was to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution which avoided recourse to the courts. A power of the appointed surveyors under the 1996 act to make provision for costs incurred for the purpose of actual or contemplated litigation in court would be inconsistent with that statutory objective. The appointed surveyors had no power to grant common law or equitable relief for causes of action in trespass or nuisance, Woodhouse v Consolidated Property Corp Ltd  66 P & CR 234 CA (Civ Div) and Louis v Sadiq 59 Con LR 127 CA (Civ Div) considered. Those were the causes of action for the contemplated and threatened proceedings by R. Leaving aside the 1996 act, no one had suggested any example of parliament conferring on one or more persons, whether or not lawyers, power to make orders for payment of the costs of actual or contemplated litigation, where the court alone or some body other than those persons had the power to determine the substantive dispute. Further, in the ordinary way, no costs were recoverable by a party who prepared for litigation which was never instigated. Appeal dismissed.
Inisial KR sendiri merupakan akronim dari Kryl’ya Rossii (Bahasa Rusia) yang berarti Wings of Russia. Sedangkan penggunaan angka 860 sendiri merupakan representasi dari jumlah penumpang yang mampu diangkut oleh armada ini. KR-860 sendiri dikembangkan oleh Sukhoi, perusahaan kedirgantaraan Rusia yang dominan memproduksi jet tempur.Sebagaimana yang dirangkum KabarPenumpang.com dari berbagai laman sumber, pesawat yang memiliki panjang 80 meter ini menggunakan dua pilihan mesin yang dapat dipilih oleh pihak maskapai yang hendak menimangnya – empat buah mesin General Electric CF6-80E1A4B turbofan atau empat buah mesin Pratt & Whitney PW4168A turbofan.Baik General Electric atau Pratt & Whitney merupakan mesin dari Barat, dimana terbangun sebuah persepsi yang menunjukkan bahwa pihak Rusia masih sedikit ragu atau bahkan tidak mampu dengan kemampuan mesin-mesin pabrikan mereka sendiri – apalagi kedua mesin ini memiliki thrust yang tinggi.Berbicara soal mesin, KR-860 sendiri mampu menembus cruise speed hingga 540 knot atau yang setara dengan 1000 km per jam. Sementara untuk jarak tempuhnya, pesawat yang memiliki lebar sayap mencapai 88 meter ini mampu merengkuh jarak 15.000 km.Lalu mengapa pesawat ini tidak pernah mengudara atau sedikitpun menggema akan segera diproduksi secara massal? Menurut laman simpleflying.com (22/3/2019), pesawat ini rencananya akan diproduksi sebanyak 300 unit untuk kebutuhan pasar komersial, dengan perkiraan konsumen utamanya datang dari Rusia, Cina, India, Vietnam, dan Afrika.Baca Juga: Goyang Pasar Wide-Body, Boeing Siap Luncurkan 777X 13 Maret 2019Namun ketika melihat fakta di lapangan, produsen sekelas Airbus saja hanya bisa menjajakan 290 pesawat, itu berarti akan sangat sulit bagi Sukhoi untuk memasarkan produk mereka ini. Semisal nekat pun, hampir dapat dipastikan konsumen akan lebih mempercayakan nama-nama besar seperti Boeing dan Airbus ketimbang Sukhoi – pihak maskapai seolah enggan ‘bereksperimen’ dengan keselamatan para penumpangnya.Satu lagi yang menjadi ciri khas dari pesawat KR-860 adalah sayapnya yang bisa dilipat. Terdengar familiar bukan dengan sayap yang bisa dilipat ini? Ya, Boeing 777X pun mengaplikasikan teknologi serupa. Apakah Boeing meniru ide dari KR-860 ini? Silakan Anda tentukan sendiri jawabannya!Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading… RelatedKendati Produksi Dihentikan, Airbus A380 Tetaplah Fenomenal04/01/2019In “Featured”Ditemukan Keretakan Pada Sayap, Airbus A380 Harus ‘Keliling Dunia’ untuk Reparasi11/07/2019In “Featured”Tidak Ada Varian Airbus A370, Netizen Sampai Bikin Ilustrasi Sendiri!29/04/2019In “Featured” Sukhoi KR-860. Sumber: Youtube.com Nampaknya sudah tidak perlu dijelaskan lagi mengenai nasib dari super-jumbo jet, Airbus A380. Dengan dihentikannya produksi dari unit ini karena banyak maskapai di luar sana yang sudah mengubah pandangan mereka tentang melakoni perjalanan jarak jauh non-stop dengan menggunakan pesawat wide-body, kondisi ‘dapur’ proyek dari A380 sudah tidak ngebul lagi. Tapi tahukah Anda bahwa ada pesawat lain yang konsepnya bisa dibilang sama persis dengan A380?Baca Juga: Meski Khusus Internal Perusahaan, Boeing Tepati Janji Perlihatkan 777-9Sebagaimana yang kita ketahui bersama, Rusia merupakan peniru dari segala sesuatu yang tengah happening di Barat sana – mulai dari alutsista, rudal, misil, hingga sektor kedirgantaan sekalipun. Nah ketika Airbus proyek A3XX pertama kali dirilis sekitar tahun 1994, dan program perakitannya sendiri mulai diluncurkan pada 19 Desember 2000 silam, pihak Rusia datang memperkenalkan varian KR-860 yang merupakan kembaran dari Airbus A380 pada perhelatan Paris Airshow tahun 2001.
Guyana Under – 19 Coach Julian Moore is almost certain that the five-time defending champions in the one – day version of Cricket West Indies regional U19 championships can record its sixth consecutive regional under – 19 one day title. “By nature, I’m a confident person so I’ll be confident regardless, but to be honest we have a very good chance. “We have experience and the talent… there were encouraging signs during the under – 19 Inter-County-tournament so we are very upbeat about the tournament and what’s to come,” Moore, who enjoyed success with the team in 2017 and 2018 said. Commenting on the expanse of talent in the squad of 18, Moore explained that beyond their natural talent, the shortlisted players are quite experienced, having been around for quite some time. “The talent is tremendous; most of the guys have been around the scene from the under – 15s and have been performing pretty consistently since that age group. “One of the things for us is that we have nine fellas back from last year which brings a lot of experience and continuity to what we are trying to achieve this year,” he declared. Guyana’s quest for their sixth title will commence on July 25 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines when the 2019 CWI Championships gets underway. Berbician Moore along with the side’s manager Andy Ramnarine has, in the past, been credited for their man-management acumen which has boosted Guyana’s championship run. In 2019, those qualities will have to once again come to the fore to settle any dressing room nerves while creating an environment to continue Guyana’s historic run. There is also an added distraction or incentive, depending on the mental effect it has on the players, the consideration that the 2019 edition of the championship will be used to select the West Indies Under-19 squad to contest the 2020 ICC World Cup in South Africa. Moore explained that the management is addressing the potential hindrance. “There is a conversation about it (World Cup selection) but it’s up to us (Management) to not make it the main focus. We are just reinforcing that, them doing well will not only help us to win but it also gives them a chance to move forward in the West Indies set-up,” Moore said. Asked to point out who are some of the players he thinks would carry Guyana’s championship run, Moore advanced that ‘skipper’ Ashmead Nedd, who has Under – 19 World Cup experience, Sachin Singh, Qumar Torrington and Kevlon Anderson are the players he expects to provide leadership on and off the park. The 18 shortlisted players are currently encamped at the Chetram Singh Centre of Excellence hostel and indoor facility. They will be involved in two practice matches and a number of fitness exercises before departing Guyana.List to 18 players selected reads: Ashmead Nedd (Returning from 2018), KevlonAnderson (Returning from 2018), Alex Algoo (Returning from 2018), Adrian Hinds (Returning from 2018), Yeudistir Persaud (Returning from 2018), Kelvin Umroa (Returning from 2018), Qumar Torrington (Returning from 2018), Sachin Singh (Returning from 2018), Junior Sinclair (Returning from 2018), Dequan Bamfield, AlphiusBookie, Daniel Mootoo, Garfield Benjamin, Nigel Deodat, Robin Williams, Seon Glasgow, Joel Spooner, Leon Swamy