INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE - INTERNAL FLIGHT

Internal Flight Alternative - Charter Flights To Toronto - Arrive Before Flight.

Internal Flight Alternative


internal flight alternative
    alternative
  • (of one or more things) Available as another possibility
  • alternate: serving or used in place of another; "an alternative plan"
  • (of two things) Mutually exclusive
  • option: one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen; "what option did I have?"; "there no other alternative"; "my only choice is to refuse"
  • Of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms
  • necessitating a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities; "alternative possibilities were neutrality or war"
    internal
  • Inside the body
  • Existing or occurring within an organization
  • occurring within an institution or community; "intragroup squabbling within the corporation"
  • Of or situated on the inside
  • happening or arising or located within some limits or especially surface; "internal organs"; "internal mechanism of a toy"; "internal party maneuvering"
  • home(a): inside the country; "the British Home Office has broader responsibilities than the United States Department of the Interior"; "the nation's internal politics"
    flight
  • Shoot (wildfowl) in flight
  • shoot a bird in flight
  • a formation of aircraft in flight
  • (in soccer, cricket, etc.) Deliver (a ball) with well-judged trajectory and pace
  • an instance of traveling by air; "flying was still an exciting adventure for him"

US Custom
US Custom
After our experience entering the country on this occasion, perhaps I'll consider alternative routes. not really... Here is an excerpt from the letter I wrote to the USCIS & Inspector General: Office of the Inspector General US Department of Justice Investigations Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 4706 Washington, DC 20530 Director, Office of Internal Audit US Immigration and Naturalization Service 425 I St., NW Room 3260 Washington, DC 20536 11 March 2009 To whom it may concern, I, Alex (A NUMBER: --- --- ---) and my wife Tara arrived in Orlando Sanford International Airport (following our flight from Manchester, UK to Orlando, FL, USA on Monday 9 March 2009) and proceeded to the immigration/customs officer. We decided to go the citizens/residents desk. My wife Tara, is a US citizen, and I am a green card holder. We have been married since March 5th 2005. An officer greeted us warmly. We told him that we had returned from a 6 month trip to the UK (where I am from and have citizenship). I also stated that I had been working for my family business (www.brynmorfa.com). After typing on his computer, the officer asked us if we were coming back to the USA to live. We then stated that we had returned to the USA to acquire Tara a marriage visa for the UK as we plan to go to the UK and live/work. The officer explained that he wanted me to talk and get some advice about what my options were relating to either keeping/returning the green card. We both happily agreed to this and looked forward to getting some advice on the subject. At this time we were both unaware that it was unlawful to keep a green card without living/working in the USA. After waiting in a holding room for several minutes, an immigration officer (name: Mr Victor Wong; Customs & Border Protection Officer) asked me to enter his office. My wife was left in the holding room, just outside the room where I was. She could still see/hear me as the door to the office was left wide open. Mr Wong then proceeded in an aggressive manner to tell me that what I had done was wrong and that I shouldn't still have my green card. I was taken aback by his aggression and asked what I had done wrong. After answering several questions in an agreeable fashion (I answered by trying to take into account what the officer was saying and trying to understand what I needed to do to rectify any situation that was not correct). Mr Wong then stated 'why do you keep saying yes, yes yes! What are you going to do?! Give me a real answer!' Mr Wong then decided to state that 'we don't take this shit in here!' I was extemely shocked and decided that the best option was to stay quiet until he had finished his inquiry. While the officer typed on his computer he continued to tell me how I'd made a mistake and I needed to fix it. The officer continued to instill less confidence by typing with one finger and what I can only describe as rambling incoherently in a broad non-american accent. After the officer took approximately 5-10 minutes typing on his computer he stamped our customs declaration and told me to leave. At this point I requested to see the officer in charge. Mr Wong asked me why and I responded to him by stating that I wanted to make a complaint. Mr Wong was less than pleased at this statement. While I was in the office, Tara continued to wait outside and noticed Mr Wong’s aggression and was distressed. When the managing officer (name: Mr Edgar Aponte; Supervisory Customs & Border Protection Officer) arrived, Mr Wong then began to argue with his managing officer and myself. He argued that the information he had given me was correct. I did not dispute the fact that the information given was correct. After Mr Wong had finished speaking, I then proceeded to explain to Mr Aponte that I was extremely unhappy with Mr Wong’s attitude and at this point I was distraught. Mr Aponte then decided to close the door to the office. Outside of the office, Tara continued to experience distress. She was then comforted by a female officer. The female officer also gave my wife and I a bottle of water and showed her concern which was appreciated. Mr Aponte revised my situation, clarifying that I owned property in the USA and continued to file joint tax returns with my wife. Mr Aponte stated that I hadn't done anything wrong and because I continued to file tax returns I still legally had my green card. He did however state that the best option for me was to apply for the re-entry permit document if I decided to leave the USA to work again. I requested both officers information and asked how I could make a formal complaint. Mr Aponte then left the office to retrieve a 'comment card'. While Mr Aponte left the office, I was left sitting in the office with Mr Wong. Mr Wong continued to type on his computer, ignoring me, and once again, what can only be described as rambling incoherently in a non-american accent. I felt uncomfortable being left in the office with him for s
REPUBLIC F-105D THUNDERCHIEF
REPUBLIC F-105D THUNDERCHIEF
Built by Republic Aircraft, the F-105 was designed as a supersonic, single-seat, fighter-bomber able to carry nuclear weapons and heavy bomb loads over great distances at high speeds. It made its first flight on October 12, 1955. The first F-105D (58-1146) flew on 9 June 1959. The TAC at Nellis AFB, Nevada, accepted the first F-105D on September 28, 1960. The initial contract for 59 F-105Ds was increased to nearly 300 by the end of 1961. Ultimately, 610 F-105Ds were built. The F-105D variant was an all-weather fighter-bomber version, fitted with monopulse and Doppler radar for night or bad weather operations. This radar was capable of terrain avoidance commands. The original weapons bay, designed for nuclear stores, was sealed and fitted with additional fuel tanks. Bombs were carried on multiple weapons racks on the centerline of the fuselage, and on wing pylons. The aircraft was fitted with a retractable in-flight refueling probe. During the Vietnam War, F-105 units operated from bases in Thailand. The F-105D was the major production version of the Thunderchief series. It was an all-weather version of the day-only F-105B. Externally, the -D differed from the -B in having a slightly longer and wider nose, which housed the AN/ASG-19 "Thunderstick" system designed to meet new all-weather requirements specified in the November 1957. The AN/ASG-19 was designed around the NASARR R-14A all-purpose monopulse radar. This was optimized in both air-to-ground and air-to-air modes and was capable of performing both low-level and high-altitude missions. The aircraft was equipped with a General Electric FC-5 flight control system that operated in conjunction with the R-14A radar to provide the F-105D with full all-weather capability. The system included a bomb-toss computer, a sight system, an AN/APN-131 Doppler navigator, an air data computer, missile launch computer, autopilot, and search and ranging radar. The radar installation also incorporated a terrain guidance mode permitting the pilot to descend through bad weather in unfamiliar territory and to hug the ground, avoiding detection. A J75-P-19W jet engine equipped with water injection powered the F-105D. A new cockpit was provided with a vertical instrument panel. The higher gross weight of the -D version required the provision of a stronger main landing gear and more robust brakes. In addition, a pitot tube was mounted on the extreme tip of the nose. The aircraft were otherwise quite similar to other F-105s. The F-105D had an arrester hook mounted on the rear of the ventral fin. This hook was intended to engage a wire in case the aircraft overshot the end of the runway during a landing. The Thunderchief was not capable of carrier-based operations. The 335th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing was the first unit to receive the new F-105D. It exchanged its older F-105Bs for the new D-model in June 1960. The Thunderchief's first European deployment came in May of 1961, when the 36th TFW based at Bitburg in Germany received its first F-105Ds. It was soon followed by the 49th TFW. F-105Ds were also supplied to the 4520th Combat Crew Training Wing based at Nellis AFB, the 36th TFW (22nd, 23rd, and 53rd Squadrons), the 49th TFW (7th, 8th, and 9th Squadrons), the 18th Fighter Bomber Wing (12th, 44th, and 67th squadrons), the 355th FBW (354th and 357th Squadrons), and the 388th TFW. The 36th and 49th Wings went to Europe at the end of 1961 to provide NATO with nuclear strike capability. The 8th and 18th Wings were stationed in Japan from 1962 onwards. In June 1961, during special tests at Eglin AFB in Florida, the F-105D demonstrated its ability to carry and deliver seven tons of bombs. This was the heaviest load of bombs ever carried by a single-engine fighter. This feat was repeated in October 1961 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. President Kennedy was one of the brass hats in attendance. The F-105D was originally intended for the nuclear strike role, with the primary armament being a "special store" (a nuclear weapon) housed in the internal weapons bay. This weapon was usually a Mk 28 or a Mk 43. However, a Mk 61 could be carried underneath the left or right inboard under wing pylon and a Mk 57 or a Mk 61 could be carried underneath the centerline pylon. But, as nuclear war became less and less likely, the nuclear weapon carried in the internal weapons bay was usually replaced by a 390-gallon internal fuel tank. The Thunderchief made an excellent tactical bomber. With the exception of the ammunition for the M61A1 cannon, all the ordnance was carried externally. With multiple ejector racks the F-105D could carry an impressive load of external fuel, ECM gear, and up to eight 750-lb. bombs on long-range missions. On short-range missions, it could carry sixteen 750-lb. bombs. Alternative combat loads consisted of two 3000-lb. bombs or three drop tanks. On a typical mission over North Vietnam, the F-105D carried six 750-

internal flight alternative
Comments