More plausible is that the subscription was purchased on a deal that is grandfathered.

RunningMan:

 

More plausible is that the subscription was purchased on a deal that is grandfathered.

 

No, I can confirm that it is a current plan at the currently advertised cost.

geek3001:

 

I have been seeing this for a while on my monthly recurring Apple subscriptions.

 

Seems that Apple don't like Amazon Prime Video, as they insist on calling it "Unavailable" and "Discontinued" even though it still works.

 

 

 

 

I would have assumed that its amazon not liking you paying thru apple so trying to get you to cancel it there and pay direct so they aren't ripped off 30%

The (almost) unbelievable story of when a teen kicked a rugby ball at a plane | Stuff

No words

A Cessna Grand Caravan accommodates only nine passengers and one pilot. So, there certainly weren't a dozen people on board.

Furthermore, the question arises as to why a sports field is permitted within the approach sector?

The next question arises: if the starboard strut was struck, why go through the entire inspection protocol? That would be akin to performing an engine check and wheel alignment on a car that had been hit on the side door by a soccer ball. Any bird strike from the front is guaranteed to cause more damage than a football from below.

The whole affair is being blown completely out of proportion; the boy most certainly did not shoot at the aircraft intentionally—and even if he had, how can one operate a sports field (or an airfield) in that location if aviation safety is considered a priority?

There are some videos on Instagram showing it has some rows in 2+1 seat configuration 

@Tinkerisk

You may be thinking of the Caravan which I think is only 9 passenger seats. The Grand Caravan can carry up to 12 or 14.

The runway in question has to be Runway 14 which in the Earth screen shot attached looks like a taxiway. You will see the approach path is over football fields which post date the building of the runway.

At a guess I'd suggest the approach was conducted with the intention of exiting the runway where it crosses the main runway. There would be no approach lighting (PAPI) etc for glidepath so I'm guessing an approach below a normal 3 degree glidepath resulted.

Technofreak:

 

The runway in question has to be Runway 14 which in the Earth screen shot attached looks like a taxiway. You will see the approach path is over football fields which post date the building of the runway.

 

I see it exactly the same way—I had already suspected as much. However, the boy cannot be held responsible for this situation; he was simply playing his game. In my opinion, the sports facility operators are the ones at fault—especially considering the construction of the runway before the sports event location.

Technofreak:

 

At a guess I'd suggest the approach was conducted with the intention of exiting the runway where it crosses the main runway. There would be no approach lighting (PAPI) etc for glidepath so I'm guessing an approach below a normal 3 degree glidepath resulted.

 

Your aerial shot and the photograph lead me to the same conclusion: that the Caravan was executing a visual approach and must have been flying too low over the sports field as well.

As I said, I feel the whole matter has been blown out of proportion in the wrong direction. The boy is not to blame, and the fact that his parents actually offered an apology—even though they were under no obligation to do so—is, in my eyes, more than sufficient.

We had a case here where wind energy turbines were approved and built right in the approach path, and we all had to fly a modified approach angle during the final approach to avoid colliding with them. Once it was established that the building authority had failed to consult with the aviation authority, they were subsequently dismantled after two years.

Saying the boy is not to blame - you mean because he's young (15) and should know better? or he did it accidentally?  Either way this bit in the story (assuming Stuff is accurate) is relevant:

"A video of the incident, which was later supplied by an informant after it circulated on social media, showed that it was “a deliberate attempt to hit the aircraft”.

This does not alter the sports facility operator's liability. The ball can take a wrong turn at any moment—whether intentionally or not.

The probability of intentionally striking the aircraft from the side with a football while it is traveling at approximately 90–100 km/h is not particularly high; rather, such an occurrence would be largely coincidental.

@tinkerisk But twice above you asserted it wasn't the boys fault. I don't get why? Yes teenage boys do dumb things (source: i was one once - a long time ago). But that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility.

I don't disagree that having sports fields on the approach to a runway isn't the smartest idea, yet my city has a golf course on the approach to its runway, doesn't mean everyone tries to hit a plane while playing a round?

I don't know how things are where you are. Here, minors are considered to have limited legal culpability. However, from an aviation law perspective, that is not the point I am making.

In this case, the error was committed long beforehand—by legally responsible, adult individuals. Keywords: operator liability, association liability. Furthermore, I believe that the kid certainly won't do something like that again; for that, there is no need to bring in the media cavalry.

Well yes, minors have limited legal culpability here in NZ. But that doesn't mean it's not their fault? Just because they may not be able to be held legally responsible (and for a 15 year old, that's not automatic) doesn't mean the results of their actions aren't their fault!

Anyway, probably long since moved this on from the point of this thread now. Thats my 2cents

I don't consider it to be the boys fault either. Sure he admitted trying to hit the aircraft with the ball but the story has been over blown without any focus on how this situation was able to occur.

There are several factors that need to be considered.

If, and it is a very big IF, it is possible under normal circumstances for anyone to kick a ball high enough to hit an aircraft on the approach to land then there has been a failure on the part of one or more regulatory bodies.

The airport company should have ensured the approach and departure fans were protected in the district scheme.

The local authority should ensure any such protections are complied with when any use consents are issued for the land which those fans extend over.

There appears to be an inset landing threshold for the runway in question. If so that indicates that potential obstacles (which probably includes things like high flying footballs) have been considered and the glidepath and touchdown area has been adjusted to allow for any such obstacles. 

If a normal glidepath is flown to the inset touchdown point there is no risk of being hit by a high flying ball. In other words a person trying to kick a ball to hit an aircraft would not succeed. 

To give some context, the minimum height at the threshold for a normal glidepath is 50 feet (~ 15 metres).  When an aircraft is over the football field on a normal glidepath it's going to be probably closer to 100 feet (~ 30 metres) above the ground. How high can someone kick a ball? Have think about that and then tell me it was the kids fault.

In this case a lower than normal approach was flown which put the aircraft within reach of a high flying ball. 

My employer's Google Maps profile has its "category" set appropriately: it's an office.

Google invites us to set up our breakfast, brunch, dinner, drive-through, and other food-related hours.