"EASA warns of more engine parts fraud after heist"

 

I had "blogged" several times about fake parts in the MRO supply system in the commercial aviation world, to put a part on a plane and have the repair recognized as "Legal" by the FAA and the EASA and other aviation regulatory bodies that control the commercial fleet of their respective countries, but they have reciprotive agreements across borders, like for example an "8130" is recognized around the world and is accepted.  EASA has their own versions and it also carries the same weight.  So if a part has that serviceable tag on it, it is considered "good to go" and meets the strict standards of the aviation world and is "airworthy" and safe to use and put on a plane that will carry passengers.  The parts are engineered to last literally years under normal use unless the manufacture has a scheduled maintenance check on the part where it is removed and sent to a shop to be tested and most of the time routed to inventory for the next plane or sometimes it has to be repaired.  The standards are strict for a reason and the parts are expensive. and the airlines accept it as the cost of doing business.  Now you get some unscrupulous dirtbag that get bad parts make fake tags, cleans the parts up so they look like new and sells them as "repaired" or "overhauled", the profit margins are huge, almost like drug cartel huge.  Hence the attraction.  Now a lot of the bad parts are sold to 3rd world airlines where oversite is far less stringent and "under the table remuneration is a way of life".

  I pulled this from "Aviationweek"

Airlines and MRO providers should be on the lookout for non-airworthy engine parts after 12 containers were fraudulently redirected from their intended destination, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has warned.

Spain’s National Aviation Authority informed EASA that a consignment of formally

declared non-airworthy turbofan parts was rerouted in late January 2026 from its destination.

The shipment consisted of 12 containers of engine parts, three of which contained critical or life-limited parts. These parts had not been rendered unairworthy by the contracted mutilation provider.

The theft covered more than 600 parts across four engine families: the CFM International CFM56, the IAE V2500, the Pratt & Whitney PW1100G, and the Rolls-Royce RB211.

EASA warned that the scale and method of the theft indicated the parts may be offered for sale on the open market.

It encouraged owners, operators and maintenance organizations to inspect their aircraft and inventories for the referenced part numbers and corresponding serial numbers; if any are found they should be removed and quarantined.

The notice appeared roughly a month after former techno DJ Jose Zamora-Yrala was jailed for four years by a British court for trading 60,000 parts with falsified documentation through his company, AOG Technics.

Airlines were forced to ground aircraft with AOG parts installed. While no in-service incidents were linked to the suspect parts, the disruption cost operators an estimated $53 million, the UK Serious Fraud office said.

The recent theft shows several similarities to that case, with low-value parts like bearings and seals targeted as well as an extensive array of serial numbers from the world’s most popular engines: the CFM56-5B and -7B.

Given tight supply and elevated pricing for legitimate parts, incentives exist for criminal activity in the aftermarket, although the industry will hope to avoid a repeat of the disruption and negative publicity generated by the AOG Technics case.

That case led to the creation of Aviation Supply Chain Integrity Coalition, an industry body that has recommended more investment in digital records, and wider adoption of electronic authorized release certificates (eARCs).

My Apologies and"Will America follow Europe"

 

Yep, I have a couple of medical conditions (Besides getting old), I get migraines, I take a daily migraine preventors as part of my pill loadout daily to keep it in check, but with spring and pollen, it still trips, I take medicine for it but it fogs my brain and I go to work and I try to make it through the day.  When I get those episodes, it zapes my creativity, I'm almost in a mental fog, I forget small things...yeah it sucks.  I'm able to function through the day but as far as blog anything.....fuhgeddaboudit.  Yeah that word actually is in my spell check.....I'm shocked, LOL.   

   I shamelessly clipped this from Michael Smith

President Trump is bringing the heat on the Euroweenies in the UK and across the Continent, and, as usual, he is doing it with all the finesse of a California framing hammer.

He is not just taking aim at Brussels or Berlin, he is lobbing a few well-placed shots toward the eastern flank of NATO as well, reminding everyone within earshot that security is not a subscription service billed indefinitely to the American taxpayer. His vituperative tone offends the diplomatic class, which prefers its criticism wrapped in passive voice and delivered at conferences with catered lunches, but like many long-delayed issues Trump has chosen to address, beneath the bluster is something more revealing than a policy dispute, it is a clash of governing philosophies, one that increasingly looks like a preview of America’s future if Democrats get their way.

For decades, the European Union has not just been a geopolitical partner, it has been a political aspiration for a certain Eurocratic wing of the American left. The EU is what modern Democrats imagine government should become once it has fully “evolved”, an administrative system run by credentialed experts, insulated from elections, buffered by layers of bureaucracy, and confident that dissent is less a signal to be heeded than a problem to be managed.

When Democrats talk about “protecting democracy,” what they often mean is protecting a system increasingly removed from the voters themselves, one that looks remarkably like Brussels with better branding. There is a profound irony in witnessing “No Kings” protests by people who want to replace individual liberty with the European model of monarchial bureaucracy.

The similarities are not subtle. Both systems elevate technocracy, process, and regulation over representation, results, and growth and both rely on a permanent administrative class that persists regardless of election outcomes, ensuring that while politicians may change, the direction of governance rarely does. Each share a quiet but unmistakable belief that ordinary citizens, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to make the “right” decisions without guidance, nudging, or correction from above.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That is why the EU model has always held such appeal. It promises control without the messiness of accountability. It offers the appearance of democracy while steadily migrating real decision-making power away from voters and toward institutions. For American Democrats who find constitutional limits inconvenient and federalism inefficient, Europe represents an end state, a system where outcomes can be managed, dissent softened, and policy insulated from the volatility of elections.

The uncomfortable truth for Democrats is that many of the policies they champion, expansive regulation, growing welfare states, centralized authority, and reliance on unelected administrative bodies, are not theoretical. They are already in operation across Europe, and the results are visible in slower growth, structural dependency, a political culture increasingly disconnected from the electorate but perhaps most obvious is the dilution of European history and culture through the importation of third world ideologies, religions and social mores.

The European model is not a promise, it is a case study and if elections across the Continent are any indication, people have noticed and are beginning to push back. People are recognizing the cultural destruction and right-wing nationalist parties are making historic electoral inroads. The outrage, the insistence that questioning the model is destabilizing, points to a deeper discomfort with the possibility that the bureaucratic technocrats might be losing their grip on European governance.

Trump’s critique, stripped of its rhetoric, lands squarely on this point. The United States has spent decades subsidizing a system abroad that mirrors what many on the left would like to build at home. NATO is the clearest example. An alliance premised on shared responsibility has drifted into a structure where America provides the backbone while European nations allocate resources toward expansive domestic priorities, assuming the security umbrella will remain in place.

When Trump demands that NATO members meet their commitments, he is not just talking about defense spending, he is challenging the underlying assumption that America will indefinitely support systems that are increasingly at odds with its own founding principles. That challenge extends eastward as well. Even nations with legitimate security concerns cannot operate under the assumption that American protection is automatic. Alliances require reciprocity, and reciprocity requires shared burden.

The leaders of Europe prefer tone over substance, so Trump’s “in your face” style ensures his message will be haughtily dismissed because they prefer nuance and ambiguity. However, leadership is not about comfort, it is about confronting realities that have been politely ignored. For years, American leaders have avoided acknowledging the growing alignment between European governance and the aspirations of the American left. Trump is not avoiding the historical evidence of where the European model leads and that it is profoundly anti-American.

The real question is not whether Trump is too harsh, the real question is whether Americans recognize the trajectory. Do we continue down a path that mirrors Europe, centralizing power, expanding bureaucracy, and distancing government from the governed, or do we reaffirm a system built on sovereignty, accountability, and the understanding that freedom, while untidy, is ultimately more durable?

Europe made its choice decades ago. The only question for the American people is whether enough will ignore the obvious negative outcomes to give Democrats control.

"Our Ruling Class wants us to lose this war

 

I have "Blogged"before about our feckless "ruling class" and that they want to see us lose, to be humiliated, to be lessened on the world stage because they believe that we are evil and deserve it.  They have forgotten that their fortunes are tied to this country, if we are lessened, so are they  This touched upon a blogpost that I have percolating in my head and I will try to get it posted this weekend.

   I snagged this from Townhall and "Kurt Schlichter"   The cartoons came from my "Stash"

What’s more treacherous and treasonous than wishing your own country gets defeated in war, especially by a bunch of goat-molesting seventh-century pagan savages whose primitive mindset is matched only by their grotesque perversions? Well, the disgusting perversions part is merely a collateral reason why members of America’s donkey party seem to have such an affinity for Iran’s rulers – the mullahs, with their bizarre bestiality and grotesque handmaiden dogma, and the San Francisco Democrats, with their furry-friendly gender-spazz grossness, collectively share the worst figurative collective browser in the history of ever. Yet, it’s more than their joint commitment to degeneracy that binds them together in a desire for America to lose this campaign. The Democrats hate America, and they think it will help them politically if America can be humiliated. But more than that, seeing America lose also satisfies the evil lurking inside them

It’s not just about Donald Trump. That’s where people get confused. Oh, they hate Donald Trump, to be sure. He is aesthetically displeasing to them, rejecting their carefully curated image of what it means to be in the American ruling class. It’s not just his style, but his attitude. They find him vulgar and crude because he ignores their complex and emasculating social conventions that enforce collectivist commie conformity. They also hate him because he has money, and much of our ruling class really doesn’t – for example, most regime media scribblers would double their income if only they knew how to do plumbing or drive a truck. There’s a gulf between their prestige and their pay, and Trump’s flagrant celebration of his own riches generates the greenest of envy.

But they also hate him because he’s a class traitor. He understands them because he was one of them until he got tired of them, and he has nothing but contempt for them. He knows they’re weak, stupid, and greedy, and he won’t honor their pretensions to intelligence and competence. Trump was a guy who had to build tall buildings. He either did it right, or the buildings fell. His opponents build nothing. They talk and write. They suffer no consequences for failure, and his critique of their fecklessness is the closest they’ll get to accountability. They hate him for that.

But that’s all personal. That’s why they hate Trump as an individual. But Donald Trump also operates as an avatar for the normal Americans he represents. What the ruling caste really hates is you. They hate normal people. They hate people who devote themselves to faith, family, and the Flag. They have to. They need to hate you because, through hating you, these unaccomplished hacks find a purpose and meaning. They don’t go out and slay dragons. They go out and nag people on Twitter. We, on the other hand, largely live real lives. Many of us are veterans – and we have seen it get real. Occasionally, someone in the ruling class does a tour in the Army and milks it forever – Happy March 29th, Vietnam Veterans Day, to the hero of the Tet Offensive, Senator Dick Blumenthal! – but being in the military is dirty and icky, and you’re stuck with people who are also dirty and icky. You know, Americans.

They do jobs where they talk and despise Americans who have jobs where they sweat. Remember, among our ruling class, the ultimate gig is to sit and run your mouth. Look, there’s nothing wrong with running your mouth for a job – I do it – but if that’s the only thing you’ve ever done, that breaks your mind. I’ve worked at McDonald’s, been fired from Denny’s for gross incompetence, been a private in the army, and jockeyed rental cars at San Francisco Airport, where everyone in the lot was either a college student on break or a convict on parole. Your past is probably similarly colorful. But the color of our ruling class’s past is flat white. They went to the University of College, then they started writing somewhere, and that’s it. They never sweat, never bled, and probably never drove a car with a stick shift or a V8.

We are not the same. They were the student government geeks and drama dorks in high school. As all adults know, adulthood is simply high school writ large. Much of our ruling class is collectively trying to get revenge on us for never getting invited to drink Coors behind the gym in high school.

Barack Obama gave the game away with his clinging to their guns and religion quote, as did Hillary Clinton with her basket of deplorables gaffe. Our ruling class, to which the Democrats are devoted – the party hasn’t been a workingman’s party since back when everybody agreed that a man can’t menstruate – distinguishes itself by its great self-regard rather than by its great achievements. It has no great achievements. What has our ruling class achieved in the last 60 years? Vietnam? The Iranian Revolution? The Iraq War? The Wall Street collapse? Obamacare? Grindr? Our ruling class has failed and everything. Is there anyone out there who thinks the world is better now than it was in the 80s? Certainly not anyone who lived in the 80s. Sure, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, but that was despite our ruling class, thanks to the efforts of Ronald Reagan, who is a lot Trumpier than the Trump haters will ever give him credit for. Yet despite failure after failure after failure, our ruling class still believes they are geniuses.

We, normal people, know the truth, and our failure to genuflect to our alleged betters grates at them. How dare we! We, normal people, are the essence of America, and that makes our ruling class hate America. It seems strange that they would hate what they seek to rule over, but Satan does, so why not The Squad? Understand that they are powered by an all-encompassing contempt for people like you and me, and our patriotism and love of country require that these people despise their own country. America is bad, they believe, built on a foundation of racism, genocide, and transphobia, and all sorts of other badnesses. Since none of them has a religion, this ideology has to serve as a substitute. We are their heretics, their demons, their anti-wokes, and they want us to pay.

Which means they want our country to pay. They were positively giddy when a lucky drone shot killed a half-dozen Americans. They were delighted when a random missile hit took out one aircraft on the ground in Saudi Arabia. They are hoping against hope that they can somehow turn a military campaign of unprecedented skill and daring into a disaster. In the first few days of this war, we decapitated the entire Iranian government. We shattered their nuclear program. We destroyed their air force, sank their navy, and generally blew the snot out of anything worth blowing the snot out of. Our planes fly through their skies unmolested. The Democrats and their allies among the disaffected grifter class are reduced to claiming that Iran’s ability to fire the occasional missile indicates America has been completely defeated. They are aided in this propaganda initiative by the regime media, which got the memo. They must turn this victory into defeat, and they’re trying to do it. They’re not doing it very well, in the sense that anyone who is not a complete moron sees through it. But then again, nearly half of America voted for Kamala Harris, so America has a significant moron problem.

They want us to lose because they think America, and therefore Americans, deserve defeat. They also want Trump to lose because they think it’s going to help them politically. So, we now have our ruling class largely rooting for these retrograde barbarians to somehow pull victory from the jaws of defeat. And the regime media will help; no matter how this ends, all the networks and the newspapers are going to tell you that this war was a failure. But you know how you know it’s not a failure? Because there’s no head ayatollah running around. The former one got blasted to bits. His son probably did too; right now, his legendary impotence is the least of his medical concerns. Oh, and the fact that all of Iran’s ships are resting at the bottom of the ocean, there are no planes left, and they can only squeeze off a couple of shots from random drone and rocket launchers every day, is a pretty good indicator of victory. Never in history has there been such a comprehensive defeat of an entire modern nation in such a short time.

Still, people in our own country wish for our defeat, and if those wishes aren’t granted, they’ll try to manufacture a defeat. It’s bizarre to see so many Americans so eager for America to lose, but that’s where we are right now. We’ve got Americans who want Americans to lose a war to a generational enemy with American blood on its paws. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they have no shame. Shame goes hand in hand with accountability, and they can’t accept the idea that they are accountable to anyone other than their own class. But just remember what’s happening here. Remember how much they must hate you to want their own country to be defeated by a bunch of fanatical freaks. And govern yourself accordingly.

"Why the U.S.S Enterprise NCC 1701-A was retired?

 

Sorry for not posting, got hit with a lots of Overtime and I worked it..   Real life got in the way.  By the time I got home, I was too tired to do anything on the computer.

Anybody that knows me for any length of time knows that I am a SCI-Fi geek, especially for the older Sci-Fi shows.  I always liked the "older Star Trek" and I always thought that the U.S.S. Enterprise(Refit) was the coolest ship in the Star Trek world. way better than the ships that replaced her in the films and series.   I ran across this article on farcebook and decided to let my geek flag fly.

The story of the USS Enterprise-A is one of those fascinating “end of an era” moments in *Star Trek* history. On the surface, it does seem strange — a starship that felt brand new in *Star Trek V* was already being retired by *Star Trek VI*. But when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture of Starfleet engineering, history, and politics, it actually makes a lot of sense.

To understand this, we have to go all the way back to the original Constitution-class starships.

The Constitution class first entered service around 2245, during a time when the Federation needed ships that could do *everything*. Exploration was the priority, but there was also a need to stand firm against rival powers like the Klingon Empire. Ships like the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) were designed as heavy cruisers that could travel deep into unknown space, operate independently for long periods, and still hold their own in tense situations.

What made the Constitution class special was its adaptability. These ships were designed with long-term upgrades in mind. Over the decades, they received major refits — the most famous being the redesign seen in the 2270s, which dramatically changed their appearance and internal systems.

But by that point, Starfleet technology was evolving rapidly.

A major shift came with the development of the Excelsior-class starships. These ships introduced a completely new warp drive system that used a vertical warp core design. This was very different from the older horizontal systems used in the Constitution class. To bring older ships up to this new standard, engineers had to essentially rebuild them from the inside out.

The refit worked — but it came with compromises.

One of the biggest issues was how tightly packed critical systems became. In order to fit the new vertical warp core into a spaceframe that was never designed for it, engineers had to place major components much closer together than ideal. In particular, the warp core and the photon torpedo systems ended up positioned in close proximity within the ship’s “neck” section. This created a structural and engineering vulnerability that couldn’t easily be resolved without designing an entirely new class of ship.

Now let’s bring in the USS Enterprise-A.

The Enterprise-A wasn’t truly “brand new” in the way people often assume. It was most likely a renamed and reassigned Constitution-class vessel — possibly one that had already been in service. By the time it was handed over to Captain Kirk and his crew, the Constitution design itself was already nearing the end of its lifespan.

So while the ship looked fresh and carried the legendary name, underneath it was still based on aging architecture that had been stretched to its limits through decades of upgrades.

By the time of *Star Trek VI*, several factors came together.

First, Starfleet was transitioning to newer ship classes like the Excelsior class, which were more efficient, more powerful, and designed from the ground up to handle modern systems without compromise.

Second, the political climate was changing. The Federation and the Klingon Empire were moving toward peace, reducing the need for older heavy cruisers that had been built for long-range standoffs and uncertain borders.

And finally, there’s a symbolic layer.

The retirement of the Enterprise-A wasn’t just about the ship — it was about the crew. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest had defined an era of exploration. Decommissioning the ship marked the closing chapter of their journey and the beginning of a new generation within Starfleet.

So in the end, the Enterprise-A wasn’t retired because it failed — it was retired because everything around it had moved forward. Technology, strategy, and storytelling all aligned to bring a legendary ship gracefully to its conclusion.

Monday Music "RhineStone Cowboy" by Glen Cambell

 

 I was driving in to work this morning, no surprise there and was listening to my Sirius/XM and had it on the 70's channel and this song came on, and I decided to continue my 70's run that I have been doing for the past few weeks, perhaps I will throw some Disco out to give "Old NFO" some warm and fuzzies of his yuuth, well anyway,  I tend to surf the channels while I drive, In the afternoon I listen to the Patriot Channel with the "Wilcow Majority", I rate him up there with with Rush, and way better than Hannity, personal preference.  Hannity comes on later.  Hannity to me is white collar whereas Andrew Wilcow to me is "blue collar".  Both are good, but I prefer Wilkow, he is more my speed, but I digress.  Well anyway, the overtime that I have been working for soo long has been shut off.......I ain't gonna know what to do with myself.*Insert horror face*.  so I am gonna try to start posting more on my blog that has been sadly neglected because real life got in the way.  Well again as I chase the shiny that is my thought, I caught this song, and I recall Glen Campell and John Wayne in "True Grit" and they played well off each other.  Still one of my favorite movies.  

     "Rhinestone Cowboy" is a song written by Larry Weiss and most famously recorded by American country music singer Glen Campbell. The song enjoyed immense popularity with both country and pop audiences when it was released in 1975.
   

Background and writing

Weiss wrote and recorded "Rhinestone Cowboy" in 1974, and it appeared on his 20th Century Records album Black and Blue Suite. It did not however, have much of a commercial impact as a single. In late 1974, Campbell heard the song on the radio and, during a tour of Australia decided to learn the song. Soon after his return to the United States, Campbell went to Al Coury's office at Capitol Records, where he was approached about "a great new song" — "Rhinestone Cowboy."
Several music writers noted that Campbell identified with the subject matter of "Rhinestone Cowboy" — survival and making it, particularly when the chips are down — very strongly. As Steven Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic put it, the song is about a veteran artist "who's aware that he's more than paid his dues during his career ... but is still surviving, and someday, he'll shine just like a rhinestone cowboy."

Chart performance

Released in May 1975, "Rhinestone Cowboy" immediately caught on with both country and pop audiences. The song spent that summer climbing both the Billboard magazine Hot Country Singles and Billboard Hot 100 charts before peaking at No. 1 by season's end - three non-consecutive weeks on the country chart, two weeks on the Hot 100.
During the week of September 13 — that was the week the song returned to No. 1 on the Billboard country chart, after having been nudged out for a week by "Feelins'" by Conway Twitty and Loretta Lynn — "Rhinestone Cowboy" topped both the country and Hot 100 charts simultaneously. This was the first time a song had accomplished the feat since November 1961, when "Big Bad John" by Jimmy Dean turned the trick.
"Rhinestone Cowboy" was one of six songs released in 1975 that topped both the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Hot Country Singles charts. The other songs were "Before the Next Teardrop Falls" by Freddy Fender; "(Hey Won't You Play) Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song" by B.J. Thomas, "Thank God I'm a Country Boy" and "I'm Sorry"/"Calypso," both by John Denver; and "Convoy" by C.W. McCall.
The song was also the sole Glen Campbell track in a promotional-only compilation album issued by Capitol records entitled "The Greatest Music Ever Sold" (Capitol SPRO-8511/8512), that was distributed to record stores during the 1976 Holiday season as part of Capitol's "Greatest Music Ever Sold" campaign, which promoted 15 "Best Of" albums released by the record label.