Seed Co Limited (SEED.zw) listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange under the Agricultural sector has released it’s 2009 annual report.For more information about Seed Co Limited (SEED.zw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Seed Co Limited (SEED.zw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Seed Co Limited (SEED.zw) 2009 annual report.Company ProfileSeed Co Limited is the leading producer and marketer of certified crop seeds in Zimbabwe, supplying hybrid maize seed to commercial farmers as well as wheat, soya bean, barley, sorghum and ground nut seed. The seeds is grown from parent seeds under contract by an established network of seed producers. Innovation and pioneering breeding methods drive the Seed Company’s success; having successfully developed hybrid crop seed varieties in Zimbabwe that are recorded as the highest yielding varieties in their class. The Seed Company has a dedicated research team; producing hybrid crop seeds and non-hybrid cereals and oil crop seed varieties that are suitable and adaptable for Zimbabwe’s ecological conditions. Seed Co Limited is listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange
Category Archives: vwmzpc
Derry police in Flag protests warning WhatsApp Facebook Pinterest Police in Foyle says they are investigating all crime and disorder linked to the flag protests and have arrested 3 people and reported 7 to the PPS to date.In a statement, the police say they understand the frustration of the community at the ongoing protests and that they are doing their utmost to police the protests with minimum disruption to the wider comunity.Police in Foyle say their priorities are to protect the public, preserve public order, uphold the human rights of all and gather evidence of any wrongdoing with a view to prosecuting anyone who breaks the law.They say that where the law is broken or a parade/ procession takes place unnotified they gather evidence with a view to identifying offenders with law breakers being brought before the courts.The Chief Constable has called for protestors to take a step back and think about the potential consequences of their actions for the wider public and themselves.Police ask for the support and patience of local representatives and residents as they work to manage the ongoing protests around the Union Flag and urge all public representatives to work together to bring the protests to a conclusion. Google+ Previous articleTest results in horse meat controversy due todayNext articleDonegal forester appeals again for government not to sell Coilte lands News Highland Google+ By News Highland – January 17, 2013 Twitter WhatsApp News LUH system challenged by however, work to reduce risk to patients ongoing – Dr Hamilton Twitter Pinterest Facebook Three factors driving Donegal housing market – Robinson RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Guidelines for reopening of hospitality sector published Calls for maternity restrictions to be lifted at LUH Almost 10,000 appointments cancelled in Saolta Hospital Group this week Business Matters Ep 45 – Boyd Robinson, Annette Houston & Michael Margey
Prior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Notifying Acquisition Of Land For National Highway: Supreme Court
Top StoriesPrior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Notifying Acquisition Of Land For National Highway: Supreme Court Ashok Kini8 Dec 2020 4:12 AMShare This – x”Prior EC is required to be taken before commencement of the “actual construction or building work””The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that prior environmental clearance is not necessary at the stage of notification of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of national highway.The notifications for land acquisition for the Chennai-Salem eight lane expressway were upheld by the Court.The Court observed that it is not necessary for the Central Government or the National Highway Authority…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Tuesday held that prior environmental clearance is not necessary at the stage of notification of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of national highway.The notifications for land acquisition for the Chennai-Salem eight lane expressway were upheld by the Court.The Court observed that it is not necessary for the Central Government or the National Highway Authority of India to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act.The prior environmental clearance is required to be taken before commencement of the “actual construction or building work” of the national highway by the executing agency (NHAI), the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed while allowing the appeal filed against the Madras High Court judgment which had quashed the notifications issued for acquiring land for the Chennai-Salem eight-lane greenfield expressway project. One of the issues considered by the High Court in this case was whether whether prior environmental clearance was imperative before issuing notifications under Section 3A(1) and at what stage of acquisition proceedings such environmental clearance ought to be made precondition? Answering it against NHAI, the High Court had held that the prior environmental clearance/ permission ought to have been obtained before issuance of notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act. Before the Apex Court, Centre contended that the High Court committed manifest error in concluding that such notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act could be issued only after prior environmental and forest clearances/permissions are granted in that behalf.The bench noticed that there is nothing in the NH Act or Rules which impels the Central Government to obtain prior environment clearance before exercise of that power and in issuing notification under Section 2(2), much less Section 3A expressing its intention to acquire the designated land. The court further noted that, as per 2006 EIA notification, the environmental/forest clearance is required to be obtained by the executing agency in terms of this notification “before commencing the actual work or executing the proposed work/project. The bench observed:”The land would vest in the Central Government under the 1956 Act only after publication of declaration of acquisition under Section 3D. And until then, the question of Central Government vesting it in favour of NHAI under Section 11 of the 1988 Act would not arise. However, until the vesting of the land, the Central Government and its authorised officer can undertake surveys of the notified lands by entering upon it in terms of Section 3B of the Act. Pertinently, the activities predicated in Section 3B are of exploration for verifying the feasibility and viability of land for 104 construction of a national highway. These are onetime activities and not in the nature of exploitation of the land for continuous commercial/industrial activities as such. There is remote possibility of irretrievable wide spread environmental impact due to carrying out activities referred to in Section 3B for assessing the worthiness of the land for using it as a national highway. Thus, the question of applying notification of 2006 at this stage does not arise, much less obligate the Central Government to follow directives thereunder.””On plain and harmonious construction of the provisions of the two enactments (i.e. the 1956 Act and the 1988 Act), it is amply clear that at the stage of issuing notifications under Section 2(2) or for that matter, Section 3A of the Act, there is no need to seek prior permission (by the Central Government) under environmental laws or the forest laws, as the case may be. Further, the purpose of public hearing in the concerned enactments (namely, the 1956 and 1988 Acts on the one hand and the 1986 Act or forest laws, on the other) is qualitatively different and contextual to matters relevant under the concerned enactment. The competent authority in the former, may be satisfied that the acquisition of land in question is for public purpose, but if the competent authority under the latter 109 legislations is of the view that the execution of the project in question (construction of a national highway) or any portion thereof may cause irretrievable comprehensive impact on the environment or the forests, as the case may be, would be competent to deny permission to such a project as a whole or part thereof. That decision must then prevail, being in public interests. This is not to say that one competent authority is superior to the other, but such balancing becomes essential to effectuate the public purposes under the stated enactments. It is quite possible that the executing agency (NHAI) may be able to convince the competent authority under the latter enactments that certain remedial steps can minimise or mitigate the environmental impact or to the forest, as the case may be, and commend it to accord conditional approval/permission to execute the project so as to conform to the tenets of sustainable development. If that suggestion commends to the competent authority under the environmental/forest laws, such clearance/permission can be granted after the public hearing.”The court further observed that the EIA notification of 2006 is in the nature of guidelines/directives issued by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory powers. It said:”These directions need to be adhered by the executing agency (NHAI) whilst undertaking the work in furtherance of the approved project. To put it differently, it is incomprehensible that the stated 2006 notification obliges the Central Government to take prior permission even before the stage of “planning” and “finalisation of the project(s)” such as in terms of the minutes dated 19.1.2018 followed by notifications under Sections 2(2) and 3A of the 1956 Act, as the case may be”The court said that the role of the competent authority under the environmental law or forest law is limited to scrutiny of the formalized project brought before it prior to its implementation by the executing agency, to ascertain whether it may have any environmental impact and if so, to impose such conditions by way of remedial steps to minimise and mitigate the impact while keeping in mind the need to fulfil the State’s obligation of sustainable development. Disagreeing with the High Court view, the bench observed:”Considering the interplay of provisions empowering the Central Government coupled with the purport of the notification/Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF dated 14.9.2006 and 7.10.2014 respectively, it will be paradoxical to countenance the argument that the Central Government is obliged to seek prior approval/permission of the competent authorities under the environment/forest laws, as the case may be, even before issuing notification under Section 2(2) or for that matter, Section 3A of the 1956 Act.”The court noted that in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 371, it was observed that in future, before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment. The court said that this dictum must be understood to mean that the declaration under Section 3D regarding acquisition of notified land, be made only after environmental/forest clearance qua the specific land is granted. It observed thus:”To put it differently, the necessity of prior environmental/forest clearance would arise only if finally, the land in question (site specific) is to be notified under Section 3D, as being acquired for the purposes of building, maintenance, management or operation of the national highway or part thereof. Such interpretation would further the cause and objective of environment and forest laws, as also not impede the timeline specified for building, maintenance, management or operation of the national highway or part thereof, which undeniably is a public purpose and of national importance. This would also assuage the concerns of the land owners that even if eventually no environment permission or forest clearance is accorded, the land cannot be reverted to the original owner as it had de jure vested in the Central Government upon issue of notification under Section 3D of the 1956 Act and no power is bestowed on the Central Government under this Act to withdraw from acquisition.”The court further noted that it is essential to issue a declaration under Section 3D of the 1956 Act within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A in respect of the notified land, failing which notification under Section 3A ceases to have any effect. “In other words, there is no express provision in the 1956 Act, which excludes the time spent by the Central Government or the executing agency in obtaining prior environmental clearance or permission under forest laws, as the case may be. To get over this predicament, by an interpretative process and also by invoking plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hold that the dictum in paragraph 100(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (supra), shall operate as a stay by an order of the Court for the purposes of Section 3D(3) in respect of all projects under the 1956 Act, in particular for excluding the time spent after issue of Section 3A notification, in obtaining the environmental clearance as well as for permissions under the forest laws. Only this approach would further the cause of environment and forest laws, as also, the need to adhere to the timeline specified under Section 3D(3) for speedy execution of the work of construction of national highway, which is also for a public purpose and of national importance. In other words, balancing of competing public interests/public purposes need to be kept in mind as being the only way forward for accomplishing the goal of sustainable development.”In other words, time spent by the executing agency/Central Government in pursuing application before the concerned authorities for grant of permission/clearance under the stated laws need to be excluded because of stay by the Court of actions (limited to issue of notification under Section 3D), consequent to notification under Section 3A. Thus, the acquisition process set in motion upon issue of Section 3A notification can go on in parallel until the stage of publication of notification under Section 3D, which can be issued after grant of clearances/permissions by the competent authority under the environment/forest laws and attaining finality thereofWhile concluding the judgment, the bench clarified that it has not considered the correctness and validity of the permissions/clearances accorded by the competent authorities under the environment and forest laws, in this case.CASE: Project Director, Project Implementation Unit vs.P.V. Krishnamoorthy [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 39763977 OF 2020 ]CORAM: Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Story
Facebook Pinterest The security alert in Castlederg has ended and a suspicious object which was examined at the scene, declared a hoax.The alert began at Millbrook Gardens after a number of men forced entry to a house in the area at around 7.30pm yesterday evening.The intruders held the male occupant to the ground before leaving an object with the appearance of pipe bomb at the property and making off.Police and ATO attended and nearby neighbours were evacuated whilst the item was examined and later declared a hoax.The item has been taken away for further forensic examination.Anyone with any information about this incident or who may be able to help with the police investigation, is asked to call officers at Strand Road on the non-emergency number 101. RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Twitter By News Highland – July 8, 2020 Journey home will be easier – Paul Hegarty Update: Security alert in Castlederg ends Google+ Homepage BannerNews Twitter News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Previous articleWage Subsidy Scheme set to be ‘amended and extended’Next articleShops losing up to 25% of floor space due to Covid-19 News Highland WhatsApp Facebook DL Debate – 24/05/21 WhatsApp Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Pinterest Google+ Harps come back to win in Waterford Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows
Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting suspect wounded in gunfight leaves hospital, appears in court in wheelchair
Jeff Swensen/Getty Images(PITTSBURGH) — The man accused of gunning down 11 worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue appeared in a federal court Monday afternoon in a wheelchair.Robert Bowers, 46, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell just hours after being released from a hospital, where he had been treated for bullet wounds suffered. It was his first hearing on a litany of charges that could result in the death penalty if he is convicted.The courtroom in downtown Pittsburgh fell silent as Bowers was pushed in his wheelchair before the judge. He jerked his head left and right as if taken off guard when the Mitchell ordered “all rise,” prompting everyone beside and behind Bowers to stand.Wearing a blue sweatshirt and a blank expression, Bowers listened as Mitchell explained the litany of charges against him. Bowers answered “yes, sir” at various points when asked to confirm he understood what was being said.“You have a right to be released on bail,” Mitchell told Bowers, whose attorneys, appointed to represent him specifically for the hearing, waived his right to challenge a request from U.S. attorneys to detain him without bail on grounds he is a flight risk.Bowers requested a public defender be appointed to handle his case.The judge scheduled a preliminary hearing for 10 a.m. on Thursday, which is when the prosecutor will present evidence, U.S. Attorney Scott Brady told reporters after Monday’s hearing.“We will have the opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that Robert Bowers murdered 11 people who were exercising their religious beliefs and that he shot or injured six others, including four of whom were police officers responding to the shooting,” said Scott, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. following the hearing.Brady said that the law requires prosecutors to present a case against Bowers to a federal grand jury within 30 days.Bowers is charged with 29 federal counts, including hate crimes. His charges include 11 counts of obstruction of exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death, 11 counts of use of a firearm to commit murder, four counts of obstruction of exercise of religious belief resulting in bodily injury to a public safety officer and three counts of use and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.The four counts of bodily injury to a public safety officer stem from the four police officers injured in the shooting.If convicted, Bowers could face the death penalty.Robert Bowers was shot multiple times in a gunfight with police that capped Saturday’s massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue. He was discharged from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh at 9:45 a.m. on Monday, a hospital spokeswoman told ABC News.As Bowers appeared in court, a member of the Pittsburgh emergency medical services tactical team that went into the synagogue described to ABC News the carnage and the bullets he witnessed while the shootout with the suspect was going on.Dr. Keith Murray, a trauma physician trained to carry and use an assault weapon, said his team climbed to the second floor of the temple Saturday morning to rescue a badly wounded SWAT officer as even as a gunbattle was commencing with suspect cornered on the floor above them.Murray said the SWAT officer was riddled with bullets, but within thirty seconds he’d been carried down to the mini staging area Murray and his team had set up. Murray said the wounded officer had bullet wounds to both legs, an arm, and his head, but he was still conscious.Blood was dripping from the wounded officer as Murray and his team carried him out of harm’s way. Murray said they cinched tourniquets on the officer’s extremities and called for a medevac as dozens of rounds were being fired on the floor above them.Bowers is scheduled to make his first court appearance before a federal magistrate in Pittsburgh at 1:30 p.m.He said that while searching for other victims, they came upon an elderly temple member who had been shot in the arm. She was slumped over a body of a fellow congregant.At first, Murray and his team thought she was dead. But as they approached her, guns at the ready for the suspect who had yet been apprehended, the injured women began to sob, Murray said. The rescuers ferried her to safety, he said.The four counts of bodily injury to a public safety officer stem from the four police officers injured in the shooting.If convicted, Bowers could face the death penalty.In a social media message that Bowers allegedly posted shortly before he stormed the synagogue on Saturday morning, Bowers referred to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), a more than 100-year-old nonprofit that aids refugees. He wrote that HIAS brings in “invaders that kill our people,” concluding, “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”Bowers was allegedly wielding three Glock 357 handguns and an AR-15 assault rifle when he stormed the temple Saturday morning and shot congregants at random, law enforcement officials said at a news conference on Sunday.“All the weapons he brought into the facility were used,” said Bob Jones, special agent in charge of the FBI Pittsburgh office.The 20-minute rampage ended in a gun battle with SWAT team members on the third floor of the synagogue. Even as he was being treated for his wounds, Bowers allegedly screamed at a SWAT office that he wanted “all Jews to die,” according to a criminal complaint filed against him.Killed in the attack were Joyce Fienberg, 75, Richard Gottfried, 65, Rose Mallinger, 97, Jerry Rabinowitz, 66, Daniel Stein, 71, Melvin Wax, 88, and Irving Younger, 69.Also killed were brothers Cecil Rosenthal, 59, and David Rosenthal, 54; and Bernice Simon, 84, and her husband, Sylvan Simon, 86.Six people were injured in the rampage, including the four police officers. Three of the officers remain hospitalized, one in critical condition. Of the three civilians still in the hospital, one was in critical condition and two were in stable condition, officials said.Investigators said that minutes before carrying out the carnage, Bowers is believed to have posted his intent to commit the massacre on the social media platform Gab, which is popular with white supremacists and the alt-right.“Screw the optics, I’m going in,” reads a post believed to have been made by Bowers moments before the first gunshots were fired inside the temple.n addition to the federal charges, Bowers was also charged with 35 state offenses, including 11 counts of criminal homicide, six counts of criminal attempted homicide, six counts of aggravated assault and 13 counts of ethnic intimidation.The shooting rattled nerves across the country and globe and prompted an outpouring of support and condolences.In New York, the Empire State Building went dark except for an orange halo on the mast to honor the victims. In Paris, the Eiffel Tower also went dark in homage to the victims. The U.S. and the Israeli flags were also projected on walls of the of Jerusalem’s old city to show solidarity with the Pittsburgh Jewish community.The Pittsburgh Steelers also held a moment of silence before Sunday football game at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh to honor the victims.Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said the city of Pittsburgh will stand by the victims’ families and help them get through the tragedy.“Pittsburgh is a strong town. We are a resilient city,” Peduto said at Sunday’s news conference. “We’ll get through this darkest day in Pittsburgh’s history by working together.”Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Home » News » Agencies & People » Agents happy with OTM previous nextMarketingAgents happy with OTMZoopla claims that OnTheMarket’s traffic levels are falling, but agents insist they are happy to continue listing properties with the recently launched portal.PROPERTYdrum1st May 20150560 Views Three months on from the launch of OnTheMarket (OTM) it has been claimed that the property portal is struggling to prove a hit with consumers, but estate agents listing properties on the website insist that they remain happy with OTM.Citing the latest data from Hitwise, the Zoopla Property Group (ZPG) claim that OTM’s website traffic has been in decline for the last few weeks, after peaking in mid-March, and that those agents that list their properties on the website are not receiving good value for money.Lawrence Hall (left) of ZPG commented, “At the end of the day, OTM is simply a marketing channel like any other and will need to ensure that its audience levels justify its fees. This is even more the case for OTM given that it has required its members to give up a huge audience. It is hard to see how agents can justify paying anything meaningful for marketing on OTM at these current traffic levels.”Ian Springett (right), Chief Executive of OnTheMarket.com, insisted that claims by ZPG that traffic to OTM is falling are “simply inaccurate both in terms of absolute numbers and trends”.“As flattering as it is to receive so much attention from Zoopla Property Group, we would like to correct their misinformation,” he said.“Far from declining throughout March, our traffic levels grew, with more than 1.5 million unique visitors coming to OnTheMarket.com and we have experienced a further uplift in April,” Springett added.ZPG, which has seen a fall in the number of estate agents advertising on its website due to competition from OTM, has issued a number of press releases in recent weeks questioning the volume of people who are actually visiting OTM, as part of a wider anti-OTM campaign. But ZPG’s decision to adopt this marketing approach has surprised some agents.William Wells (left), Residential Sales Director at Mullucks Wells, which is now using OTM and Rightmove to market properties online, but no longer Zoopla, commented, “We are surprised over the tactics employed by other sites which are contacting our clients directly as if they were their clients suggesting that our switch was going to disadvantage them. Zoopla has stated it doesn’t think onthemarket.com is a threat to them – but they are talking the talk and their actions suggest otherwise when they have written to our clients. So we would presume they think the site will pose a significant threat in the long-term.”Well insisted that his agency’s decision to drop Zoopla and list properties on OTM was the “right decision” and that the company “wouldn’t want to reverse it”.He added, “We now have more control over promoting our client’s properties because the site is agent led. The site is simple, without paid advertising cluttering it and no distractions for people viewing such as comparison data collection. We’re pleased with the level of national marketing [by OTM].”Another estate agency happy with their decision to switch to OTM, at the expense of Zoopla, is Barton Wyatt.James Wyatt, a Partner at the company, believes that OTM is a long term project that needs time to mature.He commented, “It seems that a lot of people expect instant results from OTM. That is not going to happen. Both Rightmove and Zoopla struggled in their early days – remember that?“Barton Wyatt dropped Zoopla, because the leads we received were poor. In other parts of the country, agents report excellent leads from Zoopla – so this isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ situation.“I certainly wouldn’t go backwards. We believe that OTM will be a success given time. In fact, many of us agents who are backing OTM are looking forward to the day when it will be the only property portal we use.”Hitwise property portals website traffic May 1, 2015The NegotiatorWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Hong Kong remains most expensive city to rent with London in 4th place30th April 2021
Training & Education Back to overview,Home naval-today USS Wasp Visits Mayport March 14, 2012 View post tag: visits View post tag: Naval USS Wasp Visits Mayport View post tag: Mayport View post tag: Navy Nearly 1,000 Sailors from amphibious assault ship USS WASP (LHD 1) pulled into Mayport, Fla., March 13.Wasp left her homeport of Norfolk March 2 to conduct routine operations in the waters of the Southern Caribbean, and use the degaussing range in Mayport.“With the [degaussing] range in Norfolk under repairs, we needed to make use of the Mayport range to achieve our annual certification,” said Capt. Gary M. Boardman. “While in Mayport, Wasp will conduct some minor maintenance and provide a portion of the crew some well-deserved liberty.”Wasp Sailors not on duty will take advantage of the numerous offerings of the southeastern naval port including several Morale, Welfare and Recreation-sponsored trips to Disney World and Universal Studios. Many crew members will also take advantage of the in port opportunity to meet up with family and/or friends who call northern Florida home. “I’m going home to visit my parents who live nearby in Lake City, Florida,” said Fire Controlman (SW) Crystal Ditro, a member of Wasp’s Material, Maintenance Management (3M) division. “We’re going to relax, build a bonfire and enjoy the time together while I’m down here.”Wasp will remain in Mayport through March 16 when she will return to sea and head back to her homeport of Norfolk.With the War of 1812 as the theme, Wasp is slated to participate in several high profile fleet week events in New Orleans, La.; Port Everglades, Fla.; and New York, N.Y. in the coming months. Wasp is using the Mayport visit to rehearse several aspects of this upcoming assignment.[mappress]Naval Today Staff , March 14, 2012; View post tag: News by topic View post tag: USS View post tag: Wasp Share this article
View post tag: GE Aviation January 8, 2015 Authorities US Navy Hires GE Aviation for Aircraft Maintenance View post tag: Aircraft View post tag: News by topic View post tag: hires View post tag: Naval Back to overview,Home naval-today US Navy Hires GE Aviation for Aircraft Maintenance View post tag: US Navy GE Aviation has been awarded a three-year (2015-2017), $460 million Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract from the U.S. Navy covering the repair, replacement and program support for F414 engine components for the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G Growler aircraft.This multi-year procurement arrangement is an availability-based contract providing operational readiness requirements for the F414 fleet through the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Centers West (Lemoore, CA) and Southeast (Jacksonville, FL.).This contract builds on the success of a series of previous F414 PBL contracts dating back to 2002.In addition to the Lynn plant, GE Supply Chain facilities in Hooksett, NH; Rutland, VT.; Wilmington, NC; and Madisonville, KY will provide parts for this PBL contract.Twin F414 engines power F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. The F414 engine for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G is rated at 22,000 pounds (98 kN) thrust and is in the 9:1 thrust-to-weight ratio class. The U.S. Navy has taken delivery of over 1,000 F414 engines with more than 1.5 million engine flight-hours accumulated to date.The F414 has also been selected as the powerplant for growth versions of the Saab Gripen and India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), and is a candidate for other combat aircraft under development.Press release, Image: US Navy View post tag: maintenance View post tag: Navy View post tag: americas Share this article
A national Fairtrade Fortnight initiative has prompted debate in colleges, and several JCRs are now working towards ‘Fairtrade status’.
While Oxford Brookes became the world’s first university to attain Fairtrade status in October 2003, and Oxford itself has held Fairtrade City status for over five years, Oxford University has not yet achieved Fairtrade status. The University would need over two thirds of colleges to conform to Fairtrade Foundation rules to qualify.
Alastair Marsh, OUSU Environment and Ethics Officer, said, “Oxford as a whole is a sizeable Fairtrade consumer.
“OUSU has a Fairtrade policy, and we believe that using more Fairtrade products wherever possible in Common Rooms and Colleges/PPHs is a good practice.”
Commenting on the use of Fairtrade products, Marsh said, “Of course, we all know the world is a very complicated place, and there are certain features about the Fairtrade system that are less than ideal.
“However Fairtrade is a good place for us to start: all it requires is reading a label and making a conscious choice.”