ZKIZ Archives


小銀行員衝了 花1年學開飛機

2014-02-03  TCW
 
 

 

三十二歲,事業正準備起飛,你願意在這個時候,放下眼前擁有的一切,冒著人生重新來過的風險,去追求一個極可能失敗的夢?

徐鈺青,玉山銀行前企金專員,就大膽做了這個選擇。二○一二年,他辭掉了年薪七、八十萬的工作,帶著一百萬元的存款,以及跟台北市政府借貸來的一百萬,繞過了半個地球,一個人到西雅圖的飛行學校學開飛機。

兩百萬,一年的黃金就業期,資歷相同的同事可能已經升任襄理,年薪邁入百萬等級。如果失敗了,他不只得要重新找工作,而且還得背上負債,人生等於從頭開始。

「這是我人生最後一次任性的機會,再不放膽去追,一輩子都不會再有了。」徐鈺青說。

每天睡覺前??我都告訴自己,我一定要飛!

在孤注一擲前往西雅圖之前,徐鈺青曾經嘗試過報考華航、長榮的培訓機師。他白天六點出門工作,晚上十點回到家繼續K書、準備資料。為了加強語言能力,他還跑去澳洲,打工留學一年,前前後後準備了三年的時間,一路走完所有流程,卻沒有想到,會在最後一關被刷掉。

當時,他整個人沮喪到谷底。親朋好友都勸他:「人要務實一點,要腳踏實地。都嘗試過了,不行就不要硬拚。」也有人不太客氣的說:「你就不是飛行的料,早點醒醒比較好。」

然而,每當結束一天工作,累攤在床上,他的腦海裡就會浮現兒時住在台中清泉崗機場旁,戴著墨鏡的飛行員帥氣起飛的畫面。

「每天睡覺前我都告訴自己,我一定要飛!我一定要飛!」徐鈺青說。培訓既然考不上,他決心走自學機師之路。

一般培訓機師都有航空公司出錢,結訓後直接受聘。自學不僅燒自己的錢,結訓後還得去各家航空公司應徵面試,代價更高,命運卻更不確定。

「沒考上,頂多負債一百萬,吃稀飯過日子;不去嘗試,我一定會後悔,庸庸碌碌過一輩子。」徐鈺青這樣說。話雖然說得雲淡風清,但是,當貸款撥下來的那一刻,他的雙手還是忍不住的顫抖,顫抖之中,有興奮,也有緊張害怕。

錢,還只是第一關,更大的挑戰,是語言。

在西雅圖,徐鈺青必須全程用英文,學習空氣動力學、氣象學、機械工程學等艱深課程,這對台北大學企管系畢業,沒有一點外文或物理科學背景的他來說,苦不堪言。

該練的都練了??緊急那一刻,竟還是楞在駕駛座上

並且,早上上課,下午就要實際坐上飛機練飛。書本上的知識,立刻要轉化成操作桿怎麼拉,燃油怎麼加,儀表板怎麼解讀。晚上回到宿舍,還要預習隔天的課程內容。

K原文書、上機,這些靠苦功還能克服,真正困難的,是臨場反應。遇上緊急狀況,塔台傳來連珠炮般複雜的英文指示,中間還夾雜著本地慣用語,徐鈺青只能楞在駕駛座上,成了老外口中的「Stupid pilot(笨蛋駕駛員)。」

「每個字都聽得懂,但合在一起就聽不懂,」他苦笑:「聽不懂的時候,就算腦袋塞了再多知識都等於不會飛!」

為了克服這個障礙,他另掏腰包,花了六百美元(約合新台幣一萬八千元),買下一台飛行專用攝影機全程錄影,下機後反覆觀看聆聽,一方面熟悉美國塔台口音,一方面也重新模擬整個飛行過程。常常為了改進一個缺點,模擬到半夜三、四點。

「很少人像他這麼拚命,」徐鈺青的授業教師、西雅圖斯諾克米西(Snohomish)飛行學校教官孫家榮指出,一般培訓機師大約要花上兩年的時間才能完成所有課程,但徐鈺青只花了十個半月就通過四關考試拿下執照,速度算是相當快。「沒有高度的決心與自律是做不到的,」孫家榮說。

他不是沒想過放棄,但每當一個人飛在一萬公尺的高空,只有轟隆隆的引擎聲與藍天白雲做伴時,他就會跟自己對話:「我究竟是為什麼來到這裡?」往往,在落地前就會得到肯定的答案。

二○一三年,他順利結訓回到台灣,正積極準備考華航、長榮機師。離飛行的夢,還差最後一步。問他如果再不成功,是否還會堅持?他想了想,笑著說:「這是最後一次,該向現實妥協了。」能夠任性一年走出去,他已經覺得很滿意。

小銀 行員 衝了 年學 學開 飛機
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=90535

新界東北衝立法會衝了入獄

我看到這標題:《反新界東北衝立會改判囚 12名被告考慮上訴》。我看到不同媒體報導此案都講到今天被上訴庭改判即時入獄的被告會上訴。我不禁要問, 去那裏上訴?

本案今天判決, 不是一般的裁判法院的上訴案。一般裁判法院的上訴案會由高等法庭單一法官處理, 如果是控方申請判刑覆核, 就會由上訴庭三位法官一起聽審。今天這件案由上訴庭副庭長楊振權, 上訴庭法官潘兆初及彭偉昌三位聽審。他們對覆核刑期的裁決, 根本不能上訴。上訴庭對上就是終審法院, 終審法院並不是聽審刑期上訴的法院, 刑期的上訴在上訴庭止步, 故此, 東北衝擊立法會一案今天由上訴庭處理了, 就完全結束。

終審法院受理刑事上訴而會批出許可的準則在《終審法院條例》第32(2)條訂立了, 

32. 上訴許可
(1) 除非終審法院已給予上訴許可,否則不得受理有關上訴。
(2) 除非上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,或顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況,否則終審法院不得給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
.......

本案的被名被改判監禁, 並不涉及「具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點」, 那麼可以用「顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況」(substantial and grave injustice) 作為上訴理由嗎? 我恐怕不能。終審法院在蘇耀峰(音譯)一案, 解釋了何謂substantial and grave injustice,

THE "SUBSTANTIAL AND GRAVE INJUSTICE" TEST

6. Access to this Court in criminal cases is governed by s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, which provides that:

"Leave to appeal shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal or the High Court, as the case may be, that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision or it is shown that substantial and grave injustice has been done."

7. This Court's primary role in the administration of criminal justice is to resolve real controversy on points of law of great and general importance. For this Court does not function as a court of criminal appeal in the ordinary way. However the "substantial and grave injustice" limb of s.32(2) exists as a residual safeguard to cater for those rare and exceptional cases in which there is a real danger of something so seriously wrong that justice demands an enquiry by way of a final criminal appeal despite the absence of any real controversy on any point of law of great and general importance. To obtain leave to appeal under this limb, an appellant has to show - as this appellant had shown - that it is reasonably arguable that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

(So Yiu Fung and HKSAR  FACC 5/1999)

終審法院並非一般的上訴庭, 審理的案件基本上是涉及重大法律議題, 其次才是實質和嚴重不公, 考慮的焦點是定罪是否穩妥, 而不是審理刑期或申請保釋那類上訴。故此, 這件案的被告根本再沒有途徑就判刑上訴。

除此之外, 終審法院今天頒布了另一篇判辭, 涉及新界東北衝立會案第一及第二被告(梁曉暘及黃浩銘)的上訴, 已講明不批出他們非法集結罪的上訴許可,

1. At the hearing, we dismissed the applications of both applicants for leave to appeal against their conviction for unlawful assembly, but granted the first applicant’s leave application in respect of his conviction under section 19(b) referred to below. These are our reasons for so doing.
......

4. In the course of a demonstration held on 13 June 2014, protesters rushed at the entrances to the Legislative Council (“Legco”) complex and, using implements like bamboo poles and metal Mills barriers which had been placed to bar entry, attempted to force their way inside by prising open or battering in the glass doors. Considerable violence was used and a Legco security officer was injured, sustaining fractured toes caused by a falling Mills barrier. Damage costing $200,000 was occasioned to property at the entrances attacked.

5. The unlawful assembly convictions were based on both applicants’ participation in this violent behaviour. Their conduct plainly gave rise to a reasonable apprehension by the persons inside the complex of a breach of the peace and undoubtedly constituted an unlawful assembly under POO section 18.[4]

(FAMC No. 18 of 2017)

再從這觀點看, 終審法院都覺得非法集結無釘錯, 好明顯就毫無上訴空間了。這13個被告的監坐硬了。
新界 東北 立法會 立法 衝了 入獄
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=256533

新界東北衝立法會衝了入獄之二

安得老在上一篇這留言, 我當初掉以輕心,

安得老臨兮拍四仔2017年8月16日 上午12:36
小弟即刻睇 Seabrook 想挑標兄錯處,結果鎩羽而歸。

對留言仔細考慮過才恍然大悟, 原來他所指的Seabrook是終院另外一宗上訴案MARK ANTHONY SEABROOK AND HKSAR FACC 6/1998,  該案以下這兩段判辭是新界東北衝立法會案13名被告唯一可以琢磨上訴至終審法院的相關理據:

40. It is to be borne in mind that the process of sentencing the appellant was still extant when he was before the Court of Appeal. This is because - as the Court of Appeal laid down in R. v. Sze Tak Hung [1991] 1 HKLR 109 at p.113 and repeated in Re C.W. Reid [1994] 2 HKLR 14 at p.24 - the sentencing process does not end upon the passing of sentence at first instance but continues until the question of sentence has been dealt with by an intermediate appellate court (the Court of Appeal in appeals from the Court of First Instance of the High Court or the District Court, and the Court of First Instance of the High Court in appeals from the Magistrate's Court). The intermediate appellate courts routinely deal with sentence. And in practice such a court is almost always the final court dealing with sentence. So it is only right that the sentencing process be viewed as one which continues until an intermediate appellate court has dealt with the question of sentence.
...
46. It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt to lay down what ought to be done in those cases where the sentencing process is no longer extant because the intermediate appellate court had already dealt with sentence. I do no more than note the following possibilities. One possibility, which may be appropriate where there is a very great difference between the sentence passed and the one called for by the guidelines in question, is to invite the Chief Executive to exercise his power under Article 48(12) of the Basic Law to commute a part of the sentence. Nor would I rule out, in such a case, the alternative possibility of an appeal to this Court on the basis of an extreme case requiring a final appeal as to sentence in order to undo a substantial and grave injustice.

不過, 我傾向否定可引用Seabrook案來上訴至終審法院, 因為上訴庭處理了律政司的上訴, 就是Seabrook案所指的 in practice such a court is almost always the final court dealing with sentence, 除非終審法院要 undo a substantial and grave injustice。新界東北衝立法會案的改判, 並不構成substantial and grave injustice。我個人看, 覆核加了刑除了重手外, 完全沒有實質及嚴重不公的情況, 所以我維持上一篇的結論: 再無上訴空間。
新界 東北 立法會 立法 衝了 入獄 之二
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=256672

股票掌故 | 香港股票資訊 | 神州股票資訊 | 台股資訊 | 博客好文 | 文庫舊文 | 香港股票資訊 | 第一財經 | 微信公眾號 | Webb哥點將錄 | 港股專區 | 股海挪亞方舟 | 動漫遊戲音樂 | 好歌 | 動漫綜合 | RealBlog | 測試 | 強國 | 潮流潮物 [Fashion board] | 龍鳳大茶樓 | 文章保管庫 | 財經人物 | 智慧 | 世界之大,無奇不有 | 創業 | 股壇維基研發區 | 英文 | 財經書籍 | 期權期指輪天地 | 郊遊遠足 | 站務 | 飲食 | 國際經濟 | 上市公司新聞 | 美股專區 | 書藉及文章分享區 | 娛樂廣場 | 波馬風雲 | 政治民生區 | 財經專業機構 | 識飲色食 | 即市討論區 | 股票專業討論區 | 全球政治經濟社會區 | 建築 | I.T. | 馬後砲膠區之圖表 | 打工仔 | 蘋果專欄 | 雨傘革命 | Louis 先生投資時事分享區 | 地產 |
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019