Tag: News

MH370 and MH17: A Decade On

The unthinkable happened in 2014. One major international airline suffered two catastrophic accidents. These tragic events ran contrary to all the trends in historic aircraft accident data.

In March, flight MH370 disappeared. In July, flight MH17 was shot down. In both cases there were no survivors from these international flights. This remains an unprecedented situation. It is a sobering consideration that such dreadful events were possible in a mature international framework of civil aircraft operations and regulation.

A decade on the pain of those who lost friends, family and colleagues in these tragedies is not diminished. Aviation should not lessen its attention to discovering more about what happened and putting measure in place to prevent reoccurrence of these events.

These two aviation catastrophes are different in respect of causal factors. One remains a mystery but, from what is known, has the hallmarks of an operational accident. The other is undoubtably an aggressive malicious act. Failings in the two elements of aviation safety and security, often viewed separately, are both capable of catastrophic outcomes.

Malaysia Airlines was a State-owned airline in the traditional model. There’s no reason to suppose that the airline harboured deficiencies that led directly to the two fatal accidents. In hindsight, the question is often asked: could both accidents have been avoided?

The extensive underwater search for MH370, in the southern Indian Ocean, resulted in no findings. However, floating debris from the fateful Boeing 777-200ER was discovered. Unlike what happened with Air France Flight 447 were the installed accident flight recorders were recovered from the deep ocean, there has been no such good fortune in respect of MH370.

Accident flight recorders are one of the primary tools for accident investigators. Installed recorders are built and tested to withstand extreme conditions. The reasonable assumption being that they will be found with any aircraft wreckage. The accident of MH370, is one where a deployable recorder may have been beneficial. That is one that ejects from an aircraft when it is subject to the high impact of the sea surface and then floats, possibly away from an accident site. There is a good case to be made for installing both deployable and installed recorders[1]. Particularly a case for long-range international overwater aircraft operations.

The facts surrounding the criminal act of shooting down of flight MH17 are well established. Sadly, in a troubled world it is impossible to say that such malicious acts will never occur again. What is to be done? Avoidance is by far the optimal approach. Commercial flying over warzones, where heavy weapons are known to be used, is extremely foolish. Now, it is good that much more flight planning attention is paid to understanding where conflict zones exist[2].

NOTE 1: On 07 March 2014 at 1642 UTC1 [0042 MYT, 08 March 2014], a Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Flight MH370, a Beijing-bound international scheduled passenger flight, departed from KL International Airport [KLIA] with a total of 239 persons on board (227 passengers and 12 crew). The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200ER, registered as 9M-MRO.

NOTE 2: On 17 July 2014, at 13:20 (15:20 CET) a Boeing 777-200 with the Malaysia Airlines nationality and registration mark 9M-MRD disappeared to the west of the TAMAK air navigation waypoint in Ukraine. All 298 persons on-bard lost their lives.

[1] https://flightsafety.org/files/DFRS_0.pdf

[2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/air-operations/czibs

Level Playing Field

The back-office work of campaigning does take advantage of a lot of volunteering. That’s my experience. Giving time and energy for free and seeking to advance a worthwhile cause.

It would be nice if all political parties in this country where wholly supported by a membership that is both engaged in activities and willing to put their hands in their pockets, now and then. The reality is that, of all the eligible voters in this country, only a small fraction of them is committed enough to be a member of a recognised political party.

Even with a strong membership and a well-motivated bunch of volunteers, life is hard going unless there is a reasonable sized war chest to support campaigning work.

Come election time the range and breadth of communications that is necessary to be a competitive candidate is considerable. Thus, it is no surprise that history can turn on who has the most resources. That doesn’t always work but without a spending capacity rivals have most of the advantages.

Politicians seek the patronage of the wealthy as a pathway to power. We can remain pure and get engaged in arguments both ethical and moral as to the impact of patronage. Or we can accept that it is inevitable and ensure that strict rules exist to create a reasonably level playing field for all candidates. Since we can no more stop influence from flowing from one person to another than we can freeze gravity then a democratic society cannot must not have woolly rules on these matters.

Talk now is about financial donations that originate from abroad. That is when a wealthy person wishes to funnel money into a political party in a country other than the one of their citizenship. No prizes for guessing who or what this is about.

Now, I could say only UK citizens should be allowed to donate to UK political parties or organisations. Foreigners should be banned from involvement in national democratic processes. Trouble is that this subject is not so cut and dry as it might first seem.

Those with dual citizenships may wish to contribute and participate. That sounds reasonable. Those with notable family ties may wish to contribute and participate. Certainly, there are reasonable cases to consider. What’s interesting here is the legitimacy of the interest and that it is of a “friendly” nature.

I’d like to go back to the mater of the level playing field. If a candidate meets the criteria set down for a given election, then the battle should be over achievements, ideas and policies and not over the size of bank balances. Financial donors should not be able to exert undue influence by throwing money at a campaign. That’s where there is a strong need for strict financial limits on donations or any form of beneficial contribution that comes from abroad.

POST: One subject that Australian’s are looking at:

Eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change Australian elections

Societal Change and AI

Societal change is inevitable. It seems hack to analogise with reference to the printing press. Look what happened, an explosion of communication. Dominance of the book for centuries. Expanding literacy. Progressive shaping of society resulting in this era.

We are only where we are because we stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before[1]. Not just the giants. There is massive amount of human contribution that is never accounted. The unseen heroes and the occasionally rediscovered thinkers and doers.

Along the way of history those who battle the battle of glass half full or glass half empty chatter away. We are either in a glorious age or a minute away from Armageddon. Polar ends of our future, both stories have merit. Who has a crystal ball that works?

I’ve been aware of neural-networks and joked about Bayesian Belief Networks for at least two decades. Having been involved in the business of data analysis that’s no surprise. Even so the rapid advance of a multitude of different forms of artificial intelligence (AI) is a surprise.

Talking generally, we have this foolish mental picture of the world that everything is linear. Progression from one state to another takes proportionate steps forward. It’s a hangover from the analogue world which is where we were until the 1960s/70s.

This fetish for straight lines and normal curves is deeply embedded. It’s odd. Although a lot of rules in nature do have a linear form, one that Sir Isaac Newton would recognise, there’s far more that follows other rules.

In the last few weeks this fetish played out at a global scale. We are all treating climate change as if it’s a water clock. Drip, drip by drip the climate changes. A reaction to a progressive degradation. Yet, environmental reality might have a step change in degradation ahead.

In my view it’s right to try to vision ahead about the path AI technology might take. It’s right to consider more than progressive development and evolutionary change. Information systems have a habit of either falling into disuse or marching on at the pace of Moore’s law[2].

Another example. The math of Fourier transforms has been around a long time. Doing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) in the 1970s required a couple of chunky cabinet full of power-hungry electronics. For the few, not the many. Today, every smart phone[3] in the world can crunch FFT algorithms. For the many, not the few.

Can we use a simple graphical representation to say where AI is going[4]? Will “intelligence” double every year or two? Well, I suspect that developments will go faster than a doubling. Like Moore’s law these conditions tend to become self-fulfilling. It’s a technological race.

[Why? To a machine there’s no sleep. To a machine there’s 86,400 seconds in a day. Everyone is meaningful and useful. To a complete and successful electronic machine only a tiny fraction of its operating time needs to be spent fixing itself. Or that might be one job left to us.]

POST: The impact of this high speed race makes interesting study U.S. Should Build Capacity to Rapidly Detect and Respond to AI Developments – New Report Identifies Workforce Challenges and Opportunities | National Academies

[1] Sir Isaac Newton, English scientist, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

[2] https://www.asml.com/en/technology/all-about-microchips/moores-law

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38320198

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03679-6

Labour’s IHT Policy: A Threat to Family Farms?

Labour is driving down a road it’s driven before. It’s a shame when the two biggest political parties in Britain are so captured by their past that they can no more look forward than a duck can master arithmetic.

Post Second World War the country was broke. Rising taxes were inevitable to pay down debt. The British State was far more directly involved in everyday economic decisions than it is now.

Inheritance Tax (IHT) got its status as a loathed tax partially because of the necessary actions of the post-1945 Government. At that time, “estate duty” was increased to 80%. This generated increase tax revenue but led to the breakup of large country estates up and down Britain. Ironically, the breakup of country estates created an opportunity for some tenant farmers. As the estates were sold off in lots so tenants could become owners, if they could raise the finance.

So, you might say farmers paying IHT at 20% isn’t so bad by comparison. The amount of generated increase tax revenue isn’t much. With one hand the Government is subsidising farmers and with the other hand it’s taking a cut of their lifetime acquired assets.

Another side of the coin is the cost-of-living crisis. Certainly, winter heating costs have been a matter of great concern for a lot of people. Food too is an absolutely essential expense. Hence, the growth of food banks in every part of the country. This shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

All of this is happening at a time when the nation’s supermarkets are making healthy profits. Keeping cheap food on the shelves with, in some cases, the philosophy of sell it cheap and pile it high. Industrialised and highly processed food coming in at the lowest prices to the customer. At the other end of the supply chain, forcing down farm gate prices.

You would think that getting national food production, the job done by farmers, right would be an imperative for Government. You would think that a regular dialogue with farmers might be quite important. Wouldn’t you?

The problem with Labour’s 20% IHT and the threshold of 1 million is that it’s not going to have much impact of those who own large country estates to avoid other taxes, like CGT. It’s not going to have much impact on large corporate agricultural enterprises. It may not even have much overall impact on land prices. Afterall, they don’t make it anymore.

But it’s going to clobber small and medium sized enterprises, very often family farms. It will clobber far more than the Treasury’s last-minute calculations say[1]. The reason is clear. The profitability of family farming has been dire over recent years. Add a new tax bill and selling-up will be the most attractive option for many potential next generation farmers.

Then the question must be asked what’s it all about? What are the values underpinning this policy? There I go back to the start. Does Labour perceive these working people as “rich”. Their logic may go, why shouldn’t the rich pay more after the Conservative Government that they supported has made such a mess of the country? One way of seeing where we are.

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/how-many-farmers-will-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax

Ignoring Climate Change?

In a way, I’m not immune from a little hypocrisy. Petrol prices go up and I’m not going to jump for joy. Prices go down. I’m not suddenly thinking that’s just going to encourage more consumption. No, I’m looking at the pound in my pocket. It will cost me less to fill up the tank.

There was a whole swath of apocalyptic tales of the world in the 1970s. The “oil crisis” of 1973 should have been a warning. Humanity might have taken the opportunity to look at the trends related to oil and gas consumption. There might have been a more sustained reaction.

Instead, alternative lifestyles, renewable energy projects and energy conservation were thought of as quaint novelties or scientific curiosities that would never really catch on. The political addiction to short-termism overrode consideration of substantial change. Increased exploration led to new sources of oil and gas being found.

Today, we should know better. The fight against climate change has a decade of talk behind it. Humanity knows that the link exists between burning hydrocarbon and a changing global climate. We are ignorant no more. Now, I almost wish I hadn’t written that last sentence.

Across the pond there’s a powerful nation. One that influences the behaviour of 100s of other nations. The US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. However, until the last few weeks it had recognised that maybe that isn’t a good formula for the future.

Back to that dollar in the pocket. Despite the US being a powerful nation many its people didn’t feel that way. All politics is local. When filling up with gas gets more expensive people do not jump for joy. In fact, there’s that human tendance to romanticise the past and remember when everything was cheaper. Life was easier. Can’t we go back?

It’s being reported that US President elect Trump’s choice for energy secretary is going to be like turning the clocks back. Prospect is that the fight against climate change is going to get a back seat. At least for the next 4-years.

Does this spell global disaster? Well, it certainly is a great big lost opportunity. Just like here in the UK, Brexit ignited the tendance to romanticise the past. It looks as if the same phenomena have taken root in the US. Burning more and more hydrocarbons is like a sugar rush. A boom to begin then followed by exhaustion. I expect after this presidential term the results will be one of regret. Just like Brexit. A wonderment – why on earth did we do that?

Still, there’s an opportunity for other countries to race ahead with advanced and alternative technologies to reduce energy dependency. It’s hard to think and act long-term. I’m confident it can be done. If it’s done successfully the prize will be great.

New Form of Monarchy in 2024?

An observation. There’s something strange going on across the Atlantic. You see, I have found inspiration in the story of America’s revolutionary struggle. The writings of Thomas Paine stirring up a radical movement. The strong desire to be independent of the rule of Kings and Queens. There’s a lot to be said for freeing a nation from imperial tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is a bold statement. Rejecting the royal authority of George III to set a new nation on an independent path. It proved to be a dynamic and prosperous democratic path. One that people across the world looked on with admiration.

It’s true that the United States has had its own dynasties. Powerful families and influential individuals that have shaped its history. However, since its independence, none of them have ruled as a monarch. None have wheeled massive power without checks and balances.

Yet here we are in 2024, and a form of pseudo monarch stands ready to take the reigns of power. Sure, democracy has played its part in putting one man in control. That, in of itself, is not unknown in the history books. The question to ask is when does a Republic tip over and become something quite different from what it has been?

I hope my observations are an exaggeration. It’s all to easy to see the News that commentators want us to see. I’ve often found that it’s most difficult to see things as they actual are as opposed to how they are shaped by personal beliefs and fleeting desires. Objectivity isn’t so easy.

This much can be said, the next four years are going to be turbulent ones. There’s a certainty in that conclusion. Even with the Atlantic in the way, just as the Jetstream brings us changeable weather, so unsettling waves of transformation will hit our shores.

The latest commentary coming from supporters of the new Trump regium in the US is one of polarisation. It’s the traditional stick-up. Choose between us and them. Our populous island off the shore of continental Europe must be squeezed into a choice between the US and the EU.

This monosyllabic way of framing a debate gets swallowed by the media. Overall, it’s nonsense. There’s no way that both will not be important for as far over the horizon as anyone can see. Both are going through periods of disruption. For once, domestically, the UK seems relatively stable. That’s putting aside the past damage done by Brexit and a Conservative government that fell into total disrepair. Yes, the UK can plot its path knowing that some internal consistency can be expected.

Everything I’ve written here is overshadowed by issues of global concern. Overshadowed being the sad reality. Climate change will not wait for the dust to settle from ardent disruptors. The planet’s atmosphere knows nothing of the exploits of prominent personalities. We desperately need to rediscover common interests and act on common concerns.

Budgets

You can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them. That’s budgets. Most of us budget even if we don’t write it down. I’ve got a certain amount in my bank account. If I spend more than is stamped at the end of my statement, then trouble may ensure. Not always given our modern dependency on credit. A problem arises only when spending gets out of control.

Mr Micawber cautioned about debt’s downside: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty-pound and six, result misery.” In his time, Charles Dickens was acutely aware of what unsustainable debt could do to people.

We’ve had weeks where the news media has created a landslide of content on a budget. The repetition of point scoring has got tedious. It’s way out of normal everyday human experience. I don’t know about you, but I can’t easily relate to a number like £1,226 billion[1]. Every year public expenditure totals numbers of that order. It happens. It’s real.

Today, our UK “billion” is a thousand million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by nine noughts. At one time in the past the UK “billion” meant a million million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by twelve noughts. That got dropped for the sake of international harmony.

I have used such numbers in lectures on aviation safety. To think, I often got people glazing over when I talked about ten to the minus nine per flight hour. That’s a billionth of something. A mighty small number. In these cases, a number denoting a probability of something happening.

So, here we are in October getting excited over a change of couple of hundredth of typical annual national expenditure. Not without reason. That figure sound like a small number, and it would be, if it wasn’t for the subject Dickens raises, namely debt.

Wisdom comes from learning from experience. Lessons learned are incredibly valuable. That’s not rocket science. Only we need to factor in how easily we forget bad experiences.

In terms of budgeting, recently two reckless politicians taught us a lot[2]. Truss and Kwarteng sound like a comedy double act or a dodgy back street lawyers office. Those two monster brains had the marvellous idea of borrowing more to give it away. In a short flash of genius what they did increased borrowing costs and spooked just about everyone.

Debt matters. Nation States are not like people, so the home economics analogies don’t stand up. However, borrow too much without being absolutely clear as to the answer for question like – who, what, where, when, why and how and the results are likely to be extremely unpleasant.

Let’s see if the day ends with a pint of beer being more expensive or not. Love them or hate them, budgets are not going away anytime soon.

[1] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/

[2] https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/truss-kwarteng-mini-budget-one-year

Halloween Timeless Spooky

He’s a legend but I don’t agree with DJ Tony Blackburn on this one. The headline reads: “BBC radio legend Tony Blackburn says, ‘modern music won’t last’ 60 years[1]”. Maybe it’s newspaper click bait but there’s a sentiment in those words that will resonate widely.

To me, every new generation does something different. To even think that you or I can predict what’s going to be listened to in 2084 is way off the scale. One hundred years from the infamous 1984.

Stepping back 60-years there’s a nicely curated version of 1964 to entertain us. I’ll bet there are those long gone, whose tapes and vinyl records have been trashed, who thought they would echo down the generations and haven’t. To match that there’s those who’ve had a few unexpected days of fame but that we still listen to their music with great affection.

Tony, in his Radio One role inspired me. I remember trying to put on a school disco and even proposing a school radio station. I found that our “modern” 60s built secondary school had been wired for an audio system but that it was never used. Probably for the best, the headmaster at the time was not so enthusiastic. As a 14–15-year-old who’s hobby included dismantling electrical bits and pieces, wiring up an audio system wasn’t a big deal.

It’s almost Halloween. That’s a time for the spooky singles of the past start to surface from the crypt. The first one to rise from the dead is the one that I played in my teenage school days. The Monster Mash[2] got a re-release. It came out in 1962. I’m sure it was charting around 75 too. Boris Pickett and The Crypt Kickers have stood the test of time, as all good monsters should.

Next on my horror list is the Werewolves of London by Warren Zevon[3]. Ah-hoo. Better not let him in. Comic and scary at the same time.

Having started a list, I suppose I’d better keep going. Don’t Fear the Reaper by Blue Oyster Cult has to be up there, on the top[4]. Although strangely this song has an upbeat feeling about it.

The video is as B movie lookalike as possible. Made by a man who did transform throughout his life. Michael Jackson left us with a seminal music video, half of which no one needs to watch[5]. “Thriller” has to be part of a Halloween list. Zombies have never been so popular. They ought to have their own prime time Stickly Come Dancing show.

For number five, for all its devilish despair I call up: “Paranoid[6]“. Black Sabbath, just the name of the band is enough to qualify. So, the line goes: Happiness, I can’t feel. The sound is enough to explode any gramophone. The louder the better. It will wake the dead.

POST: Here the AI generated image is bizarrely spooky. In the gloom, the tone arm of the record player hovers over the disk playing. Is that because the AI was being clever or is it because the AI hasn’t got a clue how a recorder player works? I think maybe the later.

[1] https://metro.co.uk/2024/10/26/bbc-radio-legend-tony-blackburn-says-modern-music-wont-last-60-years-21843219/

[2] https://youtu.be/-tHyRQOdqf0

[3] https://youtu.be/c6M89iDabwM

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-4G18t5se8

[5] https://youtu.be/sOnqjkJTMaA

[6] https://youtu.be/0qanF-91aJo

Travelling Post-Brexit

Ever since Brexit, I’ve had to have my passport stamped in and out of European countries. It’s like a reversion to the days when I got my first British passport. That was back in the late 70s.  It has a frighteningly youthful picture. Occupation – student.

I’m not so phased by the coming changes to European Union (EU) border controls. Naturally, it’s worth asking if Britian has become a more dangerous nation since the time before Brexit when we enjoyed freedom of movement. It’s a pity we didn’t value that freedom a lot more. It was thrown away far too easily.

Today, the electronic border controls expect us to stare at a camera. A securely held, I hope, database is used to check a list of biometric numbers against my image. I guess that’s a sure-fire way of saying that Mr Blogs is indeed someone who looks very much like Mr Blogs. Facial recognition technology has come a long way.

The next steps in tightening-up controls will be fingerprinting[1]. Not in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, with an ink pad. No, in the digital age an ominous machine will scan our fingers and check its records to see that not only does Mr Blogs look as he should but that he’s got the essential characteristics of Mr Blogs.

Certainly, in this new regime British citizens will not be able to overstay in European countries. Ones travel records will be a lot more quantifiable and precise than stamping a piece of paper. That is assuming such digital border control machines will be relatively error free.

One of the benefits of Brexit is that it will be easier to track the movements of British criminals in and out of the EU. The reciprocal will not be true. It will not be easier for British authorities to track continental European criminals in an out of the UK.

Ah the luxury of being a Third Country. Longer ques. More uncertainty. Less privileges.

What’s more is the introduction of the new EU border control systems will be “phased[2]”. This change will not be one big bang. So, different ports and airports will be doing different things at different times. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to see that confusion is most likely.

Travelling in 2025 is going to be more than the usual adventure.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-eu-entry-exit-system-and-eu-travel-authorisation-system/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/eu-biometric-border-fingerprint-entry-delay-b2627645.html

Ethics of Medication

I don’t know about you but the whole idea of medicating people to increase the prosperity of society has a terrible echo of the worst kind of politics. Now, if we change the “p” word to protection of society, a policy of medication might make some reasonable sense. The COVID pandemic taught use that individual freedoms are not absolute. We know that allowing people to spread infection, whenever their personal beliefs, can kill other people. Reckless actions did exposed people to danger. Big name politicians did some dam stupid stuff just because they wanted to side with those who believed irrational, unscientific nonsense.

A UK Labour Health Minister saying that obese people would benefit from a jab so that they can get back to work makes me feel uneasy. It’s one thing to recognise that society has a problem with obesity but it’s entity another for the States to impose medication on specific groups of citizens. Expensive new medication that that.

I know it can be argued that the cost of obesity to the National Health Service (NHS) is high so there’s no zero cost answer. Having hammered down smoking deaths over decades of work it’s now obesity that’s the great societal challenge. The line between personal freedoms and social demands can be a fuzzy one.

The jab in question may have become fashionable as a weight loss aid[1]. That doesn’t justify a UK Minister, with all the power of the State, suggesting that overweight people be put on a regime of injections. And if they say “no” to the regime then be penalised in some vague manner.

It’s known that these new weight loss drugs have side effects. No everyone can take them without consequences. These drugs should only be used under medical supervision. That said, many people do take them without recourse to advice from a doctor.

To the Minister I say, don’t ague about the cost to the economy of obese people. Please ague for helping people to make weight management work for them as individuals. Obese people are not one amorphous mass of idle slobs who sit on the sofa all day. The Daily Mail characterisation of bludgeoning swarms of people burdening society with their indolent ways may chime with populists and the emerging Conservative Party. It’s no way for a Labour Minister to address a live challenge. 

National proposals to give unemployed obese people a jab to get them back to work has a ghastly ring to it. Yes, it’s not saying we (society) should send them down the salt mines but when the economic argument is the top one it does dehumanise the target audience.

Weight loss jabs may continue to have potential befits for many people. Let’s say that we are talking about health benefits, so that individuals can play their role in our society, whatever that role might be. State officials who attempt bring shame on people living with obesity, that’s just plain nasty.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981044pgvyo