Media Hysteria

I was greeted by a picture in the paper today of an airliner landing at Edinburgh Airport in the recent bad weather.

The caption refers to 'bumpy landing' and the airliner being 'buffeted by strong winds'.  Media panic?

This is not necessarily supported by the photograph however.  All we see is an airliner coming in 'wing low'. 

Any pilot in the audience will recognise this as a standard option available to pilots in strong  cross winds and does not imply buffeting or a bumpy landing.  There are two approaches available to pilots which may be used alone or in combination. 

The first is the crab approach whereby the aircraft is kept level but pointing in to the wind, hence the name as it appears to be crabbing sideways down the runway.  This requires the pilot to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown.  Too early and the aircraft will drift sideways, too late and there will be excessive load on the landing gear and a jerk as the aircraft pulls straight.

The second approach, which may be what is displayed here, is the wing down approach which allows the aircraft to sideslip into the wind while remaining straight down the runway.  It has the advantage that it can often be maintained until touchdown.  Where a risk does exist however is if the bank angle exceeds a certain aircraft specific figure which means there is a risk of the wingtip or an engine touching the runway.

Airline pilots are highly trained for these situations, aircraft are designed to handle them, only the media like to hype it up to generate a story.

Contactless Payment

It seems the in thing from banks now is 'contactless payment'.  This allows small transactions to be made without putting your payment card into a reader, and for the majority of transactions, without entering a PIN

On the surface this seems like a good thing, eliminating the fiddling around for small change and speeding up these transactions.  However it appears that we have another case whereby neither side is prepared to invest in a full roll out.

To be of much use, not only do the majority of card suppliers need to offer it, but also we need a large infrastructure in the places where it could be useful.

I read recently that my bank would be implementing the technology from December 2011 on it's Visa cards.  As my Visa debit card with them was due for renewal soon I thought I would ask whether my replacement card would include this technology.

Their response was - No, we are not implementing this in our debit cards at present and cannot say when and if we will do so in future.  Seemingly it is being implemented in credit cards only.  It will also be added to a very small number of smartphones, but again charged either to a credit card or phone account.

Most people like myself would not wish to run up all these transactions on a credit card, the debit card being the logical option as it replaces visits to the cash machine.

So from the point of cards, it seems we have a limited roll out.

Now look at the other side, the places where they can be used.  So far this appears to be some coffee shops and I have seen them in Little Chef.  I don't frequent coffee shops often and a typical LC bill would exceed the £15 limit on these transactions anyway.

How about implementing it on buses and trams, and small shops where people do make small transactions typically in cash?  Unlikely to happen because the retailer is unlikely to see a benefit for the investment they will have to make in the readers.

So we are stuck.  Card suppliers will be reluctant to make it widely available as there are few places to use it, retailers will be reluctant to invest as their are so few cards out there.  Catch 22.

If it is so wonderful then why don't the promoters (who I assume to be the banks and card companies) back it properly and get a decent roll out?

I wonder if the fact that it's fraud implications haven't yet been fully tested is also worrying some.  With a limit of £15 per transaction and a request for a PIN being likely to be made only every 5 or so transactions it would be possible for a stolen card to be used for say £60 before it is even noticed.  Are the card issuers / banks prepared to fund this?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum

The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.

Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.

The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020.  Who are they kidding?

This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent.  The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.

Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use.  I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.

A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.

We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.

The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.

This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants.  To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!

I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.

If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong.  I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.

Strike Ballots

As we approach the 30th of November when a number of unions in the UK have planned to strike to make their point to the government about pensions I felt it was time to look at the ballots they hold.

A fine example of this is the Unison ballot. 

As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union.  I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.

The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot.  If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.

We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both).  Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.

One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike.  Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.

Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.

I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.

Motorway Speed Limits

For some time now there have been proposals to increase the motorway speed limit in the UK to 80mph (or its kph equivalent when the EU interferes!)

Personally I think this is a good idea with one caveat - it needs to be enforced properly.  Given that it appears many drivers already travel at this sort of speed, enforcing it positively will not mean much of an increase overall - though drivers who presently obey the 70 limit may well travel faster.

Opponents claim that speed kills and increasing the limit will increase road deaths.  This is somewhat of a fallacy as it is inappropriate speed that kills.  There are many instances where 70mph is far too fast on the motorway.

Only recently we had the horrific accident on the M5 near Taunton.  I have no intention of second guessing the investigation into the cause but given the reported weather conditions at the time it would strike me that this is one of the cases where 70mph would be far too fast.

I had a very personal experience of this some years ago, travelling north on the M6 near Birmingham.  As I was driving the fog became thicker and thicker to the point where I had slowed to about 20mph and was frightened by trucks overtaking with a very high relative speed.

With the conditions worsening I made the decision to leave the motorway at the next service station, contemplating spending the night there.  I went for a coffee and a meal and after an hour or so reviewed the weather.  There had been a significant improvement so I decided to refuel and continue my journey.

Whilst fuelling I talked to a driver who had just pulled off the motorway who told me of an accident that he had just passed.  It would appear that on the southbound carriageway there had been a significant pile up which had then triggered further accidents both in the traffic slowing down behind it and also on the northbound carriageway as people slowed to 'rubber-neck' the southbound carriageway.  Apparently drivers were still being caught out and he felt that more collisions could occur.

Drivers must adapt to the weather and road conditions.  The speed limit is just that, a limit, not a target to be achieved at all times.

I have however witnessed an amusing incident whereby a driver whilst probably travelling within the legal limit was too fast for the road conditions / his ability.  Traffic on the motorway had come to a crawl as a result of an accident and most drivers were filtering into lane one as indicated by the police Range Rover in lane two.  One driver was however not paying attention and by the time he braked it was too late and in a cloud of tyre smoke he slid into the back of the police vehicle.  Fortunately it seems that no one was injured as he had slowed a lot but I would have loved to have heard his explanation to the officer whose car he had hit.  Given that it was fully lit with flashing blues, the red lights they use and a message board he could hardly deny having seen it.

Our sympathies should be with those affected by the horrendous accident on the M5, and others, but it should not be used as a reason not to increase the speed limit.

Bombardier - Round Two

I was in Derby at the weekend and came across a number of people under the 'Socialist Worker' banner.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)

The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.

 I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice.  Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored.  I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored.  That is democracy for you.

The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.

Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies. 

Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company.  I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.

Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what?  We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost.  All we have gained is more debt, more risk.  Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.

I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them.  This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.

This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines.  BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.

Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise.  So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.

I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.

Ban the Plastic Bag

We have been hearing a lot about banning the plastic throwaway bag so often handed out by supermarkets.  At least one of the tabloid newspapers seems to think they are 'leading the way' but then don't the tabloids all jump on to whatever is the current bandwagon to try and increase their popularity?

I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag.  It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill.  They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.

Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves. 

When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc.  In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.

Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc.  See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.

You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them.  Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc.  Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.

Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.

Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity.  Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!

Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes.  This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well.  In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house.  Whoops, you must always take your car shopping!  The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley.  Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car.  Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.

What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.

We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?

One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year?  Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper.  The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate.  The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)

Religious Discrimination

We often hear of cases where an individual feels they have been the victim of unfair discrimination because of their religion, whatever it may be.  This makes news headlines and has the leaders of the appropriate church up in arms.

Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious.  This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority.  The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.

A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication.  It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers.  The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer.  He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist. 

This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere.  A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.

What is the difference?  Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.

There are two issues here.  First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.

I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion.  I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs.  If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.

Flying Cars

The Daily Mail reported today that flying cars could be with us in five years.  Prototypes exist in the USA and reportedly the CAA states that certification in Europe should be easy on the back of that.

Should we be worrying about the skies being filled with these things? I would say an emphatic NO to that, and here's why.

I would expect certification in the USA to be in the Experimental category - this allows people to build flying machines and use them privately but with fairly strict limitatons.  At present we have no equivalent category in Europe and the present European legislation is stricter than that of the US.  It is to change as Europe takes more control over aviation from the individual countries but I can't see a European Experimental category.

To fly you need a pilot's licence - these are expensive to obtain and maintain.  It is quite possible that the majority of the people who want one already have one and are quite happy flying aircraft - there's a novel idea.  Some may take to the flying car but I can't see it being too many.

Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard of airworthiness - this is not cheap at all as any owner will tell you.  This is why many pilots hire an aircraft to let others have the risk and expense of maintenance and repairs, not to mention insurance.

As these flying cars are fixed wing, not rotary, they will need a runway to operate from.  This means you will have people having to get in their flying car, drive to an airfield, convert from car to aircraft, takeoff and fly to an airfield near their destination, convert back to a car and then drive to their eventual destination.  Practical, no more than driving to the airfield, hiring a real aircraft, and getting a taxi or hire car at the other end - which will also be less time consuming as there will be no rigging / derigging.

We also have the weather to contend with - weather you can safely drive in will prevent flight - so chances are you will have to drive anyway in a car that is a compromise and offers the worst of both worlds.

The final reason I have come up with for now is damage.  Get a car park ding in a conventional car and you are annoyed.  Get one in this machine and it can no longer be used as an aircraft until a certified engineer has repaired it and it has been deemed fit to fly again.

No way will I be getting a flying car rating on my licence!

The Bombardier Saga

I am getting fed up over all the hype over Bombardier failing to win the ThamesLink contract.  I have sympathy for those who are to lose their jobs at Bombardier but it seems that the media and unions are exaggerating, misleading and hyping up.  I can see the  unions want another reason to have a go at the government but the media can just be trying to justify their jobs.

Let us start with the headline, Bombardier loses contract for ThamesLink trains - they never had it so they can therefore not lose it.  It is more accurate to say that they failed to win the contract.

Next, the nationality of the company.  Much is made of the fact that Siemens is German.  Well those who think that Bombardier is British should look into it.  Bombardier is a Canadian company and their rail division is headquartered in Germany.  Not so British eh?  Not to mention that the media always pronounce the name in a way that sounds French - should be Bomb-buh-deer if it is British.  Bombardier would have kept jobs in the UK if they had won the contract but Siemens are also stating that they will create jobs in the UK to work on the contract.

With regards to job losses, most of these were scheduled to happen regardless of whether or not the ThamesLink contract had been awarded to Bombardier.  The figures released are that 980 contracts were not to be renewed.  This is the nature of contracting and these positions were to go anyway.  It is possible that many of these people will find employment with Siemens given their skill set.  446 permanent positions are said to be going which would not have gone if the contract had been won.

Siemens are estimating they will create some 2,000 jobs on the contract - it is possible that a number of those no longer employed by Bombardier will be able to take up these positions, who knows at this stage.  The net effect however is some 500 or so extra jobs in the UK economy.

The unions however have some hidden calculations that suggest the loss of 1,500 or 500 jobs, whichever figure you prefer, will lead to 13,000 extra job losses and billions of pounds cost to the economy.  I find this hard to believe but I doubt we will see any detailed explanation of their figures.

As a parting shot, I wonder how many of those complaining buy French cars, Japanese TV's, German washing machines etc for the same reason that the government issued the contract to Siemens?

Rip Off Britain

There was an article in the paper yesterday about a survey, by the Post Office, on how costs of various items we would buy abroad on holiday have risen.

In this instance the cost in 2007 was compared with the cost now and indeed prices have risen.

What is not included in the survey results shown however is the price rise in the same items for the same period in the UK and indeed how these prices compare with the prices abroad.

I believe that if this were to be done then we would see a totally different picture which would suggest our best bet is to holiday abroad.  For example I enjoy Spain as a holiday destination - Coffee at £1.13 a cup and £1.89 for a beer - oh how I wish I could get these prices on a holiday in the UK.  And as for a meal for two at £23.58, well even if I go to the local pizza restaurant and take advantage of their offers I am doing well to get this price!

They also selectively show the countries to make a point.  Many countries will be much cheaper than this.

Finally, I got riled the last time this type of comparison was done.  The example then quoted was headlined by a ticket for the Eiffel Tower.  I compared this with Blackpool Tower and found Paris to be about 10% cheaper and for a much better experience, having visited both Paris and Blackpool!

Why do we holiday in this country?  I will check this years holiday cost very carefully before deciding where to book next year!

Media Hysteria

Has anyone noticed that the media nowadays seem intent on enhancing the news rather than simply reporting it.  This is in addition to any political bias their organisation may have that comes out in the reporting be it enhanced or simply selective.

Recently we have also had the abhorrent use of mobile phone hacking in relation to the Milly Dowler and Soham cases but I will say no more on that at the moment other than to say I find it disgusting and lacking in morals and ethics.  Maybe I will return to this in future.

I would like to illustrate my point with a number of instances, in two of which I have been closely involved.

The first happened many, many years ago at the Windscale/Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria.  It's name keeps changing to try and confuse people but as I lived nearby at the time I can see through those disguises.

Papers hit the news stands and letterboxes with headlines such as 'Leak at Atom Plant' and 'Leak at Nuclear Station Causes Departments to Close'  Certainly designed to grab the attention of the gullible public and in isolation they would stir up negative views on nuclear power.

Only by reading the article in detail - and many people may have only viewed the headline and first few lines - do you get to find out what really happened.  Yes, there was indeed a leak inside the confines of the facility.  Yes, some areas were closed.  No, it most certainly was not a risk to anyone - why, because the leak was in a mains water supply pipe to feed the drinking water taps and toilets in a number of buildings - so these were closed until the leak had been fixed.

Must have been a quiet news day!

The second instance relates to an aircraft crash at Blackpool Airport.

A popular tabloid described how a Cessna jet crashed at the airport.  The detail they quoted was extremely sketchy, principally because their reporter hadn't actually interviewed anyone, seen the crash, or looked at the wreckage.  It appears their entire story was based on hearsay from other non-witnesses.

Well it was at least a Cessna, but not a jet and the other sketchy details were inaccurate as well!

Finally we have all the concern around Derby about Bombardier making massive cuts to their workforce because the government awarded the Thames Link contract to Siemens, a German company.

Once again the headlines are designed to grab attention and create a reaction.

And again, if we look at the facts then we shall see that all is not as it seems.  I will discuss some of the detail behind this in a separate post and keep to the 'hysteria' element here.

Fact, Bombardier are laying off over 1,400 workers.
Fact, they lost the contract for Thames link
Fact, the contract has been awarded to Siemens
Fact, Siemens is a German company

But now for the elements that aren't mentioned in the headlines.

Bombardier were already planning on reducing the workforce by just under 1,000 - these were not people being made redundant as such but contract workers whose contract is not to be renewed.  Even if the Thames Link contract had been awarded to Bombardier, this reduction would have to go ahead.

Siemens is indeed a German company.  But Bombardier is a Canadian company, and indeed its rail transport division is ... German!  They are also talking of creating 2,000 jobs for the contract.  Note that this is for the contract, it seems this is the way these organisations work - keep a core staff and then hire contractors when required.

I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs, but there is a possibility that they may be able to seek employment with Siemens, similarly for the suppliers to Bombardier they should be looking to forge links with Siemens.

In summary, the media should be more clear about the facts of a story and not an attention grabbing headline.  Report the news, don't make it up!