MH370: July 2015

And so we move along. Slowly, it is true, but move on is what we do.

It seems that wreckage from an aeroplane has been discovered on the island of Reunion, a small island between the small island of Mauritius and the bigger island of Madagascar – or Malagasy Republic (whatever they choose to call it now!).

Along with the piece of aeroplane, it has been reported and photographed, there has also been found the wreckage of an anonymous piece of luggage that could have come from anywhere.

We may safely ignore the luggage even if it is emotionally rewarding to associate it with the loss of an aeroplane.

The part that is potentially worth looking at is the piece of the aircraft. This is something whose identity can be established.

Firstly, what is it?

That is simple enough. It is a ‘flaperon’. What, you may ask, is a ‘flaperon’.

This is a small piece of the trailing edge of the mainplane, usually towards the inner portion of the wing. A flaperon is a type of aircraft control surface that combines aspects of both flaps and ailerons. In addition to controlling the roll or bank of an aircraft, as do conventional ailerons, both flaperons can be lowered together to function similarly to a dedicated set of flaps.

flightclub.jalopnik.com

As you will observe from the photographs, the part that has been found is quite large and quite substantial.

The Guardian

zenithair.com

Where has it come from?

The type and size match that fitted to a Boeing 777. It has yet to be confirmed that this is the case but it looks fairly certain that it is from that particular type of aircraft.

Point of fact: there have been no other Boeing 777’s lost in this area than MH370

If it is definitely proven that this flaperon came from a B-777 then, inevitably, the result must be that this is part of MH370.

Sad.

Why so far from the search site?

Ocean currents are strong and relatively fast. The aircraft went missing over a year ago. That this part showed up at all is miraculous and shows that there must have been, at least, some air inside it to keep it buoyant enough to float so far. It has floated for some time because there are barnacles on it.

Is it feasible that this part could have come from the search area?

Absolutely.

i.guim.co.uk

This illustration shows how far pieces could reasonably be expected to go given (statistically normal) condition in the southern reaches of the Indian Ocean.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/world/mh370-debris-investigation/

What should we learn from this?

Well, we should learn that waiting for the results of an investigation is always a good plan. Rearing up and prancing around with a conspiracy theory, no matter how exciting it is, is always counterproductive.

As I have mentioned previously, in another ‘Blog’, it is inevitable that as soon as an aircraft crashes under mysterious circumstances everyone suddenly becomes an aviation expert. Conspiracy theories are always more attractive than truth.

Do we know what happened now?

No. We do not. But we are a step closer.

One step at a time; step slowly, step positively; step carefully.

It may not be exciting but it is more satisfying to know the truth.

Ambiguous Tree Snakes

I have recently been informed, by one who knows about such things, that Tree Snakes do not eat trees.

This is confusing. After all, Rat Snakes eat rats, presumably.

It is understood that King Cobras and King Snakes do not eat Kings because, after all, there are insufficient Kings to go around to satisfy the dietary habits of legless reptiles.

But still. One should be careful when naming animals.

There is a shop in the village where I live that is called ‘Floral Heaven’. It leaves me to wonder if this is where flowers go when they die.

Is this another carelessly applied descriptor?

When I was working in the People’s Republic of China we customarily drove past a large car showroom every morning and evening en route to the office in Guangzhou.

In large letters it said, “Guangzhou Noble World Auto Service Centre,” in amongst a plethora of Chinese characters.

One morning I asked my interpreter what it meant. He applied considerable thought to this problem before telling me that, from the Chinese characters, he determined that the actual translation should be, “Prestigious Vehicles of the World Service Centre, Guangzhou.”

True enough there were emblems underneath the sign that represented all the top marques one would expect to see applied to such an epithet.

Of course, it is easy to laugh at the mistakes made by people who have English as a second language in their attempts to master the nuances of English especially when faced with the dichotomy that is American English and British English.

There is, naturally, only ‘English’. ‘English US’ and ‘English UK’ exists only in the mind of Bill Gates and the Microsoft Corporation.

Only one ‘English’ exists and that is the English as used by residents of the British Isles.

American English, Australian English and South African English as well as other forms from Nigeria, for example, are colloquial, derived or dialectic English.

None of them should be confused with the real thing.

President Roosevelt said to Winston Churchill at the Yalta Conference during World War 2 that we (America and Britain) are “divided by a common language”.

He was correct.

On ‘Facebook’, for example, there is a popular application where someone can ‘poke’ you. This may be fine elsewhere but, in UK, this could be regarded as an offensive action.

The TransAtlantic variations in the language can create problems but it is a problem that has been going on for generations. It is not new.

There are, as I have described in a previous ‘Blog’, sayings that have progressed down the years that have been ascribed to either side of the ‘Big Pond’. “Son of a gun” is one such that many people believe began in the USA. As I described in that previous ‘Blog’ it is actually an old Royal Naval saying from the days of sailing ships.

Thus the language changes. We have, on our side, adopted and now use ‘Americanisms’ gleaned from films and TV programmes and they, over there, still use terms that were generated by past generations over here.

New words are included in the lexicons on an almost annual basis. The word ‘selfie’ is now accepted as, no doubt, will the word ‘wefie’ in time.

Descriptors. We should be careful how we use them and apply them.

As writers we need to be constantly aware of the dangers of ambiguities that can be misleading and detract from the plot.

Tree Snakes don’t really eat trees…

ISIS Is... What?

ISIS is what it is. It is a terror organisation that appears, from what evidence there is, to have been inspired and funded by a Western organisation or government.

What evidence? Well, admittedly uncorroborated and purely at my personal whim but…

Personal curiosity wonders why a supposedly Islamic group have chosen to terrorise a neighbourhood that borders on Israel when their (presumed) worst enemy escapes without a single shot fired in that direction.

Instead of the obvious choice of victim, the ISIS brigades have chosen to go into battle against what might appear to be fellow Muslims.

One wonders why this should be.

If they are an Islamic group then they should follow the edicts laid down in the Holy Qr’an and refrain from the killing of innocents and the destruction of places of worship.

Muslims are ordered to spare non-combatants and all places of worship; this includes mosques, temples, churches and, even, synagogues.

Further to this, it is ordained within the pages of the Holy Qr’an, that “your religion is yours and my religion is mine…” I have paraphrased that a little but that is, essentially, what it says.

There is, it goes on to say, freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing you to adopt any other religion and this applies in particular to Islam. Why is it, do you think, that Islam does not have missionaries?

You will possibly respond by saying that Islam converts people by the sword but that clashes with the instruction given in the Holy Book about “no compulsion in religion”.

It seems that there are those who wish to cast a blight on others. There are those who wish to use religion, of all stripes, for personal and political gain. Sometimes it is for personal AND political gain, no doubt.

Thus it comes to me that ISIS is not only a vicious gang of thugs out for personal glory but that they do so at the behest of certain Western powers. Certainly they appear to be well provided for in terms of firepower – from what source do these weapons come?

Yes, I hear those of you that will say that ISIS declares itself to be Islamic but where is the proof? They do not conform to Islamic law and so the old proverb applies:
“You can put a pig in a dress and call it Madam but still it remains a pig.”

Islamophobia reigns supreme and, certainly, there are plenty of cases where those who mock and point fingers are justified in doing so. But this applies equally to other religions, too. Where humans control the ideas of believers of all kinds then there will be distortions; there will be interpretations that are opposite to the original teachings; there will be misdeeds carried out in the name of their religion.

The average person is not highly educated in the words of their particular belief. It becomes clear from entries on ‘Facebook’, for example, that the majority of people have ‘cut and paste’ ideas – following those that appeal to them personally, rather than what may be construed as ‘the truth’.

It is those people who are aimed at by the religious leaders who wish to twist the views of their followers.

On another note, but on similar lines, I have observed yet another misuse of the English language creeping into popularity.

This is idea of ‘grooming’.

It has been used in association with paedophiles and with religious groups.

‘Grooming’ is preparing someone for a pleasant experience; it is preparing a horse, or other animal, for show – like a ‘bridegroom’!

The process of gradually altering someone’s mindset to perform nasty deeds as paedophiles and terrorists do is not ‘grooming’ it is brainwashing; it is distorting the truth to suit a personal need or a perceived benefit that is to the demise of other, possibly innocent, persons.

That, dear reader, is where we came in at the top of the page.