Soundbites, or a flip of a coin?

Ultimately, it is a very complex issue indeed, and cannot be reduced to soundbites, in the way both sides are attempting to do.

Unfortunately, in the absence of any real ‘facts’, inasmuch that neither the “In” or “Out” campaigns can offer any real degree of certainty over the accuracy of their own predictions of what will/may/may not happen as a result of either outcome, nor offer any real certainty over how inaccurate the predictions of the other side may be.

I doubt we will get anything more than soundbites, that play ever more to peoples’ emotions rather than to their logic.

I find it particularly frustrating that when either side predicts “doom and gloom” or “broad sunlit uplands” as a result of any particular EU-related issue they wish to promote or disparage, they never offer any information as to the degree of certainty, or uncertainty, surrounding their own models or calculations. Maybe they feel that the average “Joe Public” cannot handle that type of information, but a fair few of us might take both sides’ claims and counter-claims a little more seriously if we had a better idea of likely margins of error, or degrees of certainty/probability etc surrounding any info that either side seem to want us to believe. And too few journalists seem willing (or intellectually able) to ask for quantified degrees of certainty or uncertainty, or for quantified margins of error, surrounding any story or prediction etc.

But, given that neither side will want to publically admit that whatever they promise will happen may actually prove to be very wide of the final mark, then I guess we must continue to wade through the soundbites that sound impressive, but that contain very little hard fact when you dissect them.

Of course, getting a politician to admit they really don’t have a definite answer, or to admit that they often cannot predict the future any better then the rest of us (or than their opposition) when facing such an uncertain situation, is near-impossible – as they all seem to think we expect them to have answers on every topic, and that any sign of uncertainty on their part will be taken as a sign of weakness.

It is a great shame that more politicians don’t realise that honestly admitting to a lack of knowledge or certainty on a matter is actually a sign of maturity, rather than a sign of failure or weakness.

So, you pays your money and you takes your choice….the EU may be our passport to future UK prosperity, or it may be Devil incarnate, ‘The EU is holding UK back via its red tape’ vs ‘The UK cannot stand on its own and so the EU offers us a more secure future…’.

The truth is out there…just don’t expect a Politician on either side of the argument to know what it is, or to tell you that they don’t really know!

As for the Bank of England, IMF and Central Bank predictions – people may feel they seem likely to be the most plausible, impartial(?), and rational predictions, but then again, did any those bodies publically and accurately predict the speed and degree of global crash more than a couple of years BEFORE the Icelandic banks imploded, and did they publically and accurately predict the plunge in oil prices (of last year) two or more years BEFORE they were already falling…..if those bodies cannot predict (or control) major financial upheavals like those, then how can we place any faith in their productions as to what may, or may not, happen if UK stays in, or leaves, the EU in next few years, especially as it is probably even harder to predict what other global events (natural, political or environmental) totally beyond their control may also happen and influence National, EU and/or Global economics in the next five or ten years, let alone even further out in the future

Voting “In” or “Out” on basis of a flipped coin is probably about as valid as making the decision based on any of the current “What if..?” scenarios presented by either side

So…., “Heads” or “Tails”….?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35773975. Looks like a lot of people (both in the air and on the ground) were not being very clever?

Yes that is my interpretation too, though the lack of “control” does seem to be spread quite widely, ranging from inadequate/poor risk assessments, lack of knowledge of the proposed display manoeuvers, lack of fully impartial DA assessments, lack of insistence that DAs were flown in an aircraft of the same type/class, and lack of ensuring that off-site crowds etc were not permitted to gather in high-risk areas (or that display were not controlled/managed such that such gatherings were not put at undue risk.

As for the proposed enhanced risk assessments etc, the talk of increased crowd -display axis separation, use of “display boxes” to assess proposed display suitability, no overflying of non-paying crowds/centres of dense population etc etc, they all make sense, and probably cannot/should not be challenged, but they will all have a marked effect on future displays at any airfield (or coastal venue) that is close to a busy road, town/village, or that attracts non-paying spectators in established locations…. and that probably covers pretty much every UK airshow???

The ramifications of Shoreham will change UK airshows forever, probably for the best in terms of reducing risk, but I fear fast jets may well require spectators to use binoculars to see them, and they may well be limited to little more than straight and level fly-pasts in many locations.

The AAIB and CAA reports/recommendations/changes will see a “step change” in UK air displays.

While I cannot argue that the Shoreham accident does not warrant a wholesale review of practices, I cannot help but think that a serious incident involving a fully laden/fully fuelled airliner falling on a busy main road (e.g. M25/M4 near Heathrow, or M23 at Gatwick) would not see such major changes forced upon airport operators. Statistically, one day, we will see that sort of major commercial air accident onto a road…. I wonder what AAIB/CAA will do/recommend when that scenario unfolds – I suspect the overriding need to avoid disrupting the “necessary” activities of the travelling masses would see far less change in that sphere of aviation.

For more on the subject try “British Military Airfields 1939 – 45” by David J Smith (ISBN 1-85260-038-1 PSL 1989)

Its a good summary of the rapid expansion of UK airfields during the war, and is a good summary of various aspects of the subject such as hangar designs, standard building “patterns”, lighting and approach aids etc.

It was a “sequel” to the original PSL “Action Stations” series.

As with the original “Action Stations” series it’s a bit dated now in terms of its description of what happened to the airfields post war, as many have closed to flying (or worse)since it was published.

Paul F

Asked about take-off and landing in crosswinds, he answered (IIRC) like this:
Michael

I remember reading an article, (probably by one of the OFMC pilots?), who noted that the “toed-in” main wheels (where the axle mount angle means the degree of “toe-in” varies as the tail rises/falls), the narrow track undercarriage, narrow tyres, the variable nature of a grass airfield surface, and the variable crosswind factors (wind speed and direction, and resulting angle of bank) mean that no two take-off or landing runs are ever quite the same, as the chances of getting all those variables in the same place every time is pretty small.

Hence the poor take-off/landing accident history relative to Spitfires, Hurricanes, P51s and other contemporary single engine fighters.

That said, it’s probably the closest most paying punters will get to flying in a genuine ‘109, and it will probably be the rarest WW2 era (yes, I know it is technically a post-WW2 design, but you know what I mean) beast so far to offer rides, so I guess the queues will form.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243240[/ATTACH]

Duxford Sept 19th…. yes, a bit of a cliché, but what a finale!

The Goodwood commemoration a few days earlier involved more aircraft, and reflected the fact that the Hurricane (and Blenheim) were participants in the BofB, but there were never as many aircraft together in view at one moment in time as there were at the Duxford show… that Dux finale still brings me out in goosebumps – Spitfires everywhere you looked.

Bigger budgets = deeper pockets I suspect?

Good to see the first British jet bomber (or a descendant thereof) is still going strong 55 years after it started in that particular role, and some 66 years after the first Canberra took the air.

Just think, thats a bit like seeing Wright Flyers still providing useful service in 1969, i.e at the time Apollo 11 landed on the moon!