Swirling Round And Round

Conditions: Rain. Cold. Brrr.


Is It Still Democracy If We Don't Like It?

We've watched this week shots of Iranian protesters rage in the streets of Tehran, angry with the outcome of their election which saw Ahmadinejad re-elected to public office. The instant reaction in the west to this has been one of open scorn and quick assumption that the election had been rigged by the "notoriously evil" Ahmadinejad. He's my question, though: is it possible the people of Iran (ALL the people of Iran, not just those in the capital city who are the only ones we see on television) actually did favour Ahmadinejad over the new guy? What do we really know about the Iranian reactions to the two candidates?

The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a "reformer" who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a "hardliner" who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world.

In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy.

Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?
[...]

In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the US government. This is a source of great national pride and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the US that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.

- truthout.org/

So while it is very easy to sit back and assume the Iranian election has been stolen, I think it's worth considering that Ahmadinejad actually did appeal to majority of the people of Iran, and while that appeal has made a relatively small but public number of people very angry, it doesn't necessarily represent the majority opinion. I'm not saying definitively that Ahmadinejad or his supporters or both tinkered with the results, just that the standard reaction to the wrong guy in the foreign country winning the election may be misinformed, especially when we're talking about a foreign country that not many people know a lot about.



Danziger!

- uclick.com/

Learning To Fall.

With the black boxes from Flight 447 seemingly destined to remain at the bottom of the Atlantic for all eternity, it seems more likely that speculation will have to be used to decide what actually caused such a sudden and catastrophic loss of control. The quick dispatch of error messages from the doomed plane seem to point to a problem with the instruments, meaning that the pilots did not know what the plane was doing.

In a detailed investigation of the flight systems of the Airbus A330, the reporters quote a longtime A330 pilot saying that if the pilots realized that the airplane was flying at the wrong speed--either too fast or too slow--what is called a pitch change, in which the stable balance of flight is lost, "can be extremely difficult to recover from."


This critical moment would come within a well understood sequence of events. Flight 447 was at cruising altitude, 35,000 feet, and should have been flying at around 550 miles per hour. At that altitude the air is very thin, and that greatly affects the lowest safe speed. We know that Flight 447 was in an area of high-altitude turbulence from a violent storm system. That makes speed even more critical. For example, on approach to an airport at low level, in landing configuration, the A330 can slow to 160 miles per hour and remain perfectly stable. At 35,000 feet the minimum safe speed in turbulence jumps to over 300 miles per hour.

So this is a scenario: Flight 447 is getting faulty speed readings. (The type of storm involved is capable of being an ice maker, and ice is known to be a cause of problems with the A330's speed sensors.) The autopilot is on, as it would normally be on cruise. Even though the speed is falling, it does not automatically disconnect, as it is designed to do, until there is a serious anomaly. Just exactly where in the gap between 550 miles per hour and 300 miles per hour that would happen is unclear. But right then, with no warning and already in a critical situation, it is left to the pilots to regain control.

They have only a few seconds to understand what is happening. And they are already in the jeopardy described by the Air France pilots, needing great sensory skills of their own to recover a stable course. So stressed, in fact, that they do not send a Mayday call. Add the impact of storm turbulence and the scenario is grim indeed.

There is the other possibility that the airplane was flying too fast and hit a point at which its structure would begin to break up. Most experts discount this--the engines would have been very audibly under stress, and the crew would have been alerted. A quietly falling speed in which disaster comes by stealth is the greater threat.

Under pressure from its pilots, Air France is accelerating the replacement of the speed sensors on its A330s with upgraded versions. Airbus has said that this is a normal upgrading of equipment, and "a performance issue, not a safety issue." That sounds more legalistic than lucid.

- concierge.com/

Indeed. What frightens me is the point that the corporation seems to have already known of the problem with the speed sensors, and so presumably may well have gambled on them not causing a crash so that they could be replaced at a slower and therefore more profitable rate, a scenario that has happened in the airline industry before. You know, the Airline industry is not like the Bus industry. Bus design problems generally do not result in the deaths of all it's passengers. Why such potential problems like this are allowed to be actioned on at such a slow rate is something I don't understand, and doesn't do much for my standing opinion that man was not meant to fly.

More - The secrets of Flight 447.



- Peace out