Social Earthquake

(source unknown, I grabbed it from facebook)

One aspect of earthquakes these days that we never experienced as kids is the social media one. Within minutes of the earthquake the other night we were on-line, not so much to participate as to seek information. Who felt what, and where? Was this local, or something bigger somewhere else?

A friend of mine astutely pointed out the following:

There are 3 groups of people on FB this evening. The first are those who are commenting on the earthquake with a few Fbombs thrown in. The second group are those sharing articles and info re readings and depths etc. or quoting friends comments from other pages. And then there are those who are critiquing the speed at which one was able to gather data via various sources. 

I found myself in all three groups. I posted a "wow that was long" status on facebook then got down to the critiquing, even of my own observations (my allowance for time dilation in estimating the quake duration was way off ), and participated in a thread on who had and hadn't used twitter as an aggregator (I'm not on twitter, so no).

We didn't go as far as this guy who tweeted during the event itself, but were quickly on facebook and other forums while waiting for the official word from Geonet. That both the power and web access were still up to enable this was a good sign, and we found it a useful quick and dirty way of getting an idea of what was going on, before adding to the discussion ourselves. There was a "Me Too!" aspect (and if I'm honest a "First!" aspect as well :) ) as people informed and collectively reassured each other, but what was more interesting was the way the discussions broke down into comparison and analysis. This particular (anecdotally at least proven to be true) XKCD also came up: "Seismic Waves" .

It was both a "we really are living in the future" moment, and a great example of how web can really work.

London Calling

I was wondering how some of the people I know in London were getting on. Thanks to TVNZ I now know how at least one of them has fared:

Kiwis in London Lie Low (video link)

Danielle and I used to hang out in the same group of friends in the 90's. This being New Zealand, I used to work with the sister-in-law of the reporter as well.

Still haven't seen or heard from the other people I know in the areas affected, including a friend in Croydon. I still don't really know what to make of the riots in general. They have happened before, and that they happen at all is indicative of serious things that are awry. So much though of what is being seen and told now is removed from protest, and looks like simple opportunistic criminality. Crime is crime. I get that people are hopeless, disenfranchised, angry. What I don't get is how destroying homes, property, locally owned businesses and employers in your own community is supposed to make things better.

Whaddarya?*

Listening to: The Crossing - Big Country (1983).

So last week it was announced that we are 100 days out from the biggest event this country has ever seen since the last really big event we held (probably something to do with yachts). The hype is present and building, along with various exhortations to 'support our boys' like they are going off to war or something. Never mind that those boys are already being paid handsome sums to do their jobs, are representing the unofficial state religion and have lets see, 20 years of failing to win this tournament to motivate them (oh and while you are 'supporting the boys', make sure you buy the merch they are endorsing). The erstwhile judge has already expounded on this here, and he is a better writer than me so I'll leave him to it.

Call me cynical, and perhaps even not a real New Zealander (mate), but a lot of the time I am just over Rugby. I never played it (apart from Touch), never wanted to, and don't really follow any teams below the International and National level. I just don't really care. I like getting together with friends and watching big games, but my engagement ends there. I'm not the guy to talk to about rugby as small talk in the pub. Aside from it's omnipresence, it also produces more than a few ugly attitudes and behaviours I don't want to be associated with ("Rugbyhead" isn't a term of praise for a lot of people).

My apathy toward the game is rooted in over exposure (as well as going to a rugby dominated school and playing soccer, but that is another story). There is far too much of it. Professional rugby is everywhere, in advertising, endorsements, talking heads news spots and player interviews that say the same thing every week, a season that lasts from February to November for a supposed winter sport. It used to be something other than a simple commodity (and for me as a non-player, and non huge fan, that is what it is). I particularly miss afternoon internationals. They had real atmosphere in the late afternoon sun (or not on one memorable occasion), and were a good set up for a Saturday afternoon and night. There is more money to be made in playing them at night though, so that is how they are now.

I am in truth looking forward to the actual World Cup games a bit, and hoping we win the damn thing again so we can stop hearing about it, but I can only admit to liking rugby on a sometime basis rather than loving it. And as a liker rather than a lover, I found it a bit irritating to be exhorted at by the head-man-what's-in-charge to get in behind the World Cup by basically spending money on it as something resembling patriotic duty. Liking it is one thing, unconditionally loving it with my wallet is something else entirely. And the whole 'Stadium of Four Million' concept is bogus. Lots of people aren't interested, especially as the tickets to the big matches are being priced for the tourists rather than the locals. For many they are just unaffordable. The comments thread attached to the story is more than a little revealing about how this event is being seen by some.

Particularly fun though was utterly-antithetical-to-traditional-rugbyhead-ideals comment #69, reproduced here in glorious full:

"Hmmm...tickets too expensive...concerns about anti-social behaviour from boof-heads...I've got it! Lets turn the 2011 RWC into a gay event! It's makes perfect sense: muscle-bound, fit young men grappling their sweaty selves in their tight outfits, and "Get in behind!" would be a perfect logo, too! The GLBT community are well-heeled (and what heels, too - fabulous!), so the high prices won't be a problem. The beer could be replaced with cocktails. And just imagine what a party Party Central would be! The RWC is the perfect gay event - I'm surprised no-one has thought of this before! I'm sure Martin Snedden would be more than happy to 'Get in Behind!' making RWC 2011 the GLBT event of the decade!"

That would be hi-freaking-larious. They could even combine it with usual rugby provider Sky TV's current "Make Sky your happy place!" ad campaign. Instead of beer or cocktails, they could just hand out Ecstacy and bottles of water**- "Welcome to the game; make Rugby your happy place!"

*For non NZ readers, refer this play.
**Not seriously advocating drug use, although it would be a hell of an interesting experiment to watch if applied to the traditional fan-base...

You're spelling "Wellywood" wrong

It should be spelt "C-r-e-a-t-i-v-e P-r-o-c-e-s-s F-a-i-l".

So after a furore last year that I blogged about here, here and here, and a 'putting on hold' and 'consideration of other ideas', imbecilicly Wellington International Airport Limited has returned and announced it will go ahead with exactly the same freaking idea that caused the re-think in the first place.

The stupid. It burns.

Royal Wedding Diary

So after listening to the Breakers win the ANBL for the first time (and their coach drop the F-bomb in a live to two countries interview post match. Hilarious), out of historical curiosity I flicked on the TV watch the live broadcast of the Royal Wedding. TVNZ's feed was the first I came to, and since they looked to have ditched their own flown in at taxpayer expense hosting talent in favour of the actually-know-what-they-are-talking-about sounding people on the local feed, I stuck with them.

About 2145 (times are NZ local, this is 1045 in the UK):
Almost perfect time to start watching, just as the soon to be princess leaves Goring Hotel to go to Westminster Abbey. This signifies that shit's about to get real yo, and I have missed the "oooh, famous people" talking head blather that will have made up the coverage for the previous couple of hours.

About 2155
Timing not looking so good as the commentators start wildly squeeeing and verbally waving their elbows (actually, probably not-verbally as well) about the dress as the bride walks into Westminster Abbey. Find something else to do away from the TV while they take deep breaths and calm down. It's a dress, white with veil, not showing underwear, or too much cleavage so probably suitable for the occasion. The massive train provokes a "never mind the bride, who is the hottie walking behind her?" question. Turns out it is the bride's younger sister. The bride herself is a class act.

About 2200
The bridal party proceeds up the aisle to "Guide me thou o Great Redeemer" (I'm not even going to try and pronounce it in it's native Welsh). Since I had this at my own wedding, I conclude from the Royal use that I must have exceptional taste. Also note the trees that have been placed inside Westminster Abbey, and the general abundance of greenery amid the wood and stonework. Slightly trippy and quite cool.

The actual wedding starts. Stripping away the ritual and surroundings and the couple look seriously into each other, which is always a good thing at this kind of occasion. Also note that not only does Prince Harry look like he is having a great time, he is also seems quite a big guy in a buff sense, giant uniform epaulettes not withstanding. Figuring out exactly which uniform any given male member of the royal family is wearing is a fun exercise to pass the time.

2220 ish.
The deed is done. Now the speeches start. Boring and platitudinous. Even the Married Couple look like they have itchy feet. Leave the room.

2230 ish.
More speeches/readings. The bride's brother has a very crooked tie, which I would rue if it were me given the approximately bajillion people watching. Go back to what I was doing elsewhere.

2245.
Yup, still talking or hymning. The feed keeps cutting to shots of the congregation, prominent members of which I am probably supposed to recognise. Elton John turns up repeatedly in this segment. Also note that while "God save the Queen" is sung the Queen herself doesn't sing, which is entirely logical when you think about it, and also carries the bonus of if you happen to be Queen of the United Kingdom, you are permanently excused from ever having to sing your national anthem in public.

2315ish.
Finally they get to walk down the aisle and leave the Abbey. Crowd goes wild. The bride and groom set off in their carriage to Buckingham Palace while thousands line the route and squee. Prince Phillip is looking old these days, and initially looks to have trouble getting into his own carriage. The Queen as ever is totally dignified. A lot of drive-by saluting is done by Prince William, accompanied by hearing a band start playing 'God Save the Queen' on what seems like every corner. Wonder if they stop playing once the carriage has passed.

2320ish.
Idly wonder how many of the weapons seen on the procession route are loaded. Have doubts about the rifles held by the honour guards, no doubts about the sub-machine guns being held by prominently placed police. The deliberately obvious security causes more idle wondering about how much non obvious security is around. Like that horses are still fashionable for Royal occasions.

2330ish.
The procession starts disembarking at Buckingham Palace. Prince William is greeted by a RAF Air Vice Marshal, some light-years in rank above William's current day-job rank of Flight Lieutenant. Wonder in this context just who calls who 'Sir'. The Queen has a smile and a nice word for her palace greeters, while Prince Andrew ignores everyone and practically runs inside. Princess Beatrice appears to be wearing an octopus sculpture on her head.

2335.
The Royals have disappeared into the bowels of the palace, so the TV people start interviewing the crowd. Some remind me of the great British talent of being dryly hilarious without even trying, but mostly interviewing the crowd (while impressively sized at hundreds of thousands) is about as interesting as expected, somewhere above watching grass grow, but below watching paint dry.

Nothing remotely interesting is supposed to happen in the next forty minutes or so, so I find other things to do.

0005.
Return to find lots of anticipation about the upcoming balcony appearance by the Royal Family and accompanying fly-past by the Royal Air Force. The balcony windows having net curtains becomes a source of obsession for the commentators as they zoom the cameras in to try and see through them.

0025.
Party emerges onto balcony, couple snogs. Crowd goes wild. The network providing the feed has managed to shoe-horn a reporter into the cockpit of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster for a live commentary on the flypast from one of the aircraft in it. The fish-eye lens distorts the view so much at first I don't even recognise it as a Lancaster. Another camera though in one of the gun turrets provides a great shot of a Hurricane in close formation, nicely framed by a pair of .303 gun muzzles. The reporter doesn't appear to be able to hear the studio, so the producer disappointingly drops his feed.

0030ish.
The Hurricane-Lancaster-Spitfire formation flies down The Mall and over the Palace, the combined 72 cylinders of 5 Rolls Royce Merlin and 1 Griffon engines combining for a bit of aural goodness that is definitely a sound rather than a noise. The non historic formation of 2 Tornadoes and 2 Typhoons doesn't sound anything like as good. That's it as far as the flypast goes. A bit underwhelming until I remember that the RAF is busy elsewhere with a couple of wars at the moment. Still surprised that the Red Arrows didn't feature though.

Flypast done, the couple snog again and everyone goes back inside. TVNZ ditching the local commentators to re-introduce the Walrus and Petri-Dish is conclusive evidence there is nothing more to see here so I go to bed. Awake in the morning to find the photoshoppers have already been busy:
Addendum: This occured later on in the day. Also something I did at my wedding (the taking my new bride for a spin in a convertible bit, not the driving through the palace gates bit), albeit without the accompanying Range Rover full of bodyguards.

Campbell vs Ring: Fight!

NB: Apologies for the link-fest, but there has been a lot of comment on this today. NBB, not 'alot'.

So John Campbell lost his objective cool somewhat last night and went pit-bull on deliverer of weather, fishing, and earthquake 'opinions' Ken Ring, giving him a thorough savaging on live TV (link) Campbell has since apologised for what one commentator called 'a disgrace to the interviewers trade'. Interestingly that commentator (who has delivered a few savagings himself in his time) has now made an apology of sorts to Campbell. There have been many comments today across several blogs and boards criticising Campbell's conduct. There have also been a few backing him up.

I am inclined to agree with the critics, but only partly. It may have been a set-up, and after dodging the first question and provoking his interviewer, Ring was effectively run into the ground and not really allowed back into the conversation. It was ugly and unnecessary. In attempting to discredit his subject, Campbell only made him look like a hapless victim. A better approach would have been to give Ring some rope and let him discredit himself.

And here's the thing: I think the interview itself was a mistake and doomed from the beginning. It gave Ring's theories a bit of extra seriousness and credibility they don't deserve. If you subject them to proper rigorous analysis, they fall apart. In light of the earthquakes in Christchurch his 'opinions' (he doesn't call them predictions, I guess in case someone gets into trouble after following them) are getting more consideration from the spooked and the wary population of NZ. They don't deserve it, and the people don't deserve the stress. Ring is at best misguided, at worst a cynical charlatan con artist. He bases his predictions on the Moon and tides, and uses such a scattergun approach that he is bound to be right some of the time, pure Texas Sharpshooter style. An excellent analysis was put out here today showing just how full of it his opinions are. If your maths isn't so hot, the graphs are an excellent summary. Representatives of GNS have also offered responses today. Some are arguing that it isn't a fair discussion if both viewpoints aren't given equal exposure and credence, but when it comes to bad science like this I disagree, since giving it equal exposure only adds unwarranted merit.

While I don't agree with Campbell's style, I am glad he did it, because someone in the media needed to. Ring has had fairly uncritical media exposure for some time, with his weather prediction almanacs given prominent space in some bookshops. I am glad someone stood up and had a proper go at a peddler of pseudoscience and woo, even if it backfired somewhat. While on the face of it these opinions seem harmless, to the lay person who can't tell the difference between them and actual good science (through no fault of their own) they are potentially dangerous if taken seriously. In a wider context it adds to what sometimes feels like a popular anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-expert sentiment, something I find unsettling. Often though the people who buy into that sentiment are ignorant or misinformed about how science actually works.

Of course, if Ring's 'opinioned' big March 20 earthquake arrives (and I survive) I will reconsider my opinion. That's how scientific method works. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Note to media

Emergency landing at Blenheim

1. A DHC-8/Q300 has nose wheels (2) rather than a nose wheel.
2. If said nose wheels fail to lower properly they are not 'missing'; just not where they should be.
3. What happened to a Beech 1900 a few years ago has nothing to do with this.
4. This isn't a 'crash landing' as TV3 news apparently put it, there being no crash.


In other vaguely related interest generating yesterday:
Air New Zealand shoehorns its new toy into Wellington.

Quite liking the comments thread on that one. The report doesn't mention that being empty, the aircraft actually used less runway than some of the regular users. Fully laden it would be a different story (hence why this is something of a one-off), but the take-off was quite spritely as the pics here demonstrate.

It reminds me of the once upon a time (early 80's to be exact) when Boeing 747's used to regularly fly in to Wellington (pic). I was about the age of the kid in the middle at the time (pic is from 1984), and remember them quite well.

Faded Glory

This has been circulated a little bit this week, but I happen to agree with it and think it is an excellent and accurate bit of writing, so I am passing it on again.

Steve Coogan goes a long way toward explaining why Top Gear just isn't that good anymore.

And explaining why 'PC gone mad' is a cop-out argument to boot.

Top Gear used to be appointment viewing. We even built a weekly social occasion around it. Somewhere along the line though, the magic went. The great moments that the episodes used to be full of got fewer and far between, the 'spontaneous' banter and wind-ups more obviously scripted, and the famed challenges more obviously contrived (usually to ensure that Jeremy won), and everyone involved just looking like they were going through the motions. The episodes got less and less enjoyable, less memorable, and we eventually just lost interest, after years of loyal viewing. This whole mexican thing just illustrates how bad it has gotten (while nicely parallelling our own recent experiences with a certain breakfast TV presenter). There has always been a boorish element to it, to be fair, but seldom this daft. What happened? It used to be fun.

Bad Science ownage

Vaccine denier gets owned on Sydney radio by host in possession of actual facts (link).

Okay so it is a bit of an ambush, and the host doesn't even pretend to be unbiased, but it makes me smile to hear bad science taken apart like this.

The Truth might be out there

Listening to: Something on Radio Active. Sounds like Dubstep.

Generating a bit of interest yesterday was the release by the Ministry of Defence of filed UFO reports and related documents going back to the 1950's (link). Amusingly the Defence spokesman yesterday claimed that the RNZAF had never investigated or published reports of UFO investigations, when they did exactly that for the Kaikoura events in 1978 at least. Today a different Defence spokesman was a bit more forthcoming (link). I don't see anything remotely conspiratorial in that by the way. It is far more likely that the reports of 30 years ago are so far outside the current PR remit that no-one thought of them.

The files themselves are available for viewing on line here. As you might expect, there is a considerable amount of chaff in the form of pet theories, miracle technologies, and obsessive correspondence from members of the public to the RNZAF or MoD. That aside, the bit I skimmed contained many brief descriptions of sightings, obviously filled out to a templated form. Most of them sound vague at best, but some of them at first glance, from credible witnesses, read as both calm and sensible, and genuinely unusual. Occasionally handwritten side-notes from investigating officers appear.

RNZAF investigation has apparently been limited to checking if any aircraft were aloft at the time a sighting was reported which is fair enough. A small force with a limited budget definitely has better things to do than spend a lot of time investigating UFO reports that will 99% of the time turn out to be unusual observations of normal things. The Kaikoura events were given a more exacting investigation by explicit direction of the Prime Minister rather than general policy, which was arguably reflected in it's fairly token and pre-concluded nature. I posted about Kaikoura here a couple of years ago. I'm still not convinced any explanation has been put forward that accounts for all of the observations, and in that sense I consider them genuine UFO's, although as time goes by and that term doesn't get any less loaded, I'm preferring the Unexplained Aerial Phenomena (UAP) descriptor instead. The witnesses involved remain massively unconvinced by both the investigations themselves, and the reports they produced.

Media coverage of this has been surprisingly restrained given the time of year, and mostly avoiding the classic 'little green men' angle. I'm pretty much convinced that UAP exist. I don't think it is terribly likely that they are alien spacecraft though, either casually visiting or reverse engineered :)

No Hollywood Ending

After following this since Friday, and despite being rationally pessimistic about the eventual outcome, I was irrationally hoping that at least some of those guys might have gotten out.

Miners could not have survived second explosion (link)

Not meant to be I guess. I did have another post on this topic vaguely planned concerning dignity under pressure, armchair experts, and media idiocy but in light of the days events I'll leave it be for now.

Airliner misses bridge like it was supposed to...

I know the media aren't expected to know everything about anything, but this is pretty vacuous.


Why is it that I can look at the video and know instantly the 747 is nowhere near the bridge (I'd be surprised if was even within a mile or two of it) and others can't?

Edit: According to the FAA it was 1200 feet/400m, much less than a mile which sounds close, but the 747 wasn't pointing at the bridge at that distance, and would have begun turning away from it at many times that. Another video here shows the actual separation.

For the record this was a planned and controlled participation in the San Francisco Fleet Week Airshow, an event so well known I have even heard of it on the other side of the Pacific.

More story complete with extra sensationalism from stuff here, and semi useful "good idea/bad idea" discussion here (its interesting that stuff quoted only the 'bad idea' comments from this source rather than any of the many 'good idea's). Slightly less (relatively) vacuous explanation here.

I get that people are riled up about it, but you've got to draw the line about being sensitive somewhere, and not view everything in the worst possible light. It would be a shame if airliners couldn't participate at airshows anymore because one terrible aberration.

Fractal wrongness

Because no matter how close you look, it still doesn't work. Like the Morgue, I wasn't going to post on this initially, but like the Judge, as the week has worn on I have become increasingly dismayed by a certain breakfast TV hosts comments. The initial incident I was pretty unimpressed by, but the real ire has been generated by the response. I used to watch the show regularly and was a fan of Mr Henry (and still think he can be a very good broadcaster and interviewer when he wants to be). I respect his willingness to say what he is thinking, even if I don't always agree with it, and that he is different from the usual fare of airheaded airbrushed vacuousness that seems to be what those in charge think viewers want. However, being willing to say just what you are thinking doesn't mean that you always should, and lately I am wondering if this particular emperor is in fact wearing any clothes.

I'm struggling to figure how asking the Prime Minister if the next Governor General will look or sound or be more like a New Zealander when the current one is of Indian/Fijian immigrant descent (i.e. not European or Maori) can have anything other than a base in simple racism. If it isn't a race thing, what is it? That the current GG has immigrants for parents? One of my parents is an immigrant, does that make me less of a New Zealander? The question itself is bullshit, and so was his subsequent on-air apology, which was only for any offence that may have been caused, didn't admit that anything wrong was said, and then slurred a whole other ethnic group to boot.

The appointment of the current GG was seen by many as a mark of our nation maturing (and admittedly by others as a convenient PC showcase). The guy was born and raised here, made a career here and by all accounts has done an exemplary job representing the nation in accordance with his character. The colour of his skin, the etymology of his name, and who his parents were are irrelevant to that. The implication that he isn't a proper New Zealander to appoint to high office because of those things, no matter how throwaway it was delivered is just wrong. That it was delivered on one of the flagship programmes of the state broadcaster by one of its highest profile presenters while interviewing the leader of the country defies belief. Its a little disappointing there wasn't a better reaction from the PM, but given he was probably thinking 'WTF did he just say?!' and this was live TV I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. It isn't the main issue.

Digging the hole deeper was the juvenile 'foreigners have funny names' farce that ensued when Henry discussed an Indian Commonwealth Games official with an awkwardly pronounced name, ridiculing it and suggesting it was appropriate for her country (link here. Note how obviously uncomfortable his co-presenters are. The other guy in the clip is Peter Williams, one of the last of the old school presenters and continuing possessor of genuine class).

The networks initial response to the gaffe was to issue a standard (they have practice at this) "he's prepared to say the things we quietly think but are scared to say out loud" PR waffle. Smarter heads soon realised that wouldn't cut it, resulting in Henry's suspension for a couple of weeks without pay. What bothers me is that TVNZ is the public owned state broadcaster in this country, that purports to represent the nation. This debacle sure as shit doesn't represent me, and relying on a guy like this as a ratings generator is a sad indicator of how far standards have fallen from a network that used to be something worthwhile. TVNZ was the first network in NZ and in my youth TV1 in particular was all about quality and informing; now it is generally the same lowest common denominator dumbed down tripe you can get anywhere else, which apparently they think is what people want. It has gotten so bad that the best marking of its own 50th anniversary earlier this year was by a rival channel.

Bothering me more than TVNZ's tacit endorsement of his 'saying what we are all quietly thinking', by not really reining him in before now (he has form in being offensive rather than merely frank) is the number of my countrymen who think this is actually some kind of righteous travesty. Thousands have signed up for the inevitable facebook groups demanding Henry's immediate re-instatement, more than the group demanding his immediate dismissal. Comparisons have been made to Hone Harawira's notorious 'White MotherF**kers' statement of last year, in the way that Harawira seemed to escape serious censure for his remarks so why shouldn't Henry, with the implication that Henry is being singled out for being white. This ignores the fact that Henry made his comments while in the employ of an organisation that purports to represent the country and its views as a whole. Harawira while equally offensive and also technically employed by the taxpayer (albeit more directly than Henry), was speaking only for himself, or at most elements of his electorate, and never claimed otherwise. I am amazed and a little saddened that there are that many people prepared to ignore the substance of what Henry said and meant. I would like to think we were better than that as a nation.

This has likely been much more succintly summarised elsewhere (like here for example) and I am just adding to the noise, but I needed to vent on it.

When wind ups backfire

Before Saturday's All Blacks - Wallabies Test, a well known and well respected former Wallaby player turned columnist satirically listed his ten reasons why the Wallabies would win (linky)

We stomped them 49-28.

Today, he amended his list to state the ten reasons why they lost (linky)

Takes class to do that, and I like it.

*Somewhat tragically though, it is evident from the comments that some Kiwi readers just don't get the humour angle....

Factcheck Fail

So while the articles I commented on a couple of days ago were average at best, today media comment on the subject descended to a facepalming new low:

Helicopter had crashed before

This article is just flat out wrong. No-other way to say it. And the way it is phrased, I am kinda baffled as to how it got past the editors at all. Why did no-one in the writing or editorial process think to ask why an aircraft serialled 3809 was known as '06'? That sentence got my attention immediately as being weird, and it took about ten seconds of googling to figure out the actual story.

There is a bit of truth in it. NZ3809 did suffer an accident in 1990, was repaired, was returned to service, was used to support UN operations (albeit not being 'transferred' as stated). The only trouble is, it wasn't the aircraft that crashed on ANZAC day. That aircraft was serialled NZ3806, (which makes the '06 reference much more logical).

And which also makes the headline wrong, the lead and third paragraph wrong, and the whole article without merit. It's a misleading pile of high order inaccuracy which ties in well with a widespread media and uninformed public bias and perception that our armed forces are outdated, ineffectual and token at best, a joke at worst. And given its coverage in the print edition of at least two city daily's as well as on line, it is now going to be accepted as truth by many readers.

The media in this country have seldom covered any defence related story well in the past, and they aren't doing themselves any favours with this one either.

In the meantime spare a thought for the three families burying sons, brothers or husbands tomorrow*, and for the lone survivor.

*One of them was my age. It occurred to that if I had been able to join the service like I wanted, and succeeded in becoming a pilot, we would have been contemporaries. It's something that I've been pondering a bit over the last few days, the what might have been.

Well that didn't take long

Only 24 hours after a tragically fatal and bitterly ironic helicopter crash, and the media is already barking up the wrong trees:

Air Force defends use of Iroquois after crash
An ageing fleet on verge of retirement
Is NZ's ageing military equipment a liability?

There aren't any factual errors in the above, but what annoys me is the focus and implication that the age of the aircraft must be a factor, with liberal use of the term 'ageing', which seems to be a favourite when running down equipment deemed to be past its useful date.

It's true the aircraft are old. It is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Chief of the Air Force was spot on when he said the age of the aircraft is 'immaterial'. Age is mitigated by careful maintenance, and the RNZAF UH-1's can be considered among the best maintained in the world, something evidenced by the fact the last serious incident involving one occured fifteen years ago, with only one other fatal crash in forty-four years of continous service in all kinds of places and conditions. Maintenance is not the only issue governing flight safety, but it is a vital one and there are few airforces world wide that can match that kind of safety record (that applies to all RNZAF aircraft by the way, not just the Iroquois). At its most basic level, an airframe is just that, a frame to which functional equipment is added. So while the frame may be technically forty years old, it may have had the engine or some other critical component replaced last week, as well as having all of its critical components inspected at regular intervals.

Military aircraft fleets worldwide have been steadily increasing in average age since the 70's and 80's or so, as costs and capabilities have increased. A few examples off the top of my head:
-The Australian F-18's that were at Wanaka a few weeks ago (that I posted about here). Not a one less than twenty years old.
-Some F-15's in USAF service are now between twenty-five and thirty years old, and will be a lot older when they are retired.
-Again with the Australians, they got forty-five years service from their Caribou transports, and will have gotten thirty-seven years service from their F-111 bombers when they are retired later this year (the actual airframes are forty or so).
-Finally, the legendary B-52 is planned to remain in USAF service for some time to come. They stopped building those in 1962, meaning the youngest airframe in service is now approaching forty-eight years old.

Relatively new designs being fielded now are anticipated and designed to have operational lives of thirty or forty years or more at the outset, rather than the examples above, some of which have comfortably exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of their original designers.

Aircraft do have finite useful lives, and older aircraft won't necessarily be as economic or easy to support, or as role capable as newer ones, but that doesn't make them unsafe. The Iroquois are nearing the end of their careers and are being phased out over the next few years, to be replaced by a more modern design, but the reason for replacement has more to do with increased capability and reduced ongoing costs than any other.

FFS

Listening to: Bruce Springsteen - Darkness On The Edge Of Town.

Something I saw on line (a couple of things actually) today caused the above utterance.

Firstly, Stuff, I love you but (well, that's not really true, I just prefer your feedback sections and bloggers to the Herald, plus you are giving me a great education in how to sensationalise the mundane and spin it accordingly), but would it kill you to do some fact checking?

Noted after checking out this story with pictures of the Wanaka Airshow last weekend. Incidentally, if you think I take great pictures of planes, check some of these out. Admittedly I don't have the equipment, experience or skill to get images of this quality, but nonetheless I look at them and think "Why can't I get shots like that?", which is a bit silly and frustrating, but there you go (actually on consideration I have produced similar and arguably better shots of two of the subjects. Hmmph).

Anyway, two of the captions are embarrassingly wrong (earlier this afternoon it was three, but they have since corrected one). One is sort of an understandable noob error, but the other is laughably factually incorrect if you know what you are looking at.

So that was one of the FFS's.

The other was a follow up to this story about Erykah Badu filming a nude music video in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, which given the significance of the location hasn't been without some discussion.

Someone has complained and a charge of indecent exposure has been duly filed. Seriously. I guess no-one was thinking of the children on that one. It isn't stated whether or not the complainant was present to see the filming, or just the video that resulted.

Again, FFS. Honestly, I am neither here nor there on her music, or up with any related play, but jeeze, from where I sit there are more important things to get all het up about.

Just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to shoot it

So a party of five Norwegians came to New Zealand, went on a hunting trip, and shot some endangered species (link).

Wankers.

Aside from their ignorance and arrogance at coming here and assuming anything they see is fair game, shooting a Kereru on a branch is just fricking lazy. I could hit a Kereru on a branch with a stone if I wanted, given how large and slow moving they are when not flying. Hitting one with a rifle is hardly a display of awesome hunting skills and marksmanship (unless you throw the rifle at it).

Yet more Yeah but Nah

The story was getting better, now its close to perfect.

A Wellywood sign would be a trademark violation apparently (story link). Also apparently none of the geniuses behind the idea thought this might be a possibility. Lolz all round.

More Yeah but Nah

This just gets better and better :)

Further to the Wellywood sign shenanigans of the last few days, the trademark owners of the real thing in Hollywood are now talking to their attorneys apparently....Story link from Stuff

In the meantime, you can make your own sign here, with the Wellywood Sign Generator, or just check out other peoples efforts at the gallery here.

UPDATE:

Even Hitler hates the idea (link, courtesy of The Dim-Post).