BBC News helps spread word of our new Radio 4 series

The following text and images come from the BBC News website, and talk about new findings revealed by the radio series “Inside The Bermuda Triangle” which was produced by my company, Ladbroke Productions for BBC Radio 4.  Amazingly this story has been read over 300,000 times and has been in the top 5 most read news stories in the world for the last day…exciting!  The link to the BBC news page is – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8248334.stm

You can hear the series every weekday from today (mon 14th Sept) until fri 25th Sept at 3.45pm on BBC Radio 4, or via the iPlayer.

Please check out the Ladbroke Productions website as well

Bermuda Triangle plane mystery ’solved’

Two of the so-called Bermuda Triangle’s most mysterious disappearances in the late 1940s may have been solved.

Scores of ships and planes are said to have vanished without trace over the decades in a vast triangular area of ocean with imaginary points in Bermuda, Florida and Puerto Rico.

But journalist Tom Mangold’s new examination for the BBC provides plausible explanations for the disappearance of two British commercial planes in the area, with the loss of 51 passengers and crew.

One plane probably suffered from catastrophic technical failure as a result of poor design, while the other is likely to have run out of fuel.

Sixty years ago, commercial flights from London to Bermuda were new and perilous. It would require a refuelling stop on the Azores before the 2,000-mile flight to Bermuda, which at that time was the longest non-stop commercial overseas flight in the world.

The planes would have been operating at the limit of their range. Today planes arriving at the tiny Atlantic island have sufficient reserve fuel to divert to the US East Coast 700 miles away, in case of emergency.

And the planes of the post-war era were far less reliable than today’s airliners.

British South American Airways (BSAA), which operated the route, had a grim safety record. In three years it had had 11 serious accidents and lost five planes with 73 passengers and 22 crew members killed.

Unsolved mystery

On 30 January 1948, a BSAA Avro Tudor IV plane disappeared without trace. Twenty-five passengers and a crew of six were on board The Star Tiger. No bodies or wreckage were found.

The official investigation into the disappearance concluded: “It may truly be said that no more baffling problem has ever been presented.

“What happened in this case will never be known and the fate of Star Tiger must remain an unsolved mystery.”

At 2,000 feet you’d be leaving very little altitude for manoeuvre – in any serious in-flight emergency the plane could have lost its height in seconds and gone into the sea Eric Newton Air accident investigator

But there are a number of clues in the official accident report that reveal the Star Tiger had encountered problems before it reached the Azores.

The aircraft’s heater was notoriously unreliable and had failed en route, and one of the compasses was found to be faulty.

Probably to keep the plane warmer, the pilot had decided to fly the whole transatlantic route very low, at 2,000 feet, burning fuel at a faster rate.

On approaching Bermuda, Star Tiger was a little off course and had been flying an hour later than planned.

In addition, the official Ministry of Civil Aviation report considered that the headwinds faced by Star Tiger may have been much stronger than those forecast. This would have caused the fuel to burn more quickly.

“Flying at 2,000 feet they would have used up much more fuel,” said Eric Newton, one of the Ministry of Civil Aviation’s most senior air accident investigators, who reviewed the scenario for the BBC.

“At 2,000 feet you’d be leaving very little altitude for manoeuvre. In any serious in-flight emergency they could have lost their height in seconds and gone into the sea.”

Whatever happened to the plane, it was sudden and catastrophic – there was no time to send an emergency signal.

Five US Navy planes disappeared in the triangle area in 1945

The Avro Tudor IV was a converted warplane that was eventually taken out of passenger service because of its poor safety record. Only BSAA continued to fly the aircraft.

Gordon Store was chief pilot and manager of operations at BSAA. In an interview with his local newspaper last November, he said he had no confidence in the Tudor’s engines.

“Its systems were hopeless… all the hydraulics, the air-conditioning equipment and the recycling fans were crammed together underneath the floor without any thought. There were fuel-burning heaters that would never work,” he said.

Second accident

Almost a year to the day after the disappearance of the Star Tiger, another Avro Tudor IV belonging to BSAA vanished between Bermuda and Jamaica.

Exactly one hour after departure from Bermuda on 17 January 1949, the pilot of the Star Ariel sent a routine communication of his position. But then the plane vanished without trace at 18,000 feet.

According to experts, this would have required a sudden catastrophe.

Again, no wreckage, debris or bodies were ever found.

Fuel starvation at that height was not plausible, the weather report had been good, and pilot error was ruled out.

The plane’s poor design may well have been to blame, according to Don Mackintosh, a former BSAA Tudor IV pilot. The cabin heater mounted underneath the floor where the co-pilot sat is his prime suspect.

My theory is that hydraulic vapour escaped from a leak, which got on to a hot heater and caused an explosion Captain Peter Duffey

At the time, aircraft heater technology was still in its infancy.

“The heater bled aviation fuel on to a hot tube – and was also fairly close to the hydraulic pipes,” he says.

A pressure switch should have allowed the heater to operate when it was in the air but it was unreliable and was often deliberately short-circuited by staff, allowing the pilot manual control.

The switch prevented inflammable fuel from flowing, but if the heater was switched on manually, gas that may have collected could have ignited.

Captain Peter Duffey, a former BSAA pilot who went on to become a captain of British Airways Concorde, also believes that the proximity of the heater and the hydraulic pipes was significant.

“My theory is that hydraulic vapour escaped from a leak, which got on to a hot heater and caused an explosion,” he says.

Mr Newton’s report came to a similar conclusion: “If the heater had caught fire down below the floorboards then it could have developed to a catastrophic state before the crew knew anything about it.

“There was no automatic fire extinguisher to put it out like there is nowadays. There was no alarm where the heater was stored… so no-one would know, possibly until it was too late.”

The official accident investigation discovered that because of a communications error, search and rescue teams were not despatched until seven and a half hours later.

By then what was left of the plane and the bodies would have sunk.

The report on the disappearance of the first plane, the Star Tiger, said something which, because it could be easily misinterpreted, helped the accident achieve notoriety.

In a moment of philosophical conjecture, the investigators mused that maybe “some external cause may (have) overwhelm(ed) both man and machine”.

Those comments from sober-suited British civil servants opened the floodgates for conspiracy theorists, hack journalists and mischief makers, adding to the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.

Inside The Bermuda Triangle – The Mysteries Solved is broadcast in 10 episodes on BBC Radio 4, starting on Monday 14 September at 1545 BST.

Don’t Deny The Right To Debate

This week, in the UK, the House of Lords (an anachronistic undemocratic institution that is about as relevant to modern life as the Royal Family!)  proved to me that it can, occassionally, be of some worth.  They held a debate about Assisted Suicide, with the aim to alter the law so that relatives and friends who assisted someone in organising their own death (i.e. travelling to Dignitas in Switzerland) would be immune from prosecution.

This was an incredibly important and worthy debate, with passionate speeches from all sides of the argument. It was eye-opening and educational, it offered glimpses into parts of the debate otherwise closed off, and most of all, it allowed for the issue to be aired publicly rather than behind government doors, or in the boardrooms of the NHS.

BUT, one Lord, Baroness Campbell, spoke about her belief that the Lords should not even be discussing the issue, that it should not be debated, that bringing such discussion into the public would frighten and worry vulnerable individuals who she believes would become victims of any such change in the law.  Now let me point out to those who do not know, that Baroness Campbell suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, is in a wheelchair and the disease is progressive.  I am a big fan of hers, and in awe of the commitment she puts in to making her position in the Lords, one of dignity and one of representation of the people.  Her argument against assisted suicide continues in today’s Daily Mail, and as ever, she writes eloquently and with passion and knowledge.

BUT, to call for a debate to be stopped? To say that an issue is too sensitive, too complicated, too emotive to be debated at the highest levels? To deny the right to debate, when you yourself are using that right to call for it’s removal?  If the only way you feel you can win an argument is to deny the right to argue, you really don’t have an argument to win.  That is the road to fascism, starting with emotional blackmail and ending in wholescale repression and the removal of freedom of speech.

Becuase she HAD the right to debate, around 15 of her Lords peers changed their view on the issue and supported her.  In the end the vote to change the law was defeated by a small but important margin.  Because of her passionate speech and experiences many more people now know a little bit more about the issue and can raise the level of debate up. 

I personally believe in the individual’s freedom to choose.  Be that about death, or life, or religion, or politics, or sexuality, or just music and movies.  So long as that choice affects only the individual…parents deciding a child’s religion is WRONG, governments deciding what sexuality is legal is WRONG, those of faith deciding who can live or die is WRONG.  I agree with Baroness Campbell that a right to death is riddled with dangers for the vulnerable, confused, depressed or easily misled.  It is open to family abuse and abuse by governments.  Any such right HAS to be tempered with rules and guidelines, an ability to police and a willingness to adapt.  BUT, to deny those who genuinely have made an informed and educated decision to end their lives, and whose family and/or friends choose, or are asked to assist them…well, this is simply WRONG.  Do not demonise those who know their own lives best.  Demonise those who would try to take life from others against their will.

But please, let us not allow the insidious errosion of of right to debate, our right to discuss, our right to argue.  At the heart of our democracy is the concept of debate.  Our laws are, for the most part, open to adaptation because of discussion and debate, within government and within the media.  And while discussion of emotive and complex issues such as assisted suicide can and will be frightening to some, it is always better to have the discussion in the light where it can be monitored than in the shadows where is will go unchecked.

Health & God

Click on image to read BBC News Online story

So some doctors and health staff want to be allowed to include faith as part of their treatment of patients in NHS hospitals.  Currently the Dept of Health guidelines say talking about faith (beyond praying for someone) could be misconstrued as prosletysing and be offensive.  Certain Atheist organisations argue it should not be allowed, although they recognise that if a patient asks for it, staff should be allowed to engage in faith based discussions.

I am an atheist, I find organised religion to be offensive to my worldview, but I do not have a problem with any individual who holds a faith…so long as they do not expect me, or anyone else to do as they do, or believe in what they believe in (since they refuse to consider my way of thinking!), and they refrain from causing harm through the pursuit of their faith.

But doctors and nurses offering faith alongside medicine…I feel I should be bothered, but in reality I am not.  I trust these highly trained individuals to know when and what is appropriate.  So long as they understand that ‘no means no’ when a patient or their family refuses any such faith-approach, I don’t see the problem.  Any staff member caught prosletysing would very quickly be reprimanded, and if it continued would find themselves disciplined.

Hospitals in the UK are very depressing and isolating places to be as a patient…and while the staff undoubtedly do their best to make us better again, there are many times when as the patient you feel left out of the human-equation, and become merely a problem for the staff to deal with.  If allowing those staff members who have faith to make it a small part of the way they work, I believe it could do wonders for the patient experience.

However, these same staff must be wary not to take offence if their faith is rebuked, if a patient is rude or demeaning to the approach…being a patient can leave you vulnerable and scared, and for many the thought of a person of faith invading your space and mind at such a time will be repellant.

One other thought occurs…don’t hospitals have chaplains and rabbis and immams on call to offer spiritual advice?  Would it not be better for the staff to defer to a more senior authority figure (since religion is all about authority and power and heirarchies)? And what if a patient is a pagan, a Satanist, or any other so-called ‘fringe’ religion?  Who deals with their spiritual needs?  How would a Christian doctor deal with a Satanist patient who asks for help and guidance?

I think I worry more for the staff and how bringing religion into their workplace may impact on them and their lives than I do the patients.

Or maybe keeping religion out of everything except churches, mosques and temples is the safest route?  It’s a tough question and one the Dept of Health will have to grapple with, and try to treat with a modicum of maturity and candour.  What worries me the most is that in this one issue we have healthcare, religion, freedom of speech, freedom to worship AND politics rolled into one…it could be a disaster in the making!

RIP MJ – news-ageddon

What is there to say when a legend of music dies so suddenly? Already his death is a merry-go-round of 24 hour news coverage, talking heads spouting hastily researched information, emergency obituary tapes being rolled out, and an incredible lack of sincerity from everyone in the news community!

Pop across to Twitter or Facebook and it is a very different matter. People sharing memories and thoughts, the most memorable messages of love and support, famous names chatting with Joe Bloggs about what has happened…it is all very real. No ratings chasing, no trying to find the biggest name to comment, no pointless phone interviews with so-called experts…just honest, open response.

I’ll be honest and say that I was never a big MJ fan…I was more a Prince kind of guy. But the music was mostly superb, the showmanship was second to none and the legend was, and will remain, unique. I’ll not miss his soap-opera later years, but I will miss the musicianship.

But now we will have to put up with a newsgathering war, in the same way we did with Diana and Jade. TV channels trying to outdo each other with helicopter shots of the crowds, the hospital, the cars, etc… Newspapers trying to fill the most number of pages, run the biggest special pull out editions, etc… It will be ghastly, demeaning, in poor taste, and the sort of thing that really gets journalists excited.

My advice is that if you want to really learn about the man, his music, his history, his fans and the real-world reaction to his death…pop over to Twitter, head across to Facebook, and see what REAL people are saying, and switch off the self-serving, ratings-chasing news channels and newspapers.

MJ – thanks for all the incredible music, now go be at peace and enjoy eternity. Peace and love.

A Phone For All Ages

So I read in today’s papers that there is a new mobile phone being released, designed for 4 year olds, called the Firefly.  A nice pink colour, with 5 simple buttons.  Not much different from some of the ‘idiot-phones’ available already for those whose minds can’t comprehend anything beyond calling and basic texting.  This doesn’t bother me.

What does bother me is the way all of the articles (possibly written by the same freelance reporter?) have described the phone as being ‘targetted’ or ‘aimed’ at 4 year olds.  The same articles also ask the oh-so-clever question “Does a 4 year old need a mobile phone?”.  And some even invoke the old trope “Children need to be children” (which in Simpsons-speak would translate as “Won’t somebody think of the children!”)

Let’s get this straight…the mobile phone is not targetted or aimed at 4 years olds, it is DESIGNED for 4 year olds.  There is no point in targetting a product at 4 year olds, THEY HAVE NO MONEY! Also, and this is a rather major also, 4 year olds CANNOT SIGN AIRTIME AGREEMENTS! You have to be over 18 to sign an agreement and have a bank account and credit rating.  Not many 4 year olds have this.

This phone is targetted at one group only…idiotic, gullible, moronic, selfish, lazy parents who will buy and use anything to avoid doing the job of a parent.  I have to ask…just WHERE do they think their 4 year old will be that they need to call them on a mobile to have a chat?  Why is the 4 year old not with the parent? And what sort of chat will they be having anyway?

Now, some unctuous parent will no doubt say “But Neil, we send our dearest little <insert name here> to playschool every day for xxx hours.  What if he/she/it needs to reach us in an emergency?”  Erm…won’t the playschool be doing that? And should, for whatever reason, the apocalypse occur at the playschool and your precious little mite is the only one left staggering forth from the burning building a la Die Hard, will they have the cognitive ability to [a] have their new pink playmobile phone with them, [b] know that now would be the time to call Mummy or Daddy for a chat, and [c] not be a gibbering wreck in the rubble crying their eyes out waiting for an adult to come rescue them?

I have no problem with the phone, or the phone’s manufacturers, they are merely responding to a growing trend for children to be ‘mobiled-up’!  There is some spurious factoid doing the rounds about how 6 year olds are staying up late at night having text-sessions – just what are they texting, it fascinates me…and if your little one HAS to have a mobile, just lock the damn thing so it can only call 999, Mum and Dad!

I have a problem with the parents who buy the damn things…parents have been inculcating their kids with nonsense since year dot (just consider religion!)  It would be nice to see a story in a year or two saying that the phone failed because parents simply wouldn’t buy it, but sadly anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of walking through Clapham, or Barnes, or Sloane Square, or a hundred other similar locales, will know that there is already a demographic of annoying parents just salivating at the thought of little Sebastian or Candice owning the latest mobile tech before any other child in the school district!  In the words of Dan Ashcroft, “The idiots are winning!”

What has really got my goat about this story is the terrible reporting of it.  Come on written press, dig a little deeper, write a little more carefully and stop with the headline grabbing misdirection.  Try a little journalism, and practice what you preach.  You’d be all over the BBC if they ran such an ill-conceived story! Consider more than the ‘Are mobiles safe’ old rope, and look deeper at why society deems mobiles for kids acceptable and required.  Is this yet more jumping at non-existent paedophile shadows? Has mobile telephony evolved into more than a tool for communication and become something much more sociologically fascinating? You could even ask why is the phone pink?  Why not yellow, or blue, or a variety of colours?  Good Dawkins, there is so much more to this story!

But I guess, like TV news coverage, the written press is less about investigative journalism than it is about sensationalism and repetition.  How sad.

Now, I wonder if Apple will release an iPhone 3GS Junior version…hmmm?

A plea – are you a parent of a toddler?  Please don’t buy your kid a phone.  Wait until they are at least 10 years old.  Buy them lots of Lego, or take them out at weekends, or teach them a musical instrument.  It is activity and fun children crave, NOT digital communications with text capabilities, 3G and WiFi and integrated bluetooth stereo connectivity!