Learjet 60--was it ice?

 Earlier this week, a Learjet fell out of the sky, crashing into a street in West Palm Beach, Florida, leaving not much more than a huge crater in the road. It's possible that no cockpit voice recorder could have survived that supersonic crash. Early speculation ran wild as to what could have been the cause, so I held off on commenting until now that the traffic control tapes have been released. I'll continue to edit this as more information and analysis comes out, but I'll start with a summary. 
I wrote earlier about ice causing planes to fall out of the sky; that's very unlikely to be what happened here. I've also written about pilots flying their planes directly into a thunderstorm because their weather radar indicated a hole in the storm; that is indeed what appears to have happened here. The plane was torn apart by the tremendous turbulence in a rapidly developing thunderhead, and at that point the only thing that could have saved it was a Ballistic Recovery System--and those massive parachutes aren't available for Learjets.

Some quick takeaways from this crash:

• Pilots will continue to make errors. In a Learjet 60 at altitude, there is little margin for error, so regardless of what changes the NTSB recommends coming out of this, a similar event is likely to happen again. 
• It's clear that weather radars are still not immune to luring pilots into the heart of a thunderstorm. I suspect that recommended changes will focus on either redesign of radars, or redoubling of efforts to train pilots to resist this siren song. 

 

Yawn--yet another alarmist alert

 I won't make this long, but given my decades-long habit of warning people about Iran--a practice that does in fact draw people to this blog looking for updates--it's only fair that I pass this on.

Glenn Beck has put out a warning that, according to several Western governments, the Revolutionary Guard is about to throw a massive spanner into the global supply chain. And by "about to," he probably means sometime soon after President Trump assumes his recreational war against them following the US mid-term elections on Tuesday. 

Here is the link to his warning. It requires a subscription, which is free and can be anonymous. But the gist of it is that everyone should be prepared to live without access to outside power, water, and food for three days to three months. When contemplating what that would look like, just ask yourself how far you could drive your automobile without having to cross over any bridges, and how that could change your life.

One closing comment: the US have faced, and overcome at tremendous cost, an existential threat about every eighty years of their existence--which means they are coming due for the next one.

Language alert: Glenn uses words that weren't allowed on American television in the early evenings when I was growing up.

Oh--and in other news, for years this blog's greatest number of visitors from any given country was consistently from Russia. These days, it's not even in the top ten. For the first time, its greatest number of visitors consistently come from the US. 

Seven Questions people are axing about flydubai flight 1073

Until copilot Hamam al-Hammami attacked Indian captain Smit Machchhar with the cockpit crash axe, causing the plane to drop thousands of feet in a few seconds, most of us had never even heard of flydubai, the Emirates' budget airline, which sends its fleet of 737s to airports in dozens of countries within 7 hours' flying time of Dubai.  

Here are some questions that would immediately come to mind upon hearing about this near-catastrophe:

1. What is flydubai?
Flydubai is the state-owned budget airlines of the United Arab Emirates, based in Dubai and with there-and-back flights to over 100 destination cities in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. They exclusively use various models of the Boeing 737. They were the first Arab state airline to offer service to Israel's only international airport in Tel Aviv, beginning in 2020, and have kept up daily flights all through the Gaza War.

2. Why were Israelis flying on an Arab airline with a Muslim in the cockpit?
Well, primarily because it was so cheap, and also because Muslim pilots only go into jihadi mode on extremely rare occasions. Of course, being a budget airline meant the flydubai tended to take whomever they could get, and when an Omani pilot who'd been kicked off his own national carrier for his jihadist views applied to work for them, they apparently didn't think much of it, and hired him anyway. It's especially concerning that they sent an Omani national on a flight to Israel; Israel doesn't recognize Omani passports, so citizens of that country are generally prohibited from traveling to Israel, even as airline pilots.
Another major reason for the use of an Arab airline was that El Al, Israel's national carrier, had suspended flights to Dubai due to concerns over terrorism. That moratorium has since been lifted, for obvious reasons. 

3. How were passengers able to storm the cockpit, with all the precautions in place to secure it?
Now, that's an interesting question. As I have stated before, there's a fine line between securing the cockpit from a madman OUTSIDE of it, and securing the cockpit from a madman INSIDE it, and this was one case where the two perfectly balanced; Captain Machchhar, while bleeding out, was just barely able to open the locked door to allow his rescuers to enter. 

4. Why don't most news stories mention the copilot's name?

It's basically a matter of journalistic policy. Neither the airline nor any of the three governments involved have publicly released the jihadist's name, so news outlets are reluctant to mention it. There's also a desire not to give the bad guy any publicity, that could be enough to tip the scales in the direction of anonymity. 

5. Why didn't the secondary crew fly the aircraft on to Tel Aviv, diverting instead to Tabuk in Saudi Arabia?
The clearest answer is that, had flight 1073 continued into Israeli airspace, it would have been shot down, because the transponder was broadcasting the signal that indicated it had been highjacked. Hammami's stated intent was to crash the plane, and the IDF wasn't about to take any chances. Tabuk was a regular destination of flydubai, so it was a natural choice once the secondary flight crew (riding along because they were scheduled to fly the plane back to Dubai) took control. 

Also, the pilot was on the verge of succumbing to his injuries by the time the plane landed; being diverted from Tel Aviv while security officials assessed the situation could have been enough to kill him. And, the high-speed dive had damaged the plane's tail section, and the would-be axe murderer had turned his weapon on the instrument panel, making a quick landing all the more imperative. 

6. Does being arrested in Tabuk mean that the jihadist copilot will escape prosecution?

No, because the Saudis immediately sent him back to the Emirates, he won't be eligible for hero status in the Guardian of the Two Sanctuaries. Dubai will no doubt prosecute him, and at least this way he won't be available to use as a bargaining chip for the release of Israeli citizen hostages, as would have been the case in Israel, which still has no death penalty, even for mass murderers. 

7. Did the plane landing in the Saudi Kingdom complicate repatriation of the Israeli passengers?

It sure did! Saudi Arabia doesn't recognize Israeli passports, so for the 150 Israeli citizens on board, it was probably the first time they'd ever set foot in that country. In order to get them to Israel, flydubai had to send a couple of their own planes out to pick them up, presumably returning to Dubai enroute as flights between Saudi Arabia and Israel are still prohibited. 

How Women Lose the Right to Vote

For many years I have pondered the very notion of women voting, and one of the mysteries of this whole topic is whether the right to vote, once having been bestowed upon women by men, could ever be withdrawn. It seems illogical that women themselves could be persuaded to yield suffrage, once having obtained it, but it turns out not be be impossible after all, as we shall soon see. This is true precisely because of an innate difference between the generic male and the generic female: he's much better suited to warfare than she is. 

I offer the case of a country where a movement became active to give women the vote in 1919, even before implementation of the 19th Amendment in the US ensured suffrage for the women there: Afghanistan. 

Yes, Afghanistan. Who would think of THAT country as being ahead of the United States in the area of women's rights? Yet, in the 1920's, it was--at least on paper, and at least in the media. But it was a top-down revolution, and, as these tend to do, it didn't last. 

In 1913, Emir Amanullah Khan took Soraya Tarzi as his third wife, having divorced the first as a teenager and losing the second to death in childbirth. But, unlike every monarch throughout history to precede him on that throne--he himself being the son of his predecessor's second wife--he announced that as of Soraya, he was done taking wives; the Christian notion of monogamy seemed, to him, something that his Islamic nation could adopt to their betterment. Emir Khan proclaimed himself King in 1919, ousted the British Overlords in the Third Anglo-Afghan War, and as the decade of the Roaring Twenties dawned, set about to bring his country into the 20th century--starting by elevating women to a status equal with men. This move, which included appointing his wife as Minister of Education and opening that world to the female majority, was directly contrary to the teachings of Islam. The Qur'an states, in An-Nisa 4:34,

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. But if they return to obedience, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is higher, great."

This top-down revolution was thus doomed from the moment it began, and by the close of the decade Amanullah and Soraya were in exile, never to return home until their respective royal burials in the 1960's. Amanullah couldn't even manage to keep the reformation going in his personal life: although he held on to Soraya and went on to father ten children through her, he lapsed back into polygamy by briefly marrying his first cousin in the dying days of his kingdom. 

The remainder of the century would see Afghanistan endure one government overthrow after another, with women in the forefront politically whenever they were permitted it, and then thrown back under the bus when Islamic doctrine prevailed over Western thought. 

So here is what it comes down to: whenever modern doctrines like the equality of women hold sway over the ruling class, women get the vote; but whenever the core beliefs of the nation at large gain the preeminence, women lose it again. This process has repeated itself in Afghanistan probably more times than in any other country, but it serves as an example of how it could happen anywhere else. In the USA, the process is still on its first cycle at the national level--but it we were to peer closely down to the local level, we would see that the second cycle has already begun to play out. 

I can now envision a movement in which women are taught that their inherent status is one of submission to men, and where they either give up the vote altogether, or only vote as their husbands instruct them. This would be the most peaceful option, in which the female vote is surrendered voluntarily. But should that option fail, men could still win back exclusive suffrage by brute force, womankind being much less of a match for mankind militarily, as they are politically. 

And in a nation whose women only ever vote in accordance with their husbands' wishes, there is actually no need to abolish female suffrage, in order to obtain an equivalent result. 

Jesus the Helite

 Re-reading my article on Job reminded me of another theory I have, regarding Jesus the Helite*. It draws from the same Pentateuchal passage I cited earlier, to gain some insight on the Lucan genealogy:

"The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses." --Numbers 27:8-11

Note that this statute required a man's inheritance to pass on to his daughters, should they lack brothers (the male kind). Only in the case of utter childlessness would it pass to a male relative of the same generation, or one above it. The daughters, having been duly married to kinsmen, would each pass on their portion of that inheritance to their sons. 

Let's look at how this would work if a firstborn daughter with no brothers (the male kind) came of marrying age. As an heir apparent to her father's estate, she would need to marry a relative within her sub-tribe (Numbers 36:8) in order to secure the inheritance. Should that husband die without issue, she would have to marry another relative--specifically the closest one--in order to keep the inheritance from passing on through her to another clan (Ruth 4:4). 

Now, let's take this hypothetical scenario and apply it to a real-life situation. Luke starts out his genealogy of Jesus by stating that he was "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli." How could Joseph be considered the son of Heli when Matthew records that his father was Jacob? Well, suppose that Heli had no sons, but a firstborn daughter Mary. In that case, Mary would have been required to marry someone from her own sub-clan: and in fact, Luke also reports, or at least implies, that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David (Luke 1:27). Thus Joseph, along with his sons by Mary, stood to inherit from Heli's estate--in which sense he could be referred to as the heir, or son, of Heli. And thus Jesus, as the legal heir of both Joseph and Mary, stood to inherit both Joseph's claim to the Israelite throne and a double portion of whatever inheritance his mother had brought into the marriage: at least a double portion, were she the firstborn, and possibly all of it, had she no younger sisters. 

Another observation: John records that among Jesus' dying words were a charge to him: take care of my mother. If John's mother Salome were in fact Mary's younger sister, it would explain a few things: 

1) John, although apparently much younger than Jesus, becoming a disciple first of his cousin John, then switching allegiance to his other cousin Jesus.
2) John's mother being audacious enough to ask her nephew for special placement of her sons in their cousin's kingdom.
3) Jesus (knowing that the older brother James would suffer an early death, but that John would outlive Mary) commending Mary into the charge of her sister's son John, thus passing his double portion of the double inheritance (meagre as it was) onto the man who would use it to care for his widowed aunt. 

And finally, on a related note: we can conclude from the fact that they came up short on a staple at their wedding reception that the couple getting married in Cana were poor. And we know from their choice of offering at Mary's postpartum purification ceremony that Jesus' parents were also poor. That, along with the likelihood that several of his disciples were themselves close relatives, would help to explain why Jesus and his disciples, along with all his brothers (the male kind) were invited to the wedding at Cana: Rabbinical Law specifies that ten male guests are the minimum to comprise a wedding party (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut, Chapter 10, Halacha 5), and apparently this couple really had to scrape to come up with a sufficiently padded guest list. Because, of course, couples want to go all out for their weddings, so just the minimum wouldn't do. Such an eagerness, compounded by the realities of poverty, could also explain why the wine order hadn't been expanded to meet the expected demand. 

But look a little closer. Why was Mary, along with all her sons (probably including at least some of her daughters), invited to the wedding? Why did she take such a personal interest in the availability of wine as to put pressure on her son to do something about it? Why did John, alone of all the evangelists, write about this event? And why, when various obscure people who invited Jesus over to their house were identified by name (and sometimes even stature), no names were given here, just the location?

I would propose that all of these clues point to the happy couple being relatives of Mary, and thus of Jesus and John. John had no problem being the only evangelist to identify Peter as the disciple who took up the sword in defence of Jesus, but he was careful never to name himself. Likewise, by not naming the happy couple, he could avoid drawing attention to his relationship to them. It's quite possible that they were his sibling and in-law, still alive at the time he penned his gospel, and the anonymity he provided them may well have shielded them from the persecution then raging throughout the empire. Or perhaps the bride was Jesus' own younger sister, his fellow Helite, and Mary was the mother of the bride, focused on making her special day a success. 

*"Helite" is just a fancy way of saying "descendant of Heli."