Categories

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

This afternoon the RAF launched an operation to rescue nineteen sailors from a Spanish trawler in difficulties in a North Atlantic storm.

Radio contact with the FV Cibeles was lost yesterday evening at 2030 UTC when the crew reported to the ship’s owners that they were in trouble. Last night, UK Coastguard picked up a satellite emergency beacon signal as winds reached speeds of over 70 mph.

This morning a RAF Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft located the ship adrift 180 miles off the Scottish Western Isles. A nearby tanker, the Aegean Spirit, diverted with the intention of taking the trawler in tow and arrived at 1500 UTC.

However, the tanker was unable to take the trawler on tow, and with no other vessels capable of towing the ship nearby, the Coastguard Rescue Seeking helicopter “Mike Uniform” was launched from Stornoway to extract the crew. The tanker remained on scene to offer some protection from the weather, currently reported as gale force winds and rough seas.

• Joanne Groenenberg. “COASTGUARD HELICOPTER “MIKE UNIFORM” TO EVACUATE CREW FROM SPANISH FISHING VESSEL” — UK Coastguard, January 12, 2005

Friday, June 22, 2007

According to court documents obtained by Wikinews, Randy Squires, an African American male and a former police officer of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (DCMPD) has filed a lawsuit against the department alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a fellow officer. Squires is also suing the former mayor of D.C., Anthony A. Williams, and the district’s Attorney Generals office. Squires is also suing his superior officer, Robert Atcheson, for racial discrimination and harassment.

“Defendant Atcheson treated Plaintiff differently than similarly situated Caucasian police officers in several respect^[sic], including but not limited to assignments, evaluation, and disciplinary actions, deprivation of overtime and use of departmental vehicles,” stated court papers filed by Squires’ attorneys, Donald M. Temple and Dhamian A. Blue of Temple Law Offices in Washington D.C.

Squires accuses Atcheson, a white-caucasian male and a lieutenant in the Environmental Crimes Unit (ECU) Warrant Squad and the Paternity Warrant Squad, of discriminating against him on the basis of the color of his skin and also harassing him while on the job. Squires originally started to work in DCMPD 1988, and shortly after he was hired, he began to work in the ECU. Atcheson was in control of the unit Squires belonged to.

In court documents, Squires alleges Atcheson treated him with “flagrant racial discriminatory conduct,” like using the word “mope,” which is defined as slang for “nigger,” and that the discrimination was “designed to intimidate, insult, emasculate and humiliate” Squires. In one incident in 2002, during a training exercise, Atcheson allegedly “deprived Squires of appropriate breathing apparatus, which is designed to save life in emergency and hazardous situations,” but that the apparatus was “provided to two other caucasian officers.”

Documents also allege that Atcheson had “falsified” a report to North Carolina State Police after Squires was arrested and wrongfully charged with “unauthorized taking of a police vehicle.” Court documents say that the report to N.C. police states that “Atcheson falsely told Plaintiff (Squires) that he had photographic evidence of the police car outside Plaintiff’s home overnight and of Plaintiff driving the car from his home.”

Court documents also allege that Squires allegedly informed his superior officer of Atcheson, only known as ‘Captain Brito,’ of the incident, but no action was ever taken against Atcheson. Squires initially filed a complaint against Atcheson with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) in a letter on March March 8, 2005.

The Washington D.C. police department has investigated the claims made by Squires, which “revealed inappropriate conduct toward Squires,” but according to documents, no disciplinary action has been taken against Atcheson or his superiors.

The defendants “deny any and all allegations” that Squires has made against them and also state that Squires “failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and/or failed to comply with other mandatory filing requirements.” Defendants also say that “all actions taken by District (Washington D.C.) relating to Plaintiffs were necessary, reasonable, pursuant to lawful authority, and based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons” and that “the district denies that any district policymaker adopted, approved, condoned and/or maintained an unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of unlawful employment practices.”

Squires is asking at least US$350,000. Squires and the Defendants also request that a jury be present during the trial, which is scheduled to conclude on June 26.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Mayra Ramirez, a 16 year old Chicago, USA student is blind. In order to graduate, she and dozens of other visually impaired students in Chicago schools are required to pass a written rules-of-the-road exam. “In other classes, you don’t really feel different because you can do the work other people do,” Ramirez said. “But in driver’s ed, it does give us the feeling we’re different. In a way, it brought me down, because it reminds me of something I can’t do.”

Michael Vaughn, a spokesman for Chicago schools said, “I can’t explain why up to this point no one has raised the issue and suggested a better way for visually impaired students to opt out of driver’s ed.”

Blind students are typically told that they must take the class to graduate; although, by law, any parent can request a change in a disabled student’s education plan. This law is rarely, if ever, disclosed to the students, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Virginia – Joshua Brady, a former Sprint Nextel customer, has had his cellular phone account shut off, but not because he wasn’t paying the phone bill, or even because he was late on payments, but because a customer service representative who assisted him, began to call him outside of her job, and make death threats to him in September of 2006. She was never fired for her actions, Brady says.

Brady has agreed to be interviewed by Wikinews to tell his story. All information and claims have been logged with Brady’s attorney and federal authorities.

The representative from Sprint Nextel, who for safety reasons is only being identified as Jessica, was working at the company’s call center in Ontario, Canada where Brady’s call to customer service was directed. According to Brady, Jessica then began to call him outside of her job duties at the call center after their first contact.

Brady called the center around 6:00 p.m. (eastern time) on a Saturday and attempted to receive help on a billing question and to find a way to stop prank calls. Brady requested a “soc code”, a code placed into the phone, that would allow for the number that was pranking him to be blocked. Unfortunately, Jessica did not know what that was, but tried unsuccessfully to find it. According to Brady, the only thing she could find was “the ANI feature call centers have.”

Brady then described to Jessica the billing issue he was having. He was being charged “for text messages I was not making”, even though he had unlimited text messaging with his billing plan. Meanwhile, Jessica called for a supervisor to help locate the code. As this customer service request over the phone was taking quite a bit of time, the two of them then started to discuss what two people would normally discuss if just chatting; sports, the weather, movies and music and if Virginia was a nice place to go on vacation. The supervisor then came by Jessica’s station with no luck on finding a code.

Later that night, around 10:30 p.m., Brady received a call. He answered it and much to his surprise, it was Jessica. He answered the phone with the usual “hello” and the voice on the other end answered with “hello Josh.” Brady was “surprised” that she had not said “hello Mr. Brady.”

“I then asked who it was, and she said Jessica. She told me about her day, and hoped that I did not mind her calling.” Then according to Brady, she started to describe how much she hated working in a call center, and how the job “pays the bills”, and asked if she could “come visit me sometime”. Brady said that he “immediately started to record” the call. Brady also stated that Jessica was not aware she was being recorded, and that further conversations were recorded without her knowing.

The call lasted about 15 minutes, but Brady said she “spoke so fast and moved along through things” that he “didn’t have a chance to talk if I wanted to. It [the call] ended with me interrupting her and telling her I had to go to dinner with a friend.”

Brady immediately called customer care back and reported Jessica’s actions to a supervisor (Jason), and the Floor Manager (Also named Jessica) at the Coos Bay call center, which is where his call happened to be directed. The advice he received was to “play along” and continue to report her actions until they could locate someone “better equipped” to handle the situation.

Jessica then began to call “about every other day or so” which turned out to be almost 30 calls, according to Brady who reported each call she made to Sprint Nextel.

Sprint Nextel then told Jessica to cease and desist all contact with Brady, but that didn’t stop Jessica from contacting him. She somehow found out the screen-name of his AOL Instant Messenger account, and left messages threatening to kill him. Brady logged the messages and faxed them to Sprint, who about a week later sent Brady a letter, saying that his accounts have been terminated.

“The purpose of this letter is to inform our that our office has received a complaint regarding your recent questionable interactions with our customer care group. Recent interactions with our company have prompted us to formally contact you. Sprint Nextel terms and conditions state that “termination of services. consistent with this agreement…”, said the letter from Sprint Nextel.

Brady states that Jessica is still employed with Sprint Nextel, despite the fact that all instant messages left by Jessica were forwarded to Sprint Nextel.

As recently as July 10, 2007, as many as 1,000 accounts were terminated by Sprint Nextel because customers were complaining too much and asking too many questions about billing.

“While we have worked to resolve your issues and questions to the best of our ability, the number of inquiries you have made to us during this time had led us to determine that we are unable to meet your current wireless needs,” said one letter to a sprint customer as recent as June 29, 2007. The letter states that the service will be terminated just one day after the letter was written despite saying they “understand switching to a new carrier causes an inconvenience.”

Two weeks ago, Sprint addressed the media about the mass-cancellations. “These accounts have been researched very carefully,” Sprint spokeswoman Roni Singleton said. “We feel strongly that the decisions we made, we stand by them. These decisions weren’t made lightly.”

“If the average person is calling less than once per month and these people are calling 40 or 50 times more, that takes away from customer service,” Singleton said. “Our priority is to improve the customer experience.”

Wikinews sent e-mails to Sprint Nextel on July 20 regarding the Brady incident; to date no response has been received.

Update: On July 23, 2007, Wikinews received an email response from a Sprint representative, going to some length to explain the termination of the customers who were calling up to hundreds of times a month. No information was given on the Brady case covered in this article; “customer privacy considerations” were cited as the reason and “no comment” was Sprint’s reply.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The investigation into the crash of a British Airways Boeing 777 (B777) written off on January 17 after landing short of the runway at London’s Heathrow International Airport has been updated. The crash of Flight 38 injured one passenger seriously and 12 others on board, including four crew members, as well as being the first hull loss of a B777.

The latest word from the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is that both engines had low fuel pressure in their high pressure (HP) fuel inlets, leading to the failure of both engines. Having departed from Beijing, China the aircraft was on final approach for landing at Heathrow when the thrust on the engines first reduced and became unresponsive, then ceased completely. The copilot, who was flying the aircraft at the time, received significant media praise for gliding the aircraft past housing and airport barriers to crash land the airliner onto the grass at the runway threshold, likely saving the 136 passengers and 16 crew from death or further injury as well as preventing potential ground casualties. The landing gear collapsed and the airframe, wings and engines were significantly damaged.

Each HP inlet also exhibited “unusual and fresh cavitation damage to the outlet ports consistent with operation at low inlet pressure”, according to the AAIB’s latest report on investigatory progress, which also states engine failure was definitely caused by low pressure and that the autothrottle had opened up appropriate valves fully in an effort to increase fuel flow, but to no avail. The report indicates the investigation has also considered an area of unusually cold air over Russia which the B777 passed through at 40,000 feet on its journey. Between the Ural mountain range and East Scandinavia the air was found to have been as low as -76°C. The AAIB has ruled out fuel turning to ice as the fuel temperature never fell below -34°C. This is compared to an average freezing temperature of -47°C for jet fuel and test showing the fuel in the B777’s tanks needed cooled to at least -57°C before it froze. Floating ice particles had previously been suggested as a possible causal factor.

However, it has been suggested outside of the investigation that although the fuel did not freeze, it could have become unusually thickened, restricting its flow through the HP inlets, although the temperatures did remain within what are currently considered safe levels. Another possible explanation was that the fuel was contaminated or of inferior quality, but the AAIB has ruled this out. Also disproved are suggestions that the plane suffered a bird strike or that it was disrupted by electromagnetic interference from jamming devices set up to protect a motorcade carrying Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The report says that there was also no evidence to suggest any control systems failed, that the aircraft encountered a wake vortex or that there was core engine icing or other evidence that the engines suffered core lock. There was no damage to the fuel systems excluding that caused by the low pressure and no blockages, therefore it is suspected that fuel flow was restricted.

The investigation has also begun analysing previous flights on comparable aircraft in a large sample of flights. Thus far, no parameters present on Flight 38 have been found that differ significantly from anything previously encountered. The purpose is primarily to identify potentially troublesome combinations of unusual operational parameters.

The report concludes by stating that interested parties to the investigation, specifically the Federal Aviation Administration, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airways are being kept fully informed of the investigation’s progress.

Although this shows some progress, according to David Learmount, operations and safety editor at periodical industry magazine Flight International, “This report takes us absolutely nowhere, I think they still have no idea.”

The B777 has never had any other hull losses or any fatal accidents and is considered to have one of the world’s safest commercial airliners. According to one spokesman for British Airways “It has one of the best safety records of any commercial aircraft. At no stage since the accident has the AAIB, Boeing or Rolls Royce advised against the continued operation of the Boeing 777.”

The engines underwent analysis at manufacturer Rolls-Royce‘s facility in Derby, while airframer Boeing is studying the fuel systems in the United States. Rolls Royce’s engine test bed was modified to replicate control inputs from aircraft control systems, and Boeing are working at replicating the cold conditions experienced over Eastern Europe. The investigation is ongoing.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Sweden’s first royal wedding since 1976 took place Saturday when Crown Princess Victoria, 32, married her long-time boyfriend and former personal trainer, Daniel Westling, 36. The ceremony took place at Stockholm Cathedral.

Over 1,200 guests, including many rulers, politicians, royals and other dignitaries from across the world, attended the wedding, which cost an estimated 20 million Swedish kronor. Victoria wore a wedding dress with five-metre long train designed by Pär Engsheden. She wore the same crown that her mother, Queen Silvia, wore on her wedding day 34 years previously, also on June 19. Victoria’s father, King Carl XVI Gustaf, walked Victoria down the aisle, which was deemed untraditional by many. In Sweden, the bride and groom usually walk down the aisle together, emphasising the country’s views on equality. Victoria met with Daniel half-way to the altar, where they exchanged brief kisses, and, to the sounds of the wedding march, made their way to the the silver altar. She was followed by ten bridesmaids. The couple both had tears in their eyes as they said their vows, and apart from fumbling when they exchanged rings, the ceremony went smoothly.

Following the ceremony, the couple headed a fast-paced procession through central Stockholm on a horse-drawn carriage, flanked by police and security. Up to 500,000 people are thought to have lined the streets. They then boarded the Vasaorden, the same royal barge Victoria’s parents used in their wedding, and traveled through Stockholm’s waters, accompanied by flyover of 18 fighter jets near the end of the procession. A wedding banquet followed in the in the Hall of State of the Royal Palace.

Controversy has surrounded the engagement and wedding between the Crown Princess and Westling, a “commoner”. Victoria met Westling as she was recovering from bulemia in 2002. He owned a chain of gymnasiums and was brought in to help bring Victoria back to full health. Westling was raised in a middle-class family in Ockelbo, in central Sweden. His father managed a social services centre, and his mother worked in a post office. When the relationship was made public, Westling was mocked as an outsider and the king was reportedly horrified at the thought of his daughter marrying a “commoner”, even though he did so when he married Silvia. Last year, Westling underwent transplant surgery for a congenital kidney disorder. The Swedish public have been assured that he will be able to have children and that his illness will not be passed on to his offspring.

Westling underwent years of training to prepare for his new role in the royal family, including lessons in etiquette, elocution, and multi-lingual small talk; and a makeover that saw his hair being cropped short, and his plain-looking glasses and clothes being replaced by designer-wear.

Upon marrying the Crown Princess, Westling took his wife’s ducal title and is granted the style “His Royal Highness”. He is now known as HRH Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. He also has his own coat-of-arms and monogram. When Victoria assumes the throne and becomes Queen, Daniel will not become King, but assume a supportive role, similar to that of Prince Phillip, the husband of the United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II.