MH 370: I'm sceptical about reports of rapid descent.

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/mh370-24-april-2014-update.html

CNN has been reporting a new revelation which some aviation analysts are describing as a game changer. You will recall that about an hour into the flight MH 370, then flying at cruising altitude of 35 000 feet (Flight Level 350) signed off from Malaysian ATC in the Gulf of Thailand and then disappeared from Radar after the transponder was switched off.

New reports from an "insider" now suggest, for the first time, that at the time the transponder was switched off, military radar picked up the Airliner entering a steep dive to the left, and descended rapidly from FL 350 to around twelve thousand feet before disappearing from radar. Ten thousand feet is the altitude pilots head for during emergency descents since its an altitude where one can breath normally.

Apparently, some analysts who say that this information is a game changer, now suggest that this could be a pointer to some catastrophic technical or structural failure on board as opposed to the theory I favoured from day two on common sense grounds, and which a week later, I was belatedly joined by other aviation experts.

Whilst I still favour the theory of cockpit incursion or pilot involvement or a combination of both for reasons set out in two previous blogs, published on this site, it would be foolish to completely exclude the possibility of catastrophic failure or, such a decompression.

That said, my theory remains unchanged and I urge caution in regard to the latest "revalations."

First of all, radar mostly cannot determine an aircrafts altitude or speed without receiving such information from the aircraft's transponder which was off. Admittedly military radar does have better capability than civilian radar, but I understand that one needs to be reasonably close to the radar in order for any reliability to be attached to the readings.

Secondly, the timing of the turn, which occurred after handing off from one area controller, and before being handed over to the other, (which allowed the aircraft considerable time to slip away) is a little too convenient.

Thirdly, my previous point gets even stronger if one factors in the simultaneous switching off of the transponder and the aircraft's automated reporting systems. Quite frankly, the odds of all three these occurrences, all of which are suspicious, coincidentally being accompanied not only be a catastrophic failure, but one which also disabled these systems too, must be extremely remote. Any catastrophic event with all those consequences, and which prevent communication with ATC during descent, would have to be sufficiently catastrophic to bring the airliner down within the hour, which, by all accounts did not happen.

Finally, in order to reach the present search area in the Indian Ocean on the available fuel, the aircraft could not possibly have remained at 10 000 feet for any length of time. The air is too dense here and the much higher fuel consumption would have rendered any such lengthy flight impossible.

But here's the killer point, even if we assume that all the above did occur and that the aircraft was forced by some technical emergency to descend to 10 000 feet, this does not explain why the aircraft, then, instead of landing, must have, (if all the satellite pictures and news reports are correct), then ascended back to over thirty thousand feet in order to allegedly end up where the search planes are now looking. This could only occur with the assistance of a hijacker or a pilot with ill intentions.

Game changer then. Sorry, I'm having none of it from these so-called aviation experts unless you can produce a wreckage much closer to Malaysia. So far, nobody favours any such theory.

So, all this means two things. No game change, and do take the "rapid descent" story with a massive pinch of salt for now. Of course, new and proper information could still surprise us all.

Why there has to be a referendum in Crimea.

I believe that the current impasse between the USA and Russia over the Ukraine and Crimea can be resolved by permitting a proper referendum in Crimea about whether Crimea should opt for independence, remain as part of Ukraine, or be re-incorporated into Russia.

Most of the population of Crimea are Russian speaking and Crimea was in fact Russian a generation or so ago until Khrushchev of the former USSR granted it to the Ukraine.

Why that was done is a mystery to me since Russia has always sought a "warm" water port for its Black Sea Fleet. At present, its fleet is still in Crimea by agreement with the Ukraine.

However, since Crimea is presently part of the state of Ukraine, there are various conditions which must apply to the referendum.

Firstly, since any vote for independence or for reincorporation into Russia is constitutional in nature, a simple majority in any such referendum will not suffice. In order to change the status quo, the majority should be anything from 60% to the traditional two thirds mark. Perhaps a compromise of something between that would be in order.

Since Russia seems confident of overwhelming support of the people of Crimea, this should not present a problem to it.

Secondly, the referendum must permit the people of Crimea the choice to remain a part of the Ukraine. The present "illegal" referendum to be held tomorrow is illegal for many reasons, including its failure to permit the Crimeans a choice to remain a part of the Ukraine.

Thirdly, the referendum should be conducted under UN supervision and international monitors should be permitted.

Fourthly, the referendum should permit sufficient time and a proper democratic environment for people to conduct a proper campaign. The present conditions, in which armed Russian soldiers or militia are marching about, are intimidatory and not conducive to the conduct of a free and fair poll.

If Russia is so confident of the overwhelming support it claims and, to be fair, seems to have amongst the majority in Crimea, it should have no difficulty in agreeing to the above as a compromise.

The present referendum is a farce which will not be recognised internationally.

That said, I think the West has failed to recognise the fact that the spread of the EU towards Ukraine, and the growing number of NATO countries in former Soviet Bloc countries leaves Russians feeling uneasy. Russians see the Ukraine, and particularly Russian speaking parts of it, as part of their so-called "area of influence." A failure to appreciate that Russians feel a certain solidarity with Russian speakers in this area of influence -former Soviet republics which border on Russia - will do nothing to resolve the present impasse.

Malaysian airliner MH370: How close to the mark?

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/mh370-24-april-2014-update.html


On Sunday evening already, I concluded that Cockpit Incursion or Crew (Pilot) Sabotage was the most likely cause of the missing airliner. This now seems to have become the governing theory.

Today is Friday, and little has changed. I argued on Sunday that the Airliner, if it maintained its course, ought to have crossed the Vietnam mainland after 1hour and fifteen minutes. I argued that any period in the Gulf of Thailand in excess of that must then be regarded as suspicious since the aircraft would clearly be in the wrong place.

The initial reports were that the airliner was last seen in the Gulf of Thailand, midway between Malaysia & Vietnam, after TWO HOURS. If this was so, I argued that the last forty five minutes of the flight on radar was suspicious since the airliner was in the wrong place.

Based on this, I was able to exclude catastrophic failure as a likely cause, since catastrophic failure is usually a sudden event which occurs quickly and seldom allows the pilots a chance to communicate with ATC. Since the pilots had 45 minutes of flying at cruising altitude, I concluded it was safe to exclude catastrophic failure. Had there been such a failure it would not have lasted forty five minutes. During the said "missing" 45 minutes, the pilots would have had sufficient chance to use one of the many communication systems on boards to communicate with ATC. Even the aircraft's sophisticated automated systems would have had a chance to send automated reports during those forty five minutes. No such reports were apparently sent we were told.

This is not to say that catastrophic failure can be excluded altogether, rather that it must move to the bottom of the pile of usual causes.

Mechanical failure can also be excluded for the same reason. Any mechanical failure which permits the aircraft to fly for another forty five minutes is also one which must allow the crew and the aircraft's automated alert message system a chance to communicate with ATC.

Pilot error could also be excluded, I felt, since I could not imagine a pilot error which would cause the pilots not to communicate with ATC for forty five minutes on any platform or one which would prevent the automated systems from broadcasting messages. The absence of:

1. ATC transmissions by Pilots for forty-five minutes;
2. The suspicious timing of the transponder being switched off, and no other unit being switched on in its place for forty five minutes, and
3. The apparent failure of the aircraft's automated systems to broadcast any messages to satellite to indicate any problems for forty five minutes 

           all happening at the same time for forty-five minutes suggests a deliberate attempt to interfere with these systems. All this suggested Hijack or Pilot Sabotage as the most likely cause of the disappearance and I went so far to aver that whoever interfered with these systems had knowledge of aircraft's systems.

It then transpired that the initial reports might have been wrong in that the aircraft's transponder went off after only an hour, shortly after handover from Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC. The aircraft said goodbye to Malaysian ATC, but never contacted Vietnam ATC and the aircraft's transponder was switched off.

This, I thought was the kiss of death to my theory since it permitted Mechanical Failure & catastrophic failure to return as theories.

Worse still, the false passport theory was also generally dismissed as being unrelated.

And yet, there remained various clues to suggest that my theory of Pilot Sabotage could yet hold water:

1. The Gulf of Thailand is shallow and relatively small and surrounded by many highly populated countries. The Gulf is also relatively shallow. So the failure to find the aircraft's wreckage again suggested that the aircraft may indeed have flown for some time after it disappeared from radar due to the transponder being switched off; Boats, people on the beaches in surrounding areas, search planes etc should have found something after four days.
2. Reports began to emerge that the aircraft may have turned around to attempt a return to Malaysia.  The longer the aircraft took to turn around, and to attempt a return, the more my theory in favour of pilot sabotage / cockpit incursion /hijacking must return to being the most prominent theory.
3. The timing of the transponder switch-off, immediately after being handed over to another area controller in Vietnam, is also a factor to be considered. It will be a while before Vietnam's area controller notices that the aircraft has not made contact. This would allow a pilot a chance to switch off the transponder without drawing attention of either the former area controller or the new controller for several minutes.
4. Further suggestions came to light that military radar spotted an unidentified aircraft heading from the Gulf of Thailand and crossing over Thailand. (Again, the aircraft is flying and is in the wrong place.)
5. Finally, it was suggested that there was one automated aircraft transmission to satellite which also placed the aircraft somewhere heading towards the Indian Ocean. This system apparently also stopped transmitting.
6. Apparently the latest is that aircraft automated messages indicate aircraft was flying on a new and recognised route towards the South West. This seems self evidently deliberate. Aircraft don't usually change course without being programmed to do so by changing the autopilot heading hold or changing the route the Autopilot Nav is using.

Taken together, and if some or all of the above are true, then it serves to exclude Pilot Error, Catastrophic failure, Mechanical failure as likely causes and it elevates Pilot Sabotage or Hijacking or Terrorism(with or without pilot involvement) by people who know aircraft systems well.

If I am correct, I still don't have any theory as to the reason for the said conduct or as to what eventually occurred. Was it pilot suicide by one of the pilots? If so, why wait so long? Was it a failed attempt to gain an airliner to use it as a missile by flying it into a US base in the Indian Ocean? Was it a bomb that eventually went off by accident. Has the plane landed somewhere and are the passengers currently hostages? I understand that many relatives are praying for this possibility which seems to be their only hope, albeit an unlikely one. I hope for a miracle!

Who knows what actually occured? These are the real questions which cannot be answered before the aircraft is found.

Missing Malaysian 777, Cockpit Interference likely scenario

See Map Below & Timeline on it:

Whilst it is inadvisable to speculate about the causes of any air crash prior to the wreckage being recovered and a proper investigation is conducted, certain of the facts which have come to light scream that a deliberate unlawful act occurred.


Most likely, this involved one of the pilots, perhaps both. Others may also have been involved.

 

We are informed by the Malaysian authorities that the aircraft may, according to Military radar, have turned to return to Kuala Lampur.

 

If the crew experienced a sudden emergency, their failure to communicate with ATC would not be strange. However, it is difficult to conceive of an emergency which would have prevented one of the crew from using one of the on-board systems to communicate for an entire forty five minutes.

 

If indeed the pilots felt it necessary to return to Kuala Lampur, communicating their intentions prior to doing so is standard protocol. Perhaps an emergency prevented this from occurring immediately.  But failing to communicate the change in intentions for forty-five minutes is almost unprecedented.

 

I refuse to accept that the pilots were unable to use one of the many means of contacting ATC to advise of the emergency during this period. The aircraft’s transponder code can be changed to indicate cockpit intrusion or some other emergency such as failed radios. We know that the transponder was probably working since this is how the flight was tracked and identified.

Apart from various radios, an on board “texting” system also exists.  

 

I can only conclude that if neither pilot was involved, other parties, must have prevented the pilots from using any of these methods to communicate during the controversial last forty five minutes of the flight. Alternatively, it seems one or more pilots chose not to use these methods to communicate.

The fact of the matter is, if one or both pilots wished to make an aircraft disappear, the moment to do so in this flight would be after hand-off from Kuala Lampur but before communicating with Vietnamese ATC.

More later....

 

 

 

 

 

Malaysian Flight MH370 777 Missing

See Blog of http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/mh370-24-april-2014-update.html
for last and latest update


Malaysian 777 missing on flight from Kuala Lampur to Beijing, China. Reports suggest aircraft went missing two hours into flight. If so, reports from a Vietnamese Naval officer that  the aircraft went down in near Vietnam in Gulf of Thailand makes no sense. It would take no more than one hour and fifteen minutes for the 777 to cross the Vietnam coast from Kuala Lampur. i.e. Unless the aircraft had problems or was forced to turn around.

Edit: It now seems that the airline dropped from radar one hour after take-off. That would indeed place it in the Gulf of Thailand, around 15 min cruise flight from crossing Vietnam's coast. Estimate it crashed around 200km from point it would have crossed mainland, all things being equal.

The lack of any ATC transmission or any electronic transmissions from any automated systems suggests, unfortunately, a likely catastrophic event or mid-air break up.

Structural damage? Terrorism. Another Air France 447 type incident is unlikely despite the similarities. There were too many accidents like that prior to 447 to prevent all airlines from learning the lessons about how to deal with pitot tube failure and about how to handle airliners at high altitude.

The fact that two passengers were on false passports is worrying. Can't imagine that anyone on a false passport would pick China of all countries to try and mislead authorities. The price for failure would be very high. Leads me to wonder whether they intended to reach their destination.

Anyhow. Will have to wait for more evidence before trying to work out what occurred.

Watch this space.

Ban Ransoms to Hostage Takers

See 15 May 2014 update below: Sale of human beings a crime against humanity.
See 31 May 2014 update re: recent US prisoner swop

The recent call by the UN Security Council that governments should refrain from paying ransoms to organisations which take hostages represents a common sense position which I support.

At the outset, I should point out that I have thankfully never been taken as a hostage, nor have I ever endured the unspeakable horror of having a loved one held as a hostage. If I were to find myself in either of those situations tomorrow, I wonder whether I would still have the courage of my stated convictions or whether necessity and convenience would tempt me to view my predicament in isolation.

Those who pay ransoms have argued that doing so is cheap at the price if one considers the value of a human life.  The argument is not without merit. In addition, it is difficult to condemn those who have been compelled by circumstance to lean towards complying with the hostage taker’s demands.

Hostage taking cannot, however, be viewed in isolation. Hostage takers require ransoms to reward their efforts. If everyone adhered to a no-ransom policy, hostage taking would end. No doubt, the resolve of all those who adhere to a no-ransom policy would initially be tested, and a few lives might initially be lost in the cause. But if everyone stayed the course and refused to pay up, hostage situations would be a thing of the past.

Every person who is now a hostage or who is confronted with a loved one who is a hostage has reason to direct their anger not only towards the perpetrators, but also towards those who reward them. Every ransom paid to the terrorist organisations who kidnap foreigners encourages future such operations.

Britain and the United States do not pay ransoms as a matter of policy. Some European governments do, however. It should come as no surprise that some terrorist groups have now started to make a point of not wasting their time by kidnapping hostages from countries that do not pay ransoms.

In addition, the paying of ransoms to such organisations has two other consequences. The funds, amounting to millions, are often used to purchase arms for other terrorist activities. Secondly the kidnappers often flaunt their ill-gotten gains in front of innocent, impressionable and often poor bystanders, including young people from their communities. The potential to corrupt a new generation of hostage takers is obvious. Should we really be funding the lesson that terrorism and hostage taking pays?

However, it is not only governments who pay ransoms who are in effect sponsoring terrorism and future hostage taking. The role played by insurance companies who specialise in this type of insurance cannot be ignored.

Perhaps it is time for the legality of this type of insurance product to be considered. I say this in full awareness of the fact that many people who do business or perform contract work in certain third world countries will only do so if such insurance is in place. Any laws to render such insurance products and the payment of ransoms by insurers illegal will no doubt face an uphill battle, to say nothing of legal challenges. If successful, however, the rewards for hostage taking will vanish.

Perhaps the only solution is the drastic one of criminalising very act of paying a ransom. Whilst this probably makes sense in theory, the problem is that the enforcement of such a law would by no means be simple.

Those who pay ransoms to save the lives of loved ones are probably unlikely to be found guilty of a crime in countries with a jury system. Jury members would be very sympathetic.

The existing criminal justification ground of necessity could, in any event, be invoked by an accused in any such criminal case.

The defence of necessity was first accepted into most Western legal systems when an accused, who had been stuck on board a lifeboat which had been at sea for some time, raised it his defence against a charge of cannibalism. He had eaten the flesh one of a fellow survivor who had died and relied upon extreme hunger and his need to survive as circumstances which made his actions necessary. (It did not help that he happened to be found and rescued the very next day.)

In a defence to any criminal charge of paying a ransom, the argument would be that the ransom payer was forced into a situation where he was compelled to choose between an illegal act i.e. payment of the ransom or to save the life of a loved one. The argument would be that the criminal act was not serious when viewed against the life saved. This would be a compelling argument, even in criminal systems that do not have a jury.

The only way for the State to overcome this argument would be to rely on the devastating knock-on consequences society suffers as a result of the payment of ransoms. The law criminalising the payment of ransoms would have to specify, and the State would have to prove, that the potential endangerment of the lives of many other innocent people to save the single life of a loved-one is not justifiable. Any such law should also include a penalty which, whilst being harsh enough to serve as a deterrent, would also recognise the horrible predicament any person accused of transgressing it would face.

It is clear that bringing an end to hostage taking by criminalising the payment of ransoms would not be without its fair share of challenges, and it would indeed be a drastic step if implemented. However, we should not let the size of the challenge dissuade us from finding and implementing some or other common sense solution.

Perhaps the key to a solution is to draw a distinction between payments of a ransom by governments and insurers etc. to terrorist organisations, and all other ransoms. 

 

Whatever the case, all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to sit about doing nothing. Hostage taking is an evil worthy of being addressed.

UPDATE 15 MAY 2014 - The other argument against payment of ransoms was recently raised by a Nigerian Cabinet Minister. He argued that the payment of ransom was the equivalent of indulging in the sale of human beings, which, is in itself, a crime against humanity. Not an argument I originally considered, but having now considered it, I cannot but agree with it.

In closing, the reader will appreciate that I cannot condemn those who pay ransoms to free family members with the same gusto that I condemn the payment of ransoms.

I have considerable empathy for all those who are, or have been affected by hostage taking. At the very least, we can all agree that a hostage free, ransom free world is something worth striving for and it is to this end that I have put up some ideas for consideration.


31 May 2014 PRISONER SWOP

The recent prisoner swop in which one or more US soldiers captured by the Taliban were exchanged for prisoners which the US held at Guantanamo Bay has caused some to question whether this is a departure from the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

The US has long had a policy of exchanging prisoners it has captured in exchange for soldiers or operatives which have been captured by its adversaries. I refer to the classic exchange of spies at Checkpoint Charlie between the US & the Soviet Union during the cold war. I don't object to the exchange of prisoners captured conflict situations. I don't see this as a departure from the general US policy of not paying ransoms.

 

The Powder of One - Out in about 4-6 months

 

 

My 3rd Novel: The Powder of One. Simon Sayer is walking along a beach finds a 25kg drum of cocaine. He is faced with several obvious choices. He decides to hand in a drum of 22 kg to the Police. There's only one problem, the find is reported in the media. Someone knows how much the drum was supposed to contain: Spider Biti & Crusher Payne, come calling at Simon's door!

A crazy cast includes:
Aunty Rosa Parker - busybody
Chief Inspector Walter Geiss- Police
Detective Inspector Giraffe McCloud
Edwin Hornblower - An outrageous queen with a taste for the outrageous who is not unhappy to hear about Simon's walk on the beach.
Willy Seymour - a caretaker with cameras where they should not be
Iona Fortune - rich girl with a secret
Spencer Fortune - Millionaire
Robert More - Attorney Senior Partner
Sue More - Rob More's daughter and junior partner.

Add a wedding that should be band and which has one hotel and three castles!

THE POWDER OF ONE

CHAPTER 1
Everyone expected the Castles to lay on a spectacular society wedding, and they did not disappoint. Simon's in-laws even had even ensured that, in addition to a Disc Jockey, a six piece band had entertained the guests in the Mount Nelson's premier banqueting venue. Prior to the wedding Simon had suggested that perhaps having both a band and a DJ was a little over the top. He had been unceremoniously overruled by his mother in law. If only they had heeded his advice. Perhaps then the wedding might not have ended on such a sour note.

Or if only the band had, like the DJ, been content to accept payment on the day of the wedding, by internet transfer, instead of insisting on payment at the end and in cash. So, when the wedding finally drew to a close and the lights came up, Simon’s father in law, Sander Castle, reached for his jacket which had been hanging over his chair for the past few hours. To his great shock, the brown enveloped containing the band's not insubstantial payment was no longer in his inside pocket. A frantic yet diligent search yielded nothing.

All suggestions that Sander Castle might have left the critical envelope at home were quickly quashed by Bridgette Castle, who confirmed that she had earlier checked for the envelope herself and that it had been in her husband's jacket. Her face dropped.
"Oh, no, I probably caused it." Her shoulders drooped too. "Silly me, I probably alerted the thief..."
"Nonsense!" Sander interjected loudly." We're all friends and family here." For an instant it seemed as if he had directed a disapproving glance at the side of the main table at which Simon's family were seated. He then shifted his gaze to an approaching wedding Co-ordinator whose red face dominated her swift approach.
"What sort of staff do you have here? I'm sorry to say it without proof, but I can't accept that it was one of our guests. I shall expect the Hotel to pay for the band for now. And if you know what's good for you, you'd best consider leaving it off the final account."
"Of course we'll attend to payment of the band," the co-ordinator replied. "But I'm afraid I cannot accommodate you any further until the matter is fully investigated, which I can assure you it will be. I have been here for nine years and nothing like this has ever occurred here before."
#
The incident also led to tension between Simon and his new bride during the honeymoon. Simon felt that Abbey's father had excluded all the Castles as suspects from the get-go whilst in contrast, the Sayers and friends seemed to have been consigned to the a provisional suspect list.
"Oh, don't put on so," Abbey replied. "I'm sure you just imagined it."
"Yes, like I imagined we might have a say in our wedding."
#
They returned from honeymoon three weeks later. They were met at the airport by his new in-laws, who insisted that they the couple join them at home for the first viewing of the wedding video.
"I'm sorry, I've demonstrated the patience of a saint until now, but I just have to see whether that man did justice to our efforts,” Bridgette declared excitedly.
Simon was exhausted. It was the last thing he felt like doing. Even Sander piped up.
"Good lord, woman. Enough about the video. It will keep until the weekend. They're tired, and quite frankly, so am I."
However, when Brigitte Castle had her mind set on something, there was no changing it, and everyone meekly joined her in the mansion's viewing room where a large LCD television clicked into life.
To Simon's surprise, he found himself enjoying the video. Its quality was worth the princely sum the Castles had no doubt paid its maker.
But towards the end, Sander Castle grunted and grabbed the remote out of his wife's hand.
"Give me that," he said. He rewound the video a little.
"But we've just seen that dear," Bridgette moaned. "That's part of their opening dance.
"I know, but that isn't," he said pointing towards someone in the background of the high definition video. He was standing behind the main table.
"I thought so," Sander declared emphatically.
After the man had checked to see that everyone's attention was indeed fixed on the opening dance, there was no mistaking that his hand then reached into the pocket of an unattended jacket in order to swiftly remove a large brown envelope from its inner pocket. The man was Simon's step-father.
The marriage was annulled by agreement a few weeks later. And this is how it came to be that Simon Sayer arrived in Mariner's Cove to make a fresh start.
#
Mariner's Cove was more of a hamlet instead of a village. Located on the Cape Town side of Kleinmond, it consisted of twenty two sea-side cottages, one small apartment block and one fruit stall which sported a lone fuel pump. The two story apartment block had five flats, two of which shared the ground level with a small estate agency which also contained a four table coffee shop. A section of the coffee shop included a store small enough to confirm that little significance could be attached to the appellation 'convenience' which was on display outside.
A bell on the top of the door rang as Simon opened the door. A rotund, lady in her late fifties or early sixty's beamed at him from behind her desk.
"Good afternoon, sir. You've come to collect the keys for one of the houses then," she ventured in a friendly tone.
"No, my name is Simon Sayer. I've actually bought apartment number five of Satin Court. Sound's strange saying that aloud since I've not seen it."
"Ah, so you're our mysterious new neighbour," the lady said excitedly, smiling as she rose. She lifted her reading glasses as she gave him a quick once-over "Ooh, I now that I can see you better I think that there may be a bit of cat fight over you. That blonde hair, and those blue eyes ..." She paused. "I must apologise. I used to have manners. I think I spend too much time in the kindergarten."
"Kindergarten?"
"Yes, that's flat number three. Two of them sharing. And you're just their type. Of course, that's until they decide whether you're family or not?"
"Family?"
"Yes, Family?" the lady repeated. "Family is apparently their code for gay." Again she paused. "Please mind my manners yet again. I'm just talking away and you don't even know my name. I am Rosa Parker. But you can call me Aunty Rosie, everyone here does." She turned around and leaned over the desk as she reached for a set of keys. "I'm the Chair of our Owners Association. I also lease this space from one of the other owner's Mr Spencer Fortune. I live at unit two, which is next door on the ground level. Unit one is our old caretaker, Willy Seymour. Units three, four and five are on the seond level. A lovely view of the sea you have."
They were interrupted by the doorbell which rang as the glass and wood framed door swung open to reveal a stunningly beautiful woman in her mid-thirties. She had short black hair, an olive complexion and pale, haunting blue eyes, which appeared all the more striking by the professional manner in which her eyeliner had been applied.
'Probably a model,' Simon thought.
She glanced straight though Simon as started speaking.
"Hi Aunt Rosie, any mail for me?"
"No, dearie. But while you are hear, let me introduce Simon to you. Simon Sayer was it? This is Iona Fortune from number four. She's the daughter of my landlord, Mr Spencer Fortune, as I told you."
"Hi," Iona said without entering or showing any expression. Simon decided not to bother to extend his hand.
"Hello, Iona," he replied politely. "Pleased to meet you."
"Sure thing. I must fly. Catch up later," she responded before closing the door and heading off.
"I thought you said the neighbours were friendly?"
"Oh don't you worry about her. She's on her planet. Our caretaker, Willy Seymour thinks she's a Koeksuster."
"Koeksuster?"
"You don't speak any Afrikaans then do you. It means a Cake Sister, in English, literally, but what it really means is..."
"You don't have to explain. You mean she is...er family." Simon's pleasure at having picked up the local lingo so quickly was cut short.
"No. I also said that once but Edwin Hornblower then told me that if she is a koeksuster, that would not make her family. I must say, I never asked whether that was because she is a Fortune, because we don't like the Fortunes, or because she could be a koeksuster."
"Pity if she is," Simon said. "She's a really beautiful woman."
"Oh No," Aunt Rosie lamented loudly. "So you're into women. Edwin will be so disappointed, I know already." She laughed raucously, and then looked a little apologetic. "I'm sorry, but Edwin is my favourite. I could just eat him up. And I do so love it when something new takes his fancy." She paused as if assessing him again. "I make you at about thirty-five, forty...right?" She smiled confidently at him.
"Yip, thirty-eight."
"Well, then Constance Pleasure is too young for you. She's only twenty. But don't let that put you off if you like the younger ones. Constance usually keeps to herself. Not a big talker. Likes to read and she studies. She sticks to Edwin mostly, but she's been known to be no disgrace to her surname when the mood takes her." Aunt Rosie blushed. "But you didn't hear that from me, mind you!"
"Of course not," Simon replied with a wink. As he did so, he made a mental note not to tell Rosie Parker, or the Dailey Sentinel, as she could just as well have been named, more than she really needed to know.
"What made you decide to buy here, without even seeing it for yourself? And what did you do and do you intend to do if you don't mind my asking?"
All that seemed to be missing was a powerful lamp, a German officer's uniform and accent, and for her to say:
‘We haf vays und means of making you talk. And all of zem... are painful!’