There have been plenty of occasions when I wanted to tell Air Traffic Control (ATC) at Grantley Adams International Airport how to do their jobs. Most of those times revolve around the arrival sequencing procedures during peak periods, more so during the winter season.
The general belief among general aviation pilots is that it doesn’t matter if you’re flying under instrument rules or visually, ATC will always place the “big boys” of commercial aviation ahead of you, even if your aircraft is significantly closer to Barbados. There have been plenty of times when I have been vectored, or, to put it simply, moved out of the way so that Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Caribbean Airlines, and InterCaribbean would have the right of way into Adams (in that order).
This hasn’t changed, even though I’m flying aircraft nowadays that can reach approach speeds similar to most of the aircraft flown by these companies. The urge to challenge ATC bites at me, but I constantly remind myself that they’re working from a different perspective with different data to what I am using to make decisions in the air.
Sometimes, ATC will vector you out of the way for spacing and separation purposes. They’ll use data provided by radar to make this call. This gives them an idea of the aircraft in the scoped vicinity, their altitudes, and the speeds they’re flying at (definitely given that each aircraft is Mode C equipped). Some radar equipment may even give a very clear picture of the degree of precipitation en route. So, even though ATC may have an idea of rainfall in the area, they cannot see the extent to which cloud build-up is perilous too far away from the airport. This means that, often during sketchy weather, ATC will direct you away from the rain but into a towering cumulus. These are the sorts of clouds that eventually become thunderstorms and can create medium to heavy levels of turbulence in their vicinity, resulting in most cases in passenger discomfort and, in the rarest of occasions, damage to the aircraft.
This is why it is imperative that pilots use their own two eyes and onboard radar—if so equipped—to assist ATC in their decision-making. Pilots, for example, can deny an instruction if it leads to certain peril or discomfort, requesting deviations for weather or oncoming traffic as necessary. It ensures that differing views lead to greater levels of trust in the airspace above our heads.
It is somewhat my view that economic news is presented as though it is solely through the lens of ATC. Let’s say that whosoever holds the platform on the day decidedly seems to own the narrative. At times, I wished that headlines were presented variedly on all economic topics given the dismal nature of the discipline.
Too often, a major finding or statement by the government finds its way into our papers without much subsequent contrary analysis. If I reckoned that this was risky in the heyday of print media, it definitely is beyond catastrophic in the instantaneous age of social media. Simply put, the chasm between the news provided by government and the perception held by society has never been so wide apart.
When one takes a step back, detached for the moment, it becomes rather clear that the concerns of our government often resemble those of wider society. They just don’t seem to “meet halfway” or have clear and present alignment. This perpetuates the fact that trust in civil systems is at an all-time low. Official economic data is normally questioned without fail by the undereducated on the matter. Easier access to online data has led to even more people questioning anything that doesn’t conform to their worldviews. Confirmation bias is even more prevalent. The undereducated are faster than ever before; therefore, wisdom definitely has a harder time keeping up.
There are many sections of society who use the internet to openly deceive for their gain. The rewards are greater than ever. Those I refer to are more than just politicians. They go so far as to produce data that feeds into the confirmation biases of the average economically undereducated person. I won’t give examples of the forums where you’d find them, but bear in mind that, as a former lecturer at Cave Hill before the rise of ChatGPT, I can confirm that students chose even more dubious sources to confirm their hypotheses in their coursework as time went by.
This is why I believe strongly that the media must never present economic information from sources independent of the other. The government should never have a proclamation or statement carried in the next day’s print without input from other trusted and learned views. This hopefully avoids the siloed approach to information gathering that has worsened trust in print media, government, and other facets of society.
This belief was never more evident to me than when, earlier last week, the government announced the introduction of its first debt-for-nature swap valued at $600 million. It owned the legacy media platforms, touting all the positives related to this deal, including some savings of about $150 million. I’m quite sure that 80 percent of the country had absolutely no idea what any of this meant despite hearing the term “debt-for-nature swap” repeatedly over the past six years.
The platforms then shifted to the Opposition, which took to politicising away from the important issues with the deal. They complained bitterly that the swap would increase public debt (it won’t). They then spoke about incompetence regarding the structuring of the deal. To this, I then wondered where or from whom they were sourcing their data. It seemed diametrically opposed to the data used to structure the deal. They seemed rather undereducated about debt swaps in general.
In essence, the government presented no real risks to the public, while the Opposition themselves seemed not to understand the real risks with debt swaps and, no less, this particular debt-for-nature swap. They are both ATC in this case, with their radars fixated on just a part of the story. The general public, if we liken them to pilots, is being vectored all over but is staring at one definite danger that itself is understandably undereducated on. The irony is that the issue isn’t difficult to identify, and my hope is that by reiterating it, ATC can provide renewed and pointed guidance.
My friends and co-pilots, that danger is the negative impact on future pensions. Typically, the debtor wins in swaps like this, and it’s the creditors who lose. It is clear that the most significant creditor that will be restructured will be our social security scheme. Assuming that more swaps are to be used in the future, this can create a deeper strain on the ability of future generations to receive timely pensions. That is unless the retirement age limit is raised. It is now time to ask ATC to allow a slight deviation away from that towering cumulus cloud of a deeper public pension crisis.