I ask those who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly please. The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7724, in the name of Loose McDonald, on workforce concerns regarding helicopter safety in the North Sea. That debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. i'n gweithio i'r Ffath Gaeligol a Llywus MacDonald i'r gweithio i chi'n gweithio i'r ffrindig ddod seven minutes. I'm delighted to welcome members of the United Union to the Public Gallery this evening, as well as representatives of Airbus and others who have stayed for this debate, and I thank colleagues across parties for their support. Tonight gives us an opportunity to put on the record the views of offshore workers themselves on an issue of the utmost importance to them and their families. maen nhir ymlaen chi yw aethau cydwynidol ar y cydwn i'r blaisiau, ac ar y blaisiau yn y byw. Slawd i'r gynlluniau a hwnnw i'r cyfrinogi'r cyllid yn y pethau yn gondol yn ddiweddol, yn gondol yn ddweud i ddู o soni, yn ddweud yn gondol'r llwyddo wef ymlaen y cael ei ddweudachau. Ond y fflaen yw'r safityn yn y pethau yn y cyfrinogi a'r pliant yw'r cyflwyffod cuirfod yn rhan o gyflwyno arnghwych i gael a'r dwiadol yng Nghyrach Llywodraeth. It is also about the journey to work, which carries risks of its own. Most people travel to work by train or by bus, by bike or by car on a daily basis. Oil workers make a journey too. They travel every month to the heliport in Aberdeen, then they make another journey on a helicopter to the place where they will work long shifts on successive days for often three weeks at a time. Sometimes they will travel first from Aberdeen to Shetland, then fly again from there to an offshore installation and then do the same journey in reverse when coming home. That is a lot of hours in mid-air. I have travelled offshore myself a number of times in the last 30 years and I can tell members that it is not the same as taking the bus. A passenger on a bus does not need to be trained in advance on how to get out if things go wrong. He or she does not need a survival suit or all the gear required to stay afloat and keep breathing in the event of an accident. Never mind going through that whole process of kitting up twice in the same journey when the trip involves changing from one vehicle to another halfway there. It is important to understand what the journey is like and what that implies for workforce safety. Formal certification of safety on its own is not enough. Taking a chopper to work in the North Sea is not the same as joyriding at an air show on a summer's afternoon. The journey is also about the gear, the safety procedures, the unpredictable flying conditions, the hazardous environment. When workers do all that before they get to work, they need the certification, of course, but they also need to feel that the aircraft they are travelling on is fit for purpose. That is what is at issue here this evening. Super Puma helicopters do not feel safe to many of those who may be asked to step on board. United Union has collected thousands of signatures that say that that is the view of its offshore members, and some of those workers are here with us here this evening. Airbus, who makes Super Pumas, has done their own survey. They found that 62 per cent of helicopter crew and passengers in the North Sea would not fly in Super Pumas, given the choice. They also found that 44 per cent were unaware of the efforts that Airbus had made to address the issues that caused Super Pumas to be grounded in the first place. Of course, those efforts are significant. Airbus have a good deal of professional engineering expertise, and they have applied all their technology and expertise to addressing the critical issues, and they have briefed MSPs accordingly. The facts of the matter are not in dispute. They have been established by national and international civil aviation regulators. The Super Puma 225, which crashed in Norway last year, did so because a crack developed in the gearbox that led to catastrophic failure and the helicopter dropped out of the sky. Thirteen passengers and crew died as a result. Airbus have made public what they believe caused the crack to develop where they did, and they have put mitigation measures into place. For example, two different companies previously supplied versions of the part that Airbus believed was at the heart of the failure in the gearbox, and the Airbus in the future will use only one version from one supplier. Mechanisms for detection of faults or failures have been improved, and maintenance rules and procedures have been tightened up. All of those steps are welcome, but they do not guarantee that such faults or failures can never happen again, which is why so many people remain unconvinced. It is important, of course, to know how and why a crack develops, but it is also important to know how long it takes before it becomes critical how long there is to take action to deal with it. It is right to remove the less safe of two alternative components from the supply chain, but we also need to know whether there are other parts of the aircraft where safety critical components are supplied by different companies and what is being done about those. It is interesting to know that Airbus could reduce the number of seats and improve the internal cabin space in the 225, but there is no certainty that that will happen if helicopter operating companies cannot make a profit flying with fewer passengers. There are wider questions, too, and not just for Airbus. My friend and former colleague Aberdeen MP Frank Doran won the support of the Transport Select Committee at Westminster for a public inquiry into helicopter safety in the North Sea back in 2014, but that call was rejected by the Tory transport secretary of the day. RMT, of course. Mark McDonald? I am grateful to the minister for giving me a heel. I appreciate that, given my ministerial office, I cannot contribute a speech to the debate, but, given that, it affects a number of my constituents as well. I wonder if you would agree that, as well as the communication with the workforce, which is essential, there is also the wider communication that is required with family of workforce, but communities, particularly Dyson bridge of Don in my constituency, which regularly experience helicopter flights over built-up areas and often feel concerns around what the impact of helicopter safety might be on those communities. A very strong point, because a lot of that is about communication. In a sense, that is the central point. It is not only about technical solutions to technical problems, but it is also about communication with the workforce, their families and, indeed, the wider community. Hence, the call that was made three years ago for a public inquiry into helicopter safety, not just around standards but also around the communications that relate to that. RMT and other of the unions within the offshore co-ordinating group has repeated the call this week for a public inquiry. I would be very interested to hear from the minister in responding to the debate on what the Scottish Government's view is of that matter, recognising, of course, that the responsibility lies elsewhere. Offshore trade unions have also argued that helicopter transport needs to be on the agenda of the oil industry's regulators, the oil and gas authority and the health and safety executive, as well as the agenda of the civil aviation authority. Again, that makes the same point. That is not just about technical standards, it is about workforce engagement and confidence, and it is an issue for the whole industry. That is why the partnership of workforce, unions and regulators must be strengthened, not weakened, if the North Sea is to have a safe and successful future and why the views of the workforce must be heeded by all concerned. Only by putting the workforce at the centre can we have the oil and gas industry that we need, operating to the standards that those who work in it deserve. I really want to thank Lewis MacDonald for bringing forward this member's debate today, and I completely concur with his last sentiment there that the workforce really has to be at the centre of this. Sadly, one of my earliest duties in this chamber after being elected, and it was the very first question that I put to this chamber, was a question to the First Minister about the safety of the Super Puma H225 fleet in Scotland. This came after the tragedy in April 2016, which took the lives of 13 people, including that of one of my constituents, Mr Ian Stewart, who was a father of two from Lawrence Kirk. At that point, the fleet was grounded, and rightly so, so that an investigation could be carried out to ascertain why this model of helicopter, at that point responsible for around 140,000 flights each year across the UK, appeared to have recurring problems with its gearbox. In the period from 2009 to 2016, four flights had come down in the North Sea with sighted mechanical failure, two of them leading to fatalities with a loss of 29 lives. Because of that, it really isn't difficult to understand the concerns and the reluctance of offshore workers and their families at home to travel offshore when they depend on the helicopter fleet for transport to and from platforms and what really is a challenging and often hostile environment that Lewis MacDonald described earlier. Lewis MacDonald also pointed out in his motion that Airbus, the company that makes the Super Puma helicopters, has carried out a survey of pilots and passengers, which found that 62 per cent of those surveyed would prefer not to fly in Super Pumas and that 44 per cent were unaware of the work carried out to improve safety since that tragedy in 2016. Now, I raised this when I met with Airbus, who manufactures through Pumas last week, and I wanted to discuss the Civil Aviation Authority's recent decision, and really to ask them what had been done to improve the safety of the workforce in the oil industry. Airbus went through in detail each of the incidents that had happened over the past few years and, in particular, that incident of April 2016, and the methods that had been carried out by the hundreds of engineers and scientists who investigated not only the design of the part that caused the problem but also the history of the individual gearbox, which had failed so catastrophically from its construction, its individual parts, its transportation, installation and final operation. The outcome of their investigation found what they believed to be a combination of factors that led to the failure of that gearbox in 2016 and factors that have since resulted in a number of changes being made, some of which Lewis MacDonald outlined. Those gearbox parts, which identified as contributing to that accident, were replaced with alternatives already safely in use in other models of helicopter. Airbus reduced the service life for various gearbox parts from 4,000 flight hours to 1,000 flight hours, the particle detection system and related inspection criteria had also been improved, and a new transport transit packaging system had been introduced, which monitors the gearboxes for any unexpected forces, forces that they believed contributed to the failure of parts, such as in the incident last year. In addition to that, aircraft operators are no longer permitted to separate the modules of the main gearbox and must send them to Airbus's own maintenance venues. I hasten to add that that is only a very brief non-technical overview of some of the changes that were made. When I asked them about the results of the survey, they told me that the company still had to engage with the industry as a whole, including the workforce, trade unions and operators. To me that is one of the real key issues here, because I think that it is all very well that as MSPs and politicians we can be briefed, but we are not the ones that have to be convinced about the safety of the fleet. I very much appreciated the chance to meet with Airbus last week, but I am conscious that the information and the briefing that I received and the opportunity to ask questions about that is something that those working in the industry are yet to have, as well as the point that was very well made by Mark McDonald, that wider communities also need to be informed about the changes that have taken place. Airbus is just at the start of that process, and those still have a lot of work to do. There is also the fact that, while we have a preliminary report from the accident investigation board in Norway into the incident, the final investigation report is still to come. I just want to finally stress that I am fully behind and fully support our offshore workers. It is our absolute duty to ensure as far as possible that our workforce is only flying aircraft where they not only feel safe but are safe. My husband has to go offshore. I have family and friends working in the industry who have to do the same. You cannot live in the north-east of Scotland and not know anybody who works offshore. I would never expect anyone to do anything that I myself would not be willing or happy to do if I was in their position. That is why I would only support the return of this helicopter to service if the workforce feels happy and secure enough to travel in it. They are the ones taking the risk, and it is only right that we support them. I thank Lewis MacDonald for bringing this important topic to members' debate today. It is, without a doubt, a consensus that the loss of life due to the failure of superpumar helicopters was unacceptable and a tragedy that we do not want to see again. Aberdeen, amberwido, oil and gas industry across the UK can take pride on its health and safety record and continue to be a world leader in this regard. There is no doubt that superpumar helicopters have brought concerns for both oil companies and workers alike. As oil and gas UK stated earlier this year, the safety of the offshore workforce is of paramount importance to the industry. More recently, the decision to use the superpumar rests with the operator, its workforce and their helicopter operator. However, I am grateful that the manufacturers of a superpumar helicopter's airbus have taken those concerns seriously. Airbus are now in the process of meeting with workers from oil companies who use these helicopters to inform them of the changes that they have made to make the aircraft safe. It will be interesting to see what feedback is received and how airbus acts on any further concerns. After investing millions in improving the safety of their aircraft, airbus have carried out thousands of tests on all parts of their helicopters. Following this investigation, they have now improved practices by increasing their frequency of inspections, imposing stricter criteria, overhauling detection methods for failures, increasing monitoring of individual parts, reducing maximum operation times for parts by a factor of four and gone as far as prohibiting parts within their aircraft completely. That is the kind of rigorous health and safety checks that we now expect from our oil and gas industry, and that airbus have done their utmost to live up to this rigour is no less than we would expect. However, the problem that airbus face is to regain the confidence of workers, and that was evident by the recent survey results. However, with checks having only been completed earlier this year, it is too early to call for an all-out ban. It is also too early to expect workers to be aware of the work that has gone into improving the safety of the aircraft. Now I completely understand workers' reasons for being cautious, but airbus have produced a thorough investigation and performed thousands of tests. Airbus should now be allowed time to get around all companies who use the helicopters so that they have adequate time to speak with workers and reassure them of their safety. The health and safety checks have been completed, revisions have been considered, changes have been made, and airbus now needs to communicate that to those who use the superpuma and restore confidence. Richard Leonard, to be followed by Gillian Martin. Can I begin by drawing attention to my register of interests? In particular, my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions. Can I also welcome those trade union members who are here in the public gallery tonight, who are the lifeblood of the trade union movement? Let me begin by reminding Parliament that it was the Abaddonian trade union leader Jimmy Milne, who, when he became the general secretary of the Scottish TUC, led on the call of his predecessor Jimmy Jack, who, in 1972, had demanded the establishment of a Scottish Parliament as a worker's Parliament? I am not quite sure that Jimmy Milne and Jimmy Jack would say that this is what we have achieved yet, but can I welcome Lewis Macdonald's initiative in securing this timely debate in Parliament on the matter of the highest importance to workers in this most strategically important industry in Scotland? It is a primary industry where the extraction of a natural and national asset comes up all too often against conflicting interests between multinational, private and industrial ownership whose first duty it is to shareholder returns and a workforce for whom our first duty in this Parliament must be to secure their health and safety at work, including their safety in travelling backwards and forwards to work. If we had anything resembling industrial democracy, we would not need to have this debate at all, but it is precisely that we do not have industrial democracy, that we have an industrial balance of power tilted in favour of the owners and the operators that this is such a highly charged debate. So it is a bit disappointing but not surprising to hear the Conservative Party, as I understand it, refusing point blank to back the trade union campaign and we heard it again just a few moments of go. The decision to use the superpuma rests, they say, with the operator, their workforce and their helicopter operator. This is, in my view, a negation of the Cullen edit, that in the North Sea the frequency of accidents may be low, but the potential consequences are very serious. As others have pointed out, even Airbus' own figures reveal that as many as 62 per cent of all those who have been surveyed by them are, and I quote, very uncomfortable and unlikely to fly in a superpuma again. We must all understand that when we add to this the 15 per cent, who I quote, are uncomfortable and would need more safety information before flying again, it becomes abundantly clear why the Unite campaign has moved from a back home safe campaign to a no comeback for the Puma, make the North Sea Puma free campaign. I hope that the minister, in his closing remarks, will pledge his full support to this important trade union safety campaign. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is an added poignancy to this debate tonight, because the superpuma crash just off the coast at Bergen in Norway, which concerns us tonight, in which 13 souls lost their lives, took place on Friday 29 April 2016, the day after international workers memorial day. The day when we, lest us not forget, remember the dead, but fight for the living. So if this is to be more than a slogan, we need to act upon it. And as the RMT union reminds us in their briefing for this debate, next year is the 30th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, the pain still being felt by widows, orphans and survivors right across the country. So we owe it to them to find a new determination in this Parliament to say to those offshore workers who are with us tonight and to all those beyond, we in this Parliament are on your side, and it is the duty of Parliament to make sure that these tragedies never happen again, that we not only hear you but that we listen to you as well. Can I just say to visitors in the gallery please that it's not appropriate to either clap or cat call? Perhaps at the end, if you want to show your appreciation at the end of the debate, there will be an opportunity. Have Gillian Martin please be followed by Neil Bibby. And thank you to Lewis MacDonald for securing this important debate. I was going to say for our area, but we often forget as northeasters how many other people in Scotland and particularly the north of England do work offshore. I'm coming from this debate from the perspective of those who work offshore and their families. More than 20,000 flights are made every year to installations hundreds of miles off land, where men and women go to work for weeks before returning home to their family and friends. We know that the journey to and from the installation is potentially the most hazardous aspect of working offshore, as it stands by its very nature, and we must therefore make sure that the helicopters and use of the safe is available. For nearly 20 years when I ran my own company, I've periodically flown to platforms in the North Sea, West of Shetland and beyond, and there are considerable procedures, precautions, mitigation measures and training in place, but if something goes wrong with a helicopter over the North Sea, every one of us on that flight knows that the chances of survival of a ditching helicopter are not high. I can understand why those who have to make those journeys with far more frequency than I ever did may now need more reassurances about the helicopters that are asked to board. The Union Unite, which I mentioned a lot today, representing its members, has just in the past couple of days reinforced its message that strike action will be threatened if the superpunas are put back into use. We know that certain companies have at this point decided that they will not put their personnel on them despite airbus reassurances on their safety and the fact that the UK and Norwegian civil aviation authorities have, as of July this year, deemed the superpuna safe. In a workforce survey that many people have mentioned, the 62 per cent response said that they would not want to use the superpuma again, and a further 15 per cent said that they would not be comfortable boarding until more guarantees about safety changes had been explained. In other words, that is three out of four of North Sea workers are unhappy about boarding a superpuma again at this point. We know that while the fleet of superpumas are not being used in the UK, they continue to be used all over the world. Airbus has also said that a full understanding of the causes of the crash in Norway has put forward a number of measures that make them confident that a similar tragedy would not be repeated. Others have mentioned what those measures are, and we have obviously had briefings as MSPs. I will not repeat what my colleagues have said about them. However, the death of 13 people last year of the coast of Norway was a real turning point for many offshore workers who do not feel that they can make the journeys to work on these helicopters any longer. Of course, they already had significant lingering confidence issues with the integrity of the superpuma after the tragic accident of the coast of Peterhead in 2009, where 16 people died, including Stuart Wood from my own home village of Newmacker. I can't stand here today as the MSP of his mother Audrey and his sister Kerry and advocate anything other than extreme caution over this helicopter that has repeatedly had issues before and since that devastating day. I guess that extreme caution really translates at this point into not using them again, given the recurring faults. Can the airbus and the helicopter operators do more to communicate and convince Norsea workers and operators that they can feel confident travelling in the superpuma? Perhaps, and it has been pointed out that they really are at the start of this communication process, and we have all made suggestions on how that can be improved today. Right now, I am not so sure that confidence can never come back. Until it does, I do not think that any of us should ask people who face significant risk already to do the jobs that they do offshore to board them. Before I call Mr Bibby, there are a few other people who wish to speak in the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8143 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Lewis MacDonald to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is there for agreed. I call Neil Bibby to be followed by Graeme Dey. I want to make a few brief remarks first for the record. I declare that I am a member of Unite the Union and the Gmb Union. I congratulate Lewis MacDonald for securing this debate and associate myself with the remarks that he has made. I also, along with Richard Leonard, want to commend the Unite the Union and those in the gallery, all those involved in the back home safe campaign, as well as the on-going work of the offshore coordinating group consisting of Unite and the other trade unions that organise offshore workers. As we have heard, those who represent the workforce have been very clear. Despite the decision by the civil aviation authority to lift a ban on the 225 and Mk2 superpumas, there are still serious and fundamental questions to be asked about the safety record of these aircraft. Since 2009, 33 workers have tragically died and 65 passengers and crew have had to be rescued as a result of accidents involving the superpuma in the North Sea. Oil companies that we have heard have ruled out reinstating grounded superpumas at least until the root cause of last year's fatal accident off the coast of Norway is known. Stat Oil says that it has no plans to use this helic doctor ever again, even if they are clear to do so by the Norwegian authorities. When Unite have warned that if the superpumas are reintroduced, they are perfectly prepared to take industrial action to protect their members. As Lewis MacDonald and Richard Leonard have said, the workforce needs certainty, and it needs to have confidence in safety arrangements in the North Sea. That is why whatever the future of the superpuma itself, engagement with the trade unions must be a priority for government and for regulators going forward. The UK Government must also reconsider the case for a full public inquiry into helicopter safety in the offshore sector. The RMT believes that unique operating conditions are a contributing factor to the number of fatal and non-fatal superpuma accidents in the North Sea. High cross winds, low temperatures and adverse conditions. Superpumas operate worldwide without the poor safety record observed over recent years in the North Sea. We need to get to the bottom of why the safety of the aircraft is such an issue in the UK and Norway. On that issue it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could clarify their own position for the need on an independent inquiry. Once again, I congratulate Lewis MacDonald on securing this debate, and I would urge the Government and the regulators to treat the action that is needed to restore the confidence and trust of workers and helicopter safety in the North Sea. I call Graeme Dates, followed by Tom Mason. Can I congratulate Lewis MacDonald on securing a debate on this important issue? I was happy to support his motion, because I believe that this is a matter that ought in view of the worries of the offshore workforce and the fact that some lean oil companies will not utilise the aircraft at the centre of the issue. That is an issue that ought to be aired in this place. The very root of the issue for me, as others have alluded to, is one simple thing. No one should be travelling to their work harboring concerns over whether they will get there or return. That is what the Airbus survey of North Sea workers tells us the situation currently is, with 62 per cent of respondents indicating that, given the choice, they would be unlikely to fly in a super-puma helicopter. Those fears may well be misplaced. As MSPs, we have each of us been sent a briefing and video from the manufacturers of these aircraft who have been in Parliament today seeking to make the case that the measures that they have implemented, following the incidents at the heart of the situation, have rendered the models and questions safe. Back at the beginning of the month, Airbus chief executive C Guillaume Forry flew into a helicopter exhibition in London in a super-puma H225 to demonstrate that the aircraft is safe for passenger use. It was a move that some might consider reminiscent of John Selwyn Gummer, the then agricultural minister during the BSE crisis, as he tried to defeat his daughter, a burger, and ate a bit himself to show that beef was safe to consume. To be fair to Mr Forry, he has acknowledged that it takes time to restore trust after accidents. The truth is that we are a very long way away from reaching that destination. Those expression concerns are men and women, as Lewis MacDonald said, who are under living in an extremely harsh and hazardous environment. They are hardy individuals, so if they are spooked and the figures suggest that they are, then this is a significant matter. We are, of course, looking at this following what we now know to be two tragic accidents, which are similarities. One in 2009 off the coast of Peterhead, which saw 16 people lose their lives, and one in 2016 in Norway, which saw 13, sadly, pass away. We also have an additional incident with a super-puma off Shetland, which saw four people perish in 2013. The Unite petition opposing reintroduction of the helicopters references the fact that, overall, at over eight years, super-pumas have been involved in six incidents, meaning that 65 people are being rescued from the North Sea and 33 families are losing loved ones. Sitting alongside this, we are told that Shell will not use the 225, BP will not use the super-pumas until the completion of the formal investigation, and the root cause of the Norwegian incident is identified. Statoil, as we have heard, has stated that it will not use those models ever again. Balancing this, Airbus has made modifications to the two models and the maintenance programme. They are now lower thresholds for rejecting deteriorating components and more frequent inspections, for example. I am no expert in this area. I suspect that, on balance, those aircraft may be safer to be flying in than was previously with the case, but it is the regular users who need to be convinced of this, not members of Parliament. I find it surprising that the European Air Safety Agency and the UK and Norwegian civil aviation authorities have lifted their bans when no final report on the crash in Norway has been delivered and no definitive cause has been identified. The accident investigation board in Norway published an interim report into the 2016 accident earlier this year, but, according to the scope and complexity of the investigation, which I recognise, it was unable to estimate a completion date for its investigation and it states on the AIBN website that only the final investigation will represent the complete report. Against that backdrop, and given the concerns of our North Sea workers, Joi Martin is right that we need to proceed extremely cautiously. I have Tom Mason to be followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to Lewis MacDonald for bringing us to the public attention. I, of course, remain a City of Aberdeen councillor. I have a number of constituents in their ward who go offshore and not least of all my own son, who regularly travels by helicopter. Our foremost concern in this debate is the safety of workers who rely on helicopter transportation as part of their day-to-day lives. We should reflect on the tragic accidents that involve those helicopters but also on the work to improve them and make them safe for continued use. The point that I make is this. The best judges of helicopter safety are not politicians, or trade union officials. The best judges are the experts who specialise in aeronautical engineering. The improvements that are made to the H-225LP and the AES-332L2 have met the standards of the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency. Airbus has conducted extensive investigations into both helicopters. They co-operated with the international efforts with the CAA, concluding the decision, and I quote, "...only being made after receiving extensive information from Norwegian accident investigators and being satisfied with the subsequent changes introduced by Airbus helicopters through detailed assessment and analysis." If we were to call for banning these helicopters in spite of such conclusions, what does it say within the faith that we have in our regulators? At what point do we abandon our trust in their ability to work in a diligent and competent manner? Why don't we ban all helicopters if that is the case? I believe that we are ready to have this debate, then it should be concerned the standards the manufacturer needs to meet, not placing extra restrictions on an aircraft that experts already deemed safe. With that said, it's not enough to meet these standards and carry on as nothing has happened. The lessons of the past must be learned. Regulatory of bodies and manufacturers must focus on early preventive action, whatever the most remote possibility of a problem arises. I would expect this of all manufacturers and operators to whom offshore workers place their trust on a daily basis. I remember flying offshore in the 1970s, in the early part of the oil industry, and I am encouraged by the progress that was made since that time. Back then, my one hand would not have been presented as a risk to fellow passengers. Now I'm pleased that today's standards mean that that wouldn't be permitted. I would not be allowed offshore. I've not had the training, I don't have the equipment, and I don't know how to handle it. I have one hand that's totally impossible. I do not want to jeopardise my fellow passengers. Moving forward, I believe that operators should review their procedures to ensure that training is regularly improved and that flights are not overcrowded, unnecessarily weighted or flying in excessive adverse conditions. Finally, in respect of the survey that the Airbus conducted earlier this year, it has done surprising. The majority would be uncomfortable flying in its aircraft given that 50 per 6 per cent are unaware of new safety measures applied to the aircraft. This is an early survey. More information is necessary to get people to understand what is taking place. I think that the widespread public engagement will help reassure all and gas workers. I hope that the Airbus will consider this to a great extent. To include, Presiding Officer, I believe that we should accept nothing less than the highest possible standards for these helicopters. At the same time, however, we should trust the expertise of the CAA and the EASA. Our offshore industry personnel have every right for safe working conditions. We must hold the manufacturers to that and ensure that, in future, we see improved, continuous safety evaluation across the aviation industry. Eileen Smith, who is followed by Patrick Harry. Presiding Officer, I declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union. A personal interest is my son's mechanical engineering student who is applying to companies in the oil and gas sector, so I might have a personal interest in the issue shortly. I also welcome members of Unite the Union to the chamber and thank my colleague Lewis MacDonald for bringing this important debate this evening. As a convener of the RMT Scottish parliamentary group, I feel that it is important that I put across the views of their members on this matter, as well as those of my own union Unite. It is clear that offshore workers, the trade unions and indeed the publicas, pointed out by Mark McDonald in his intervention, have an unacceptable safety record when flying workers to and from platforms in the North Sea, although it may not be quite as clear to Conservative colleagues in the chamber this evening. Undoubtedly, as Neil Bibby pointed out earlier, the unique conditions of the North Sea contribute to that inferior safety record, with low temperatures and exceptionally high crosswinds. The superpuma has been responsible for the deaths of 33 people in North Sea crashes since 2009, and 65 other workers in Peru have had to be rescued during that same period. As we have heard from others, offshore workers' confidence in superpumas as a result of that is extremely low, to say the least. The RMT's general secretary, Mick Cash, said that, if this were a public transport service, such a terrible pattern of failure would have been tackled long ago. When workers consistently point to helicopter transport as the number one safety concern, Government and regulators at all levels must take action or reface further deterioration in the perception of safety at work offshore. In view of that, the RMT is calling for a fully independent inquiry into offshore helicopter operations, covering regulatory standards and commercial pressures in order to restore trust and confidence in helicopter transport operations in the North Sea. Like colleagues, I look forward to hearing how the Scottish Government can assist, if minded, to achieve that independent inquiry. Meanwhile, Pat Rafferty, the Scottish Head of Unite, has said that thousands of offshore workers will be ready to strike if the superpuma returns. That is a serious situation, but that aircraft clearly presents a danger to people who work hard for their economy. Indeed, many workers in the sector have taken to referring to it as a flying coffin, and I think that that gives us a very clear impression of how they view that particular helicopter. The opinion of those who know the job better than anyone should be taking very seriously, particularly since operators are not unbiased parties in that debate. There needs to be meaningful workforce engagement as a priority. Undoubtedly, improving the safety of helicopter transport for offshore workers is a major issue, and it is crucial to the future employment of Scottish workers in the oil and gas industry. If that is not done, then it is going to lead to more jobs and skills flowing away from our domestic industry and the increased use of cheap labour. That is already happening in the decommissioning sector. For example, Canadian natural resources paid non-EEE workers $45 per day to decommission the Murchesson platform. As we speak, the BP-Miller platform is being decommissioned using a workforce employed back from the Philippines, who are living on a bar connected to the platform. Those super pubers have been grounded since May 2016, and it seems beyond belief that they could be reintroduced without a proper independent inquiry. Also, there are on-going investigations into the cause of the gearbox fatigue and the alarm system failures. Further, last month, the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an emergency directive saying that a main rotor component in the 225 is susceptible to crack development. Is it any wonder that workers do not want to travel in these helicopters, and surely they must have the right not to do so? I understand from the workers today that some companies—I think that it was mentioned earlier in the debate, such as Statt Oil and Shell—have already indicated that they will not be using superpumas, and I hope that other companies will follow. The safety of offshore workers must be our number one priority, and, as such, those superpumas must stay grounded. The last contribution in the open debate is Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by offering my respects to those who have been most affected personally by the issue, especially those who have lost a friend, a colleague or a loved one. I also pay tribute to the trade unions who have been active on the issue and congratulate Lewis MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have occasionally encountered a preconception that the Greens would place a low priority on any issue connected to the oil and gas industry. Notwithstanding the fact that, of course, helicopter travel will be relevant for the future, even with the transition to offshore renewable energy sources, I think that it should be put on the record that workforce safety in relation to the existing fossil fuel industries should be a non-negotiable issue, regardless of the different views that we have about the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry itself. Just as I can oppose nuclear energy, nuclear safety remains an extremely important priority within that debate, and the same thing applies in that context. With the recent downturn in the oil and gas industry, one of our most important areas of concern was, for the potential, as Elaine Smith alluded to, for reducing the terms and conditions for the workforce or, indeed, the safety conditions that they work with. That is a shared concern right across the political spectrum. Lewis MacDonald opened the debate with a comparison with other modes of transport. I suspect that many of us who travel to work on a bus or on a train would entirely understand the point that he is making and acknowledge the significant differences, not just the environmental conditions but the level of safety measures that are needed. As well as those clear differences, I think that most people travelling to work on a bus or a train would absolutely recognise the importance of the question of trust—trust in the safety that the workforce who have to travel to offshore installations by helicopter has a right to expect. When rail crashes take place, we see an immediate response in the trust that people have in the rail operators. When there are stories about the safety concerns relating to road vehicles, we see that reaction as well. How could we not empathise with those who are travelling to work in a more harsh environment with a much greater expectation that safety measures are taken to look after them in relation to that form of transport? Even if we do not have the personal experience that Lewis MacDonald has had of going on those helicopter journeys to offshore facilities, that question of trust is something that we can all relate to. Even if measures have been taken by the manufacturer to address the concerns as they perceive them, if that trust has not been rebuilt, that in itself is an unacceptable aspect of somebody's working conditions. If they are having to go to work using a form of transport that causes that level of lack of trust, of anxiety, of fears even if work has been done. How can that trust be rebuilt if there is not full transparency by the industry, by the manufacturer, about the issues that they sought to address and how they have addressed them? That lack of complete transparency is the principal reason why I join with those who have expressed support for the proposal for a full independent inquiry into those issues. Greens will continue to support that call alongside those who are representing the workforce. In the meantime, the decision should absolutely lie with the workforce, not just with the industry, not just with the regulators. The workforce should be respected, and if they wish to express clearly the view that the supercumour should not be brought back into service, their decision should absolutely be one that we all respect. I call Hamza Yousaf to respond to the debate around seven minutes. I also start by offering up my condolences and continued sympathy of the Scottish Government for those who have lost family members, friends and those from local communities, whether they have lost community members in the tragic accidents that have taken place involving supercumour helicopters. I also congratulate or welcome Lewis MacDonald for bringing this debate to the Parliamentary Chamber. I think that the debate, the quality of the contributions across the chamber, has been very high indeed, and really very nuanced as well. There have been some key central themes throughout almost every contribution that I will try to pick up on, as well as answering one or two questions that members have also posed. I thought that the way that Lewis MacDonald started his contribution really importantly set the context. Other members picked up on this, including just Patrick Harvie a moment ago, that there are very few professions whereby the travel to that profession, to that place of work, could be so hazardous. There are not many industries where you travel to work, where you must wear a full survival kit, a life jacket or a rebreather, just as part of your travelling attire, so I have, as I know the chamber does, the utmost respect for every man and woman who works in the industry. The tragic accident on the 29th of April last year in Norway, where 13 people sadly died, clearly underlines the risk and challenges of working in the North Sea. Of course, the accident followed tragedies in our own waters near Sumbra and Peterhead. The most recent accident in Norway has been subject to extensive investigation, and indeed that investigation by the Norwegian regulator continues. While the exact cause is still to be determined, the UK, the CAA and the Norwegian CAA announced their intention in July to lift the restrictions that were placed on the H225 and the S332L2 superpuma helicopter that swallowed the accident in April 2016. It is not uncommon to put in place airworthiness measures before accident investigations report. I am aware that the UK, the CAA have not taken the decision lightly. They have made the decision after receiving extensive information from their Norwegian counterparts and Norwegian accident investigators and have been satisfied with the subsequent changes introduced by Airbus helicopters. I would like to be clear that any decision to lift the restrictions that are made by the regulator—in this case, the UK, the CAA and the Norwegian CAA—and the Scottish Government does not have input into those decisions, the regulator must maintain their independence from external input. However, I would say that the UK, the CAA must continue to work with helicopter operators, offshore industry and international regulators, but, importantly, as everybody here has mentioned, unions, the workforce and pilot representatives. That is the key in the crux that every single member just about has touched upon here. Regardless of what is lifted, what is not, what restrictions are being put in place, what measures have been taken and what mitigation has been done, if the workforce does not have confidence—as is clear from the many surveys that have been quoted—if the workforce does not have confidence, I am afraid that you would not want to force anybody to travel to work on a mode of transport that they are deeply uncomfortable with. On the questions that have been posed by a couple of members on the inquiry and the public inquiry, I was looking at some of my notes and I am aware, as members will be, that, in the accident that I have already mentioned prior to the accident in 2016, the CAA, in conjunction with the European Aviation Safety Agency, the Norwegian Aviation Authority and an independent peer review group undertook the review of offshore helicopter flying. There were a number of recommendations that were made on the back of that, and the recommendations are being taken forward by the offshore helicopter safety action group of the Scottish Government to support the review. Transport Scotland has observed a status on the Government's body. I should say that we are generally satisfied that there is progress being made in the right direction. I would be more than happy to meet both the United Union and, indeed, as Elaine Smith rightly says, the RMT. If any members wish to join us in that meeting to hear whether those unions, the workforce fuel that perhaps those recommendations are not being taken forward at the pace that they would like to, and, if that is the case, I would like to hear from them the case for why they think that a public inquiry, an independent inquiry, may well be the right route to go down. I have not settled on that. The Scottish Government, as I say, is part or has observed a status in the governance of Osag, and therefore we have very much looked to that body to continue the work that it is doing to give confidence where it can to the workforce. The lifting of those restrictions in the superpuma, as I say, has raised concerns with the industry. The unions clearly point across the concerns of the workforce they represent. The recent surveys by Airbus and Petitions by Unite have shown that there is a clear lack of confidence when it comes to the superpuma helicopters. Airbus has a lot of work to do to rebuild that confidence and trust in the aircraft, not only with the workforce unions, but with operators as well. A number of members have mentioned some of those oil and gas operators who have been very clear in the view publicly that they have no plans for their turn of superpumas to their North Sea operations. The passengers, flight crews and their families must have confidence that everything that is possible is done by regulators—the aircraft operators, the manufacturers and the oil and gas industry—to minimise the risk of them flying in the North Sea. Airbus has worked hard to learn from that accident. A number of members have said that they have met them in the recent days and perhaps before that. Airbus and their team have not taken those accidents lightly at all and have put some of their best minds to finding solutions that they hope will give confidence. Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical for Airbus to work with the workforce unions, the industry and the regulator to attempt to reinstall confidence and trust in the aircraft's safety. The CAA announcement does not mean an immediate return to the service of the superpuma. A plan of checks, modifications and inspections would need to be undertaken before any flight could take place. Any reintroduction would need to be on the basis of a robust safety case being submitted by the operator to ensure that it has the necessary measures in place. Now that the regulators have made their decision to lift the restrictions, it is ultimately for the helicopter operators, but I would strongly encourage the operators and their customers to consider the views of the workforce. They are the people, the men and the women who have to travel on a daily, weekly basis on the superpumas. The workforce must play a key part in any decision to reintroduce the superpuma back into North Sea operations. There is no decision to reinstate the superpuma that should be made unilaterally without that workforce engagement at its heart. The safety of workers in the North Sea has been and will always be the highest priority for this Government. I am reassured to see a desire among the industry, including the unions, helicopter operators, the manufacturer, oil and gas companies and regulatory bodies to do everything possible to ensure that workers in the North Sea have a safe journey to the place of work. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting.


from New York City. It's theCUBE. Covering Automation Anywhere, Imagine. Brought to you by Automation Anywhere. Hey, welcome back, everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're in midtown Manhattan at the Automation Anywhere Imagine 2019 event. We're here last year. It's grown quite a bit and we're excited to be back. Our very first guest of the day is Kashif Mabou. He is the VP Product Marketing and Global Head of RPA at Automation Anywhere. Great to see you. Nice to be here. Yeah, so it was a year ago. It's June. I looked up the date and since June, you guys have had a very exciting year. You raised like a half a billion dollars. The RPA space is blowing up and this conference is, I think, outgrowing the venue. So it's been quite a year. It certainly has been quite a year. Yes, we did have the largest series A for an enterprise software company ever. We are still on the series A. It's quite significant in our industry at the moment. The growth has been phenomenal. Last year, when you and I met here, we had nine offices. We have 35 offices today. We are looking at exiting 2019 with about 3,000 employees. The numbers just speak for themselves. The RPA, the category itself, has been at a growth space that I certainly have never seen before. So Mahir had a great keynote a little bit earlier. He touched on a couple of really key topics and he did this last year too and he talked about truly transformational technology shifts. And he talked about mobile before and personal computing and some of these things. And he had three kind of things. It has to work for everyone. It must be available anywhere. And it must work for any size company. And you guys are making real concrete moves into that area. And one thing he talked about is this concept of community addition. I wonder if you can give us a little bit more flavor. What is community addition? Why is it important to automation anywhere? Absolutely. So the concept, the vision that we are driving towards is automation for all. For all types of users. By that we mean business user, IT user, developer. You don't have to be somebody who is proficient at coding. You don't have to be somebody who is doing just one part of the business. Anybody in the business should be able to pick up the software and start using it. So with that concept in mind, we then thought about all types of businesses. Because until not too long ago, RPA was a realm for the largest of the large companies. So last year, 1400, 1500 of our enterprises, that number has grown to about 2,800 now. Still some of the largest companies in the world. Now taking it further is also talking about the various channels through which we deliver our software. So not just on-premises, which is most of RPA today, but going forward enabling cloud delivery models. So with all that combined, what is the fastest way to get people started on it? And that is to remove all barriers, to remove all friction. And that's where Community Edition comes in. It's a free product. It is the entire digital workforce platform. So not just RPA, but RPA with AI and with analytics all combined with a mobile app-ready system. So when you sign up or download whichever way you want to call it, you're actually signing up into a very robust, very comprehensive, the most complete digital workforce platform that enables business users, students, educators, but perhaps most importantly developers to start developing their own bots, their own software robots. A Community Edition is just one piece of a larger ecosystem strategy that we have. That includes the Community Edition, so download the software or sign up into it and start building. But where do you learn how to bear bots? Where we have automation anywhere university. We have about 175,000 students signed up already. We're fast becoming the world's largest university as well. And then, so you have free courses available. You can get certifications as a trainer, as a developer, as a business user. Once you have that training, you can start developing bots. Let's say you have questions that you want answered or you feel like the expert who should be sharing his or her knowledge, for that we have the A People Community. It's again, RPA's largest community in the world, 75,000 plus users already. So that's piece number three. And last but not the least, you've downloaded the Community Edition, you've become proficient in building bots, you're sharing knowledge and your expertise. What's the next step? The next step is to build bots that the rest of the world can use. So we have bot stores that we launched last year. So you can actually upload your bots and you will start monetizing your bots. So it is a virtuous cycle. It's an ecosystem of free software, free education, free community in a marketplace that lets you share your knowledge, your expertise with the world. So that's our vision, that's what we are very much into it. And more than a vision, it's in practice today. It's an interesting play, right? Because we always hear about the democratization of data and the citizen developer. So you guys are really talking about the democratization of automation. And I'm sure there were some interesting conversations we're going to have the CFO on later about taking some revenue off the table to enable kind of this community outreach to go out and offer really a full stack. It's almost like a freemium, classic kind of freemium play to let people and as you said, developers, schools, small businesses get involved in this. But if you could talk about kind of the strategic reason that you're giving up some short-term revenue for obviously a much potential bigger gain down the road. So a great point. If you look at the vision, the vision is to automate any process that can be automated. Is to automate any process, any organization that should be automated. So what does that mean? That means an enormous workforce that is RPA ready, RPA educated, that has knowledge of RPA, not just RPA, but any automation per se, because AI is included in it. So the only way we can reach that goal of having millions and millions of users using not just our product, but any RPA product is to educate them, to get products in their hands. And so we can't think short-term in that way. Our vision is multi-decade vision. And it's enormous vision, as you heard our CEO mention. So it's automation for all, for any business size and through any delivery channel. And that's where the strategy is, that's why we launched Community Edition and you will see a lot more coming down the path. So the next big theme is cloud, right? We are both at the Google Cloud Show last week. There you got an announcement here about Oracle Cloud and then Mahir talked about your guys own cloud. So I wonder if you can talk a little bit about kind of the cloud strategy and then some of these different options that you guys are enabling for a cloud-enabled version of automation anyway. Absolutely, so that's a big step. Just like freeing up our software through Community Edition, we need to open a channel through which anybody can have software available. So you don't have just the option of on-premise software but cloud-ready, web-ready software. So for that, we announced today the Intelligent Automation Cloud. The focus is simplicity, security, and scalability. Those three things are critical for any business. Should be simple enough for anybody to use the software without having to download and install and maintain. And so they're big huge costs, IT costs for maintaining and press software. So removing that cost, that's what we mean by a zero footprint software. It's simple but simple does not mean it's weak or it's anything like that. Simple means it's powerful, easy enough to use, intuitive enough to use for a business user who's expertise lies in the process, not necessarily in the coding and scripting environment. On the other hand, giving the developers a very robust and IDE development environment so that all users, the business user, the developer and the IT manager, they all get the capability. Security is built in. We cannot have robust security if we are dealing with was largest financial organization. Nine out of 10 largest banks are already in business with us. So security is paramount. Audit compliance is paramount. Audit ease is paramount. And last but not the least is the scalability. So cloud provides us and our customers infinite scale. So simplicity, security, scalability, delivered through cloud and an intelligent cloud, not just a cloud that is basic but cloud where AI is built in, where cognitive capabilities are built in. So that's the vision, that's the goal. Right, and even more of that is just choice, right? Depending on what the customer needs, what their particular application is, within a single customer, a single entity, if they pick a large bank, they may have some implementations behind the firewall on-prem. They might have some on your cloud. They might have some on some of these big public clouds. You're really offering now the choice. It's not necessarily a locked in delivery strategy. So we are certified with the five largest cloud platforms available to me, whether it's Google, Oracle, Amazon web services, Azure. You will see Microsoft talking here today. You will hear from IBM executives here today. Very close partnerships with these organizations. So not only that we are technology partners, but we are certified with their cloud platforms which gives our customers the peace of mind. That if we are certified, say, with AWS, Amazon web services, the security that's built into Amazon web services, the scalability that comes out of it, the 99.99% uptime and all of those amazing things that Amazon has invested in over the years are now available to our customers as well. That's an important factor. There's a lot going on since we last sat down a year ago. But let's look it forward again. And I think I asked you last year, what are we going to be talking about in 2019? So what's coming next?  You're in a very hot space. You have a lot of momentum. Like you said, you doubled your offices in a year, hiring like mad. So what's next? What are you working on in the near term and in the midterm? So we started with Community Edition a month ago. So in a month, we have about 12,000 sign-ups and downloads, which is very significant for our enterprise business. It's from throughout the world. But in a month's time, we are coming out with one of our most, the biggest releases, if you will, ever. And that's where we introduce the cloud. That's where we introduce for the business user a completely web-based interface, which is what we call Bot Sketch that gives you the ability to drag and drop and build your process. And in the back end, we will develop the bot, the software robot for you. So it's sort of a bridge between a business user and she might be on the accounting side or billing side, but she's the expert in knowing her own process. But she's not a scriptor. She's not a coder. She's not a developer. Her area of expertise is the process itself. It could be a logistics process. It could be an HR process. And she can sketch out that process just like building a workflow. And once she finishes her work and she's complete with her workflow or process end to end, the development side can take over and the code is already written for them. At that point, the developer can bring in their own Python code, can run it on Linux. And IT is the third user, of course, and they can see the entire environment. So we are launching an environment that is ready for business that's robust enough for the developer and secure and gives peace of mind to the IT. So that's a major release. It, of course, comes with our built-in security, cloud management, and all of that. So that's what we are rolling up to. And Community Edition is there and you will see more and more talk about Digital Worker. Earlier you saw me here describe the Digital Worker. Board Store is there. It's the first ever automation marketplace. So there are lots of firsts and there are lots of the biggest and the largest. So we are running out of superlatives to use here. I'm in marketing, of course, so I have to be careful what I come up with. That's right, there's people playing bingo probably, so we have to be careful so they don't fill up their card. I just want to give you the last take. When we talked a year ago, you talked about three things, about RPA by itself, kind of cognitive automation and incorporating machine learning and artificial intelligence and then smart analytics. And as you're talking and I'm listening, I don't even necessarily need to build the bot. I mean, it's kind of built around the bot, but now I can get somebody else's bot. Now you're talking about actually building the bot for me. So you're leveraging a lot of these core technologies to power the compute and cloud to actually help me build the bot, taking me one step further where I just need to know my process to be able to start to implement my own digital assistance and add automation to my world. Absolutely, so the story is not the bot. The story is always the customer looking at the customer's pain point and what can we do to solve that pain point? How can we make the process more efficient, better, faster, cheaper, right? So the bot is a vehicle for us to really enable our customers to really simplify their lives so that as Mahir mentioned, we as humans can do more cognitive, more intelligent work. That's the vision, right? And everything that we are announcing today, everything that we have done in the past 15 years that we've been business, and our vision is all about a fanatical customer focus. We have a large partner base as well. We work with the largest advisories, over 700 partners. So if you look at the overall picture, it's again building an ecosystem for our customers where they are not tied to one thing. We are trying to open it up. It's an open platform. We work with best of breed. At the same time, we provide our customers readiness with AI and security right out of the box as well. If they already have a best of breed system in store, we will work with that. If they would like to work with our systems, we will work, they have capability there. So it's a very open approach. It's a very flexible approach because there's no way we, you cannot tie down your customer and expect them to stay with you. We want to enable them to automate their process in the most efficient way possible. Yep, well congratulations. It's quite a ride and I think the real fun stuff's just getting started. Yes, absolutely. All right, thanks again. All right, he's Kashif. I'm Jeff, you're watching theCUBE. We're at Automation Anywhere. Imagine 2019 in Midtown Manhattan. Thanks for watching. See you next time.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical over low here So this is my spoiler free review for Jordan pills. Nope. Nope is Jordan pills third horror film or third feature film I guess I'll say because I would describe this more as like a science fiction thriller But it's I guess you still put in the horror genre Directed by Jordan Peele written by Jordan Peele starring Daniel Kalua Kiki Palmer and Steven Young and a few others The other character or the other actor I was gonna mention Was the character plate who played or the actor who plays Angel Torres because he's pretty involved in the narrative Brandon So this movie follows the Haywood siblings who we have been talking about so much on my channel with the Theory videos and all these other speculation videos. I've done But it the premise for the movie is after random objects falling from the sky results in death of their father ranch-owned siblings ranch-owning siblings OJ and Emerald Haywood attempt to capture video evidence of an Unidentified flying object with the help of tech salesman Angel Torres and documentarian antlers Holst now also antlers holes I guess I'll say who was portraying that guy because he is pretty involved in the third act is Michael win cock Who is amazing in the role as well? so When it comes to nope, I will say this is definitely Jordan pills jaws I was like when the reactions came out last night. I was honestly confused by what people were talking about But after seeing the movie myself I Understand what they meant in the whole Spielberg comparisons. Honestly, there's a lot in his movie That just feels like a love letter to Spielberg I can see the comparisons people are making with Shyamalan and I would say after seeing this movie He's three for three with me But I can also see where some people would argue this might be his weakest only because yes at times the narrative was Unfocused or maybe even too vague with its point I can see a lot of people come out coming out of the movie like well What was the point of that? Although the screenplay is still very layered and it wants to address the exploitation of animals more than anything I would say seeking fame and attention has Hollywood commentary, etc. because you know the hay woods are actually Involved in Hollywood have a Hollywood connection Their horses are used for Hollywood productions The most the only thing we really see is them working on a commercial for the most part as shown in the trailer During this movie the dialogue in the movie is certainly designed I would say for certain members of the audience to chuckle I can see I would honestly say that some of that dialogue I'm thinking about is Mostly pointed towards the press members or those of you who are in who are in the journalism field You might understand and laugh at that aspect more of the certain bits of dialogue there Peel again set out to deliver what he called a spectacle and I'd say he did a terrific job more than delivered the Cinematography is breathtaking and the shots are done in ways that legitimately just make the sky terrifying and I and it Just gives you a constant feeling of unease throughout the movie Now I will say this To make to make it probably a little bit more sensible for people Consider what Spielberg did for the water with jaws peel has somehow managed to do that with the sky in nope I don't know how Jordan Peele did that, but he did the sky is Completely terrifying in this movie and I'm not saying that it's gonna give you nightmares or anything like that Like it's completely overly nightmare fueled But he does the same thing with the sky that Spielberg managed to do to water with jaws And I'm not trying to say that it's better than jaws or anything like that But you'll get it once you see the movie Kaluya and Palmer are a real joy to have on the screen I would say Kaluya is more resolved in this in this more reserved in this role We know he's reuniting with Peel after doing get out together as well He's more reserved in the role due to the nature of OJ and the inner struggles inside the character after the death of his father and his lack of passion as it pertains to I guess some of the things going on with the ranch and their current state of affairs Kaluya again delivers a brilliant performance as OJ But Palmer is really getting to shine as Emerald because she's more laid back and more open than OJ She's also the light as opposed to OJ's darkness honestly when they're on screen together So there's that balance that they share There's this balance that the siblings bond the siblings bring to keep the progressions of that bond compelling Even if the relationship between them wasn't explored the way I hoped it would be They certainly are still the emotional hook of the story and the performances had me invested completely it also adds that extra layer of Emotional weight that comes between them in the finale. You'll see what I mean when you see the movie And again while the side characters bit like AJ for example, they're all likable They're still under they're still underwhelming when considering how involved AJ was with the events that unfold He's pretty under underwhelming as a character Most we learned about him was that he's good with his installation and recently went through a breakup He's really a nothing character Stevie Young's jupe who runs Jupiter's claim that attraction is the most intriguing character due to the connection Jupe shares with the occurrences happening around the Haywood Ranch The film doesn't spend a lot of time with him But the time he's on screen is helping piece the public help helping to piece together the puzzle as it pertains to the UFO now admittedly the film does foreshadow and reveal what's happening during the opening sequence I'd say but most audience members won't catch on due to how misleading the trailers work The UFO is in the film and otherworldly activity is going on, but trust me you you're not prepared for this you're not Sometimes the screenplay again does feel unfocused and coherent But I believe the second and third act will fix that the sound design in this movie is almost its own character acting as another tool They amplifies and reinforces the tension built throughout the movie Pilligan definitely enjoys taking audiences on a slow but steady unnerving experience Nope genuinely has some terrifying moments, and I'm not saying again that it's nightmare feeling or anything It's more so the questions surrounding the stranger currencies combined with the film's pacing and the score that sets this unease That gets comfortable during the second act and completely consumes you during the third act Collunia and Palmer again are crushing it in their roles But all the performance that I would say the despite characters being Underwhelming the side characters. They were great for the most part every performance was the themes of exploitation chasing fame and all that again Is addressed it just has a lot more to say about our treatment of animals I would say more than anything while also sprinkling in the stuff related to Spectacleizing blacks etc. Now the movie isn't beating you over the head with a race narrative So I know a lot of people might find that refreshing from some like pill deniers out there who are not a fan of his movies Again, the pacing is another highlight Sure I'll say the first act is a little slow and you might only be engaged because of who is on your screen But pill doesn't forget to reel you in early on with a bizarre opening like he's done in his previous movies Then we spend time with the characters before the second act starts to pick things up And then we lead to this highly thrilling third act that serves as again as a giant love letter I would say to Jaws in my eyes. It really just is Jaws I'm sitting there watching the third act genuinely going that's chief Brody That's Quinn and so on and so forth So if anything, it's a brilliant example of why Jaws doesn't need a remake when you have Original ideas like this being done that still remind you of a movie like Jaws Why without being a complete carbon copy of it? So this is definitely pills most ambitious project and I can see it being his most divisive as well I enjoyed nope. I enjoyed all the technical aspects of it. I just think the script could have been slightly better I'm gonna give it a seven and a half out of ten I put it right next to get out and us is last But if you haven't already of course make sure you subscribe turn on post notification There is a video in the description. I have links for social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram You can message me there of course limiters any movies News or reviews you'd like me to cover in the future with all that in mind guys. I will see you in the next video


Surprise, surprise! Cuphead is now available on PlayStation 4! In an impressive, sudden reveal, Studio MDHR shadowdropped the game on the PS4 yesterday. What makes this particularly surprising is the fact that Cuphead was always supposed to be an Xbox-exclusive title. The Moldenhauer family, which runs Studio MDHR, signed an exclusivity contract with Microsoft during the game's development. Bringing Cuphead to the Switch seemed surprising enough, but to bring the game to PlayStation, the Xbox's main competitor in the console market seems particularly unexpected. Unless, of course, you've been paying attention to the shifts happening within Microsoft's gaming division over the past few years. Xbox Studios has been buying up a lot of smaller developers, and Microsoft has been repositioning itself not just as a console manufacturer, but also a third-party publisher. In fact, at present, Microsoft doesn't even consider Sony to be their main gaming rival. According to Phil Spencer, head of gaming at Microsoft, when you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward. That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. With Google Stadia currently struggling to gain a foothold, it might not seem like that big of a threat. Nevertheless, while Phil anticipates that it'll be years before cloud gaming really hits its stride, Microsoft is planning ahead by shifting to a publishing role in the hopes of strengthening their xCloud gaming service. This means really looking at the games they're publishing and deciding whether they're best kept as Xbox exclusives, or whether they'll bring in more sales if published on other platforms. Head of Xbox Games Studios Matt Booty said, The question is less binary about should it be on Switch, should it be on PlayStation, and more, does it make sense for the franchise? In other words, is it a kind of game where it would benefit from the network effect of being on a bunch of different platforms, or is it a game where we can best support it by putting resources and making sure that our platforms, things like xCloud and Game Pass and Xbox Live, are really leaning in to support the game? It's hardly a surprise to learn that, three years after launch, Cuphead is not exactly an Xbox system seller. Thus, as Microsoft is no longer trying to compete directly with Sony, it makes sense to get the best return from their indie smash hit by bringing it to the PlayStation. As for the Moldenhauers and everyone at Studio MDHR, of course they were on board with this. Said the wonderful Maya Moldenhauer, We grew up PlayStation fans, we're PlayStation fans to this day, going back to Resident Evil and Vandal Hearts, so it's been something that we've always dreamed of happening, and bringing it to the fans. It's so awesome that the Xbox team has been so supportive in empowering us in bringing this game to more players, so we're thankful for their support. Working with the PlayStation team has been incredible, today we've been welcomed with open arms into that family. They've done a really great job of helping us to keep this a secret until now. Getting the game to the PlayStation Store though hasn't been entirely easy, as with many studios around the world at present, work at MDHR has slowed under the current climate. Thankfully, the team have always worked remotely, so there wasn't any nasty shock to adjusting to working from home and communicating online. In fact, other game studios reached out to MDHR asking for advice in how to keep development running smoothly while staff are working from home. That said, this is a family studio, and many artists and developers have young children who are suddenly in need of extra childcare. Maya says that it's very common for team members to let their kids wander around in the background while they're on video calls or working on the game. The moral of the story is that there's no need to put up artificial boundaries or feed petty rivalries. Just as Microsoft is embracing opportunities to work with Sony and Nintendo, we can all benefit from making friends with others around us who share similar goals. By working together, even when we're apart, we can make wonderful things happen.


Hello, everybody. Andrew Maeska here with Dental L. So now is the time to sign up for a tutoring program because you are at home. It makes sense to really start to study for the board exam. So for those of you who don't know me, I have been tutoring now for about 14 years, almost 15 years. And I tutor dental hygiene students and dental assisting students pass the board exam, both for Canada and the US. So if you guys go to my website, just go to dentall.podia.com and you will see all the different courses that I do offer. Now, two of the main courses would be the ones you see here. So the Dental Hygiene Board Exam Prep Academy or the Dental Assisting Board Exam Prep Academy. Those are, that's the main tutoring program. Okay, so that's the main one. If you need help with everything. So if you have, I would say at least three months or more to study, this is the perfect program for you because it will go through everything from step one until you pass the board exam on every single topic. The hardest part about studying for the board exam is, well, what do you study? How much of this topic do you study and for how much every day should you be looking through everything. So this course helps you with all of that because I have every single topic per module. You will see PowerPoints, you will see a quiz, you will see mock exams, case studies, and we do tutoring once a week. Where I pick a topic every single week and we go through mock exam questions. So you will see questions in multiple choice format and then we pretty much answer them together. So it's perfect. This course is perfect for you. This will help you pass the exam. I do still maintain a 99.8% success rate, helping students pass. Now I do have another course too, which is $99. Okay, this is called the Express Board Exam Prep. I have the Express Board Exam Prep for dental hygiene students. And then I have one for dental assisting students also which this should actually be up at the top. So I'll be changing that on the website soon. But this course is not the same thing as the one that I had mentioned previously. So the Board Exam Prep Academy is not the same as the Express Board Exam Prep course. The Express Board Exam Prep course is for those who you're taking the board exam next month or maybe even in two months.  It's impossible. But this course is still perfect so you can at least go through a little bit of everything to see if you're on the right track. Because let's just say you're taking the board exam next month. You're probably thinking, I just want to know if I'm on the right track. I don't have time to restudy everything. But how do I know if I'm on the right track? So this course is perfect for that. You will see modules with a more condensed format for the main topics that you have to know for the board exam. There are some case studies. There are some mock exams. You'll get some tutoring but not everything. So the Express course is for those who just kind of want a general review on a little bit of everything. But the Board Exam Prep Academy course, that is everything. So this is the best course to take for sure. But again, if you're like, well, I'm taking the board exam next month, I just want to make sure that I'm on the right track, then the Express is for you.  So I do try to make things as easy as possible. How the payment plan works is you will be charged your credit card on the same day every single month for four months. That's it. You will have access to the full course right away. But payment plans just happen over those four months. So I hope that helps you guys. If you have any questions, please let me know and I will see you guys hopefully soon.


Here's a quick overview of matrix multiplication. A matrix is a series of numbers arranged in rows and columns. This matrix has two rows and three columns. It's a 2 by 3 matrix. This matrix has three rows and two columns. It's a 3 by 2 matrix. In order to multiply the matrices, they must be compatible. That means that the number of columns in the first matrix must be the same as the number of rows in the second matrix. The results of the multiplication will have the same number of rows as the first matrix and the same number of columns as the second matrix. In this example, the result matrix will be 2 by 2. The entry in row 1 column 1 of the result matrix will be the dot product of row 1 and column 1 in the first and second matrices. Dot product is a fancy name for some of the products of the corresponding entries in a row and column. That means that row 1 column 1 of our result will be 1 times 7 plus 2 times 8 plus 3 times 9. That adds up to 50. Row 1 column 2 of the result is the dot product of row 1 and column 2. That's 1 times 10 plus 2 times 11 plus 3 times 12. 10 plus 22 plus 36 adds up to 68. Row 2 column 1 is the dot product of row 2 and column 1. 4 times 7 plus 5 times 8 plus 6 times 9. 28 plus 40 plus 54 adds up to 122. Our last entry in the result row 2 column 2 is the dot product of row 2 and column 2 in the first and second matrices. That's 4 times 10 plus 5 times 11 plus 6 times 12. 40 plus 55 plus 72 adds up to 167. And that's the result of multiplying this matrix times that matrix. To do this in Java, you'll need a triple nested loop. The outer loop will iterate through the rows of the first matrix. The middle loop will go through the columns for the second matrix. And the inner loop will produce the dot product of the row and column you're currently looking at.


Flavobacterial diseases in fish are caused by multiple bacterial species within the family Flavobacteriaceae. They are responsible for devastating losses in wild and farmed fish stocks around the world. Disease outbreaks are notoriously difficult to prevent and control despite nearly 100 years of scientific research. This article was authored by Thomas P. Locke and Mohamed Faisal.


Hello there. In this video, we're going to look at how you can open files, Maya files, in earlier versions of the software. So for this example, I'm going to save a file in Autodesk Maya 2015, and then I'm going to attempt to open that in Maya 2013, which is an issue that seems to crop up quite a lot, especially at the moment. Files aren't as backwards compatible as they used to be, and you need to just know what you're doing to be able to get this to work. So I've just prepared a very, very simple file to explain how this should work. So what I'm going to do, first of all, is save this file. So I'm going to go File, Save Scenas, and I'm just going to call it Test, which is already in there, and I'm going to save it onto the desktop just so I can get easy access to it. And then I'm going to click Save. So that has now saved to my desktop, and it's a 2015 file. I'm now going to go back into Maya 2015, and I'm going to attempt to open this. So File, Open Scene, and if I look on the desktop, it'll take me to that file. If I just try and open that, nothing happens. Okay, so you can see, although it thinks it's done something, it thinks there's a file open, actually there's no geometry in the scene. So this is an error that seems to be cropping up a lot. Okay, so what I'll try and do now is I'll try and open it in a different way. So File, Open Scene again, but this time, I'm going to tell it to ignore the version. Now this is the way that should make it work, so let's see what happens. Still nothing. Okay, so now that we've sort of established what the problem is at the moment, I'm going to show you how you go about sorting this and actually making your files backwards compatible. So what I need to do first of all is go back into Maya 2015, and I'm going to save this file in a different way. So I'm going to go to File, Save Scene As, but this time, instead of saving it as a Maya binary file, which is what I did the first time, I'm going to change the file type to Maya ASCII, and that just writes the file in a different way, but it's exactly the same file. So what I'll do now is save that, and now I'm going to go back into Maya 2013. I'm going to try and open it. So let's just get rid of that scene that didn't work. Okay, File, Open Scene. Now I do want still to tell it to ignore the version because we are still going back two versions. So I still want that box checked, and this time I'm going to open the .ma file. And there we go. It's telling me that there have been some errors that might have resulted in data loss because it is going back two versions, but if I turn on Shading, you'll see that it's actually brought my file through completely intact. So that is the best and most reliable way of doing this. It's all about making sure you save in that Maya ASCII file type, which makes this process much more reliable. Now there is one more thing that I just want to show you that if you are having trouble with the method I've just shown you, might also yield results. So I'm just going to go to New Scene again. So this time, instead of trying to open the scene, what you can do instead is try and import. So if that didn't work for you for any reason, tell it to ignore version, get the .ma file, and then try and import. And again, for me, I'm seeing exactly the same results, but sometimes this will just be slightly more reliable, sometimes, than doing it the way I've first showed you. We just try and open the file. Hopefully you found that useful. Hopefully you can now make your files a lot more backwards-compatible than you could before looking at this video. If you've got any questions, please drop them in the comments below. If this doesn't work for you, there are other things that you can do. Drop me a comment and I'll upload a video for you that shows you slightly more complicated, but more successful ways of making your files backwards-compatible as well. If you have found this useful, please click on the like little icon there. It does help me a lot. And finally, for more videos like this, hit the subscribe button and help my channel to continue to grow. Right, wicked. I'll leave that there then. Happy Miring, and I'll see you again soon.


It's a main initiative of the Naval History and Heritage Command to make Navy's history accessible and relevant to the sailors of today and so we support that by undertaking our conservation and research of the Navy's history. There are significant challenges with the artifacts that are recovered. You have the simple fact that they have been waterlogged for between 50 and 250 years adds another dimension of complexity to their treatment. The HELL torpedo is a late 19th century torpedo that was the first really automotive steam-powered torpedo of American design. Number 24 came to the Naval History and Heritage Command in May of 2013. This is a really rare and unique artifact. It's a true privilege to be able to work on this project and to work in such close proximity to a very tangible piece of Navy's history. The gentlemen that are working on the torpedo today are doing a 3D laser scanning of the torpedo both the after body and the middle body. The benefit of using technology like this really helps us the archaeologists and conservators understand the topography of the entire artifact. It can show features important features like serial numbers, makers marks, things that aren't necessarily immediately visible to the naked eye and help us to understand also some of the physical things that have happened to the torpedo throughout its its history potentially even help us maybe understand the reasons for its loss. To be able to take it from a state where if left untreated it would almost certainly continue to corrode and deteriorate to a stable state where it can be displayed and appreciated and researched is is a real honor.