Calling the blimp

THE EDITOR: A brand new blimp is purchased with sophisticated equipment for surveillance. A firm is hired to make it operational and also to train locals. Finally, there is an admission, after many denials that the blimp is not working. We now hear that the highly technical surveillance equipment was interfering with the engines of the blimp or vice versa. Questions must now be asked. Was a political official speaking the truth when he stated that the blimp provided intelligence information and also that such information led to the down-the-islands drug bust? Further questions must now be asked? Who were the experts who recommended the blimp and the highly sophisticated equipment?

Did the manufacturer of the blimp have prior knowledge that the sophisticated equipment will not work on the blimp? Did the manufacturer of the highly sophisticated surveillance equipment have prior knowledge that there will be interference with the engine of the blimp? Is there still a warranty on both the blimp and the highly sophisticated surveillance equipment. Was the firm hired to make the blimp and equipment functional paid for the non-commissioning? More importantly, what was the advice of this firm? Now we hear of the rental of a second blimp that was recently displayed to the media. Interestingly, it was demonstrated without the surveillance equipment. The question must now be asked, will it also work with the highly sophisticated surveillance equipment?

Is this another case of the Tobago Hospital? Imagine a contractor bidding for this contract even though he is aware of major faults in the design of the hospital. Now the contractor is asking for more money to correct the faults. The initial estimate of $100 million, had a contract signed for $140 million ( and thereabouts) and now may have a finishing price of over $500 million, if finished. (Remember the Racing Complex). But seriously, blimp, blimp, who pays the price?

PHILIP AYOUNG-CHEE
San Fernando