It is a full year since MH370 disappeared. Predictably, the print, television and digital media swung into action dusting off old footage to string together their updated narrative. There was little by way of investigative journalism that threw new light or offered fresh perspective. Most coverage seemed to depend on ‘human interest’ stories: families laid bare their pain, grief, despair, anger, frustration, and joyless existence as they spoke about how they coped with loss, ‘not knowing’, and what they thought of the ongoing search. One saw few reasoned and persuasive arguments urging continued search save those articulated by the ‘directly’ affected: the families of passengers.

In the midst of all this, an idea has been seeded that the search for MH370 cannot go on for much longer since funds were running out. Tax payers of countries that have committed funds for the search have grumbled that in all fairness, the search cannot ride on their tax dollars for long.

Rationally, one can argue that the search cannot indefinitely go on. At some stage it must pass on to bounty hunters, well-funded salvage enthusiasts or technology geeks who cannot let this search challenge go away. If not found, it must remain till unearthed along with oil, gas, minerals or metals… Or excavated as archeological remains in some future time.

Instinctively, however, one feels that it is premature to wind up the search. The two year search for AF447 sets a baseline of expectations though the circumstances and probabilities for success were different in that instance. As an interested party who wrestles with the many unknowns of MH370, one would like the search to go on for much longer even if the public couldn’t care anymore..

Maybe the arguments need to be made differently.

Passengers from 14 countries were on MH370. Yet it is unclear why the search bill is being carried by the troika of China-Australia- Malaysia. Surely this is not based on international conventions? Is it to avoid the nuisance of too many questions and misalignment? Is it pride? Is it vanity? Were offers made by other countries spurned, or politely refused?

There is perhaps a case for all countries offering civilian air services to contribute to a Contingency / Emergencies fund for search and rescue / recovery or other emergencies that threaten lives. To state the obvious, nationals do not travel to their international destinations only in their own national carriers. In most instances people exercise choice based on desired comfort, convenience and costs. Furthermore, the fruits of search, rescue, recovery and accident investigation do not accrue only to countries from which the accident-affected carriers originate but to all. In light of this, all countries have an obligation to contribute to air travel safety in all parts of the world. Therefore, their contribution to a fund such as what has been referred to above logically follows.

What if the 3 billion air passengers per year were to pay a dollar towards the Emergency /contingency fund? Would it not be sizeable and help eliminate inconsiderate excuses for not trying hard enough in the event of an emergency? Sure, this has the smell of a tax or a cess, and for that reason, can be argued against. Most will also argue that they already pay tax to their Government and there ends their civic duty. However, taxes to Governments have competing claims for deployment. A more specific and targeted contribution that underlines our collective stake in airline safety is what one would like to build on.

Similarly, if all entities in the aviation value chain had similar obligations to contribute to the Fund commensurate to their size (and/or some other acceptable criteria) would it not supplement capacity to deploy the best resources for suitable lengths of time when it comes to accidents or aviation emergencies that threaten lives? It could be argued that this is likely to raise costs of services, and either airline customers will eventually have to pay for the higher costs, or their already ‘low’ margins will be squeezed further. Perhaps such contribution to a Fund needs to be treated as a part of the cost of doing business, and if fares and prices for services have to go up marginally on this count, so be it.

I imagine a multinational agency such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), but sufficiently empowered, with a sense of purpose and urgency, and willing to act – to define the policy, processes and mechanisms for collection and deployment. So we are talking billions of dollars here, well beyond the approx. $90 million that the Southern Indian ocean (SIO) search for MH370 has been costed at. To have a sense of what this search cost in the SIO actually is, consider this: A Boeing 777 costs about $380 million and an Airbus 350, depending on variants costs between $260-340 million.

There will be issues regarding how the Fund is structured, administered, and accounted for. It will in all likelihood be subject to the same pressures and politics that all multi-national or multilateral agencies throw up. No system is perfect. That doesn’t mean we make our peace with the arbitrary, settle with the capricious.

So the issue of funds to sustain the search besides being surmountable, has potential to set in motion a process to create a Fund that can respond to future crises. Call this the optimism of the humanist or the naïveté of a closet dreamer.

One will refrain from bringing up the ease and ever ready willingness of countries to find the resources for weapons and to wage war despite the experience that war neither brings peace nor guarantees security. Many have argued for the re-direction of the war chest as a way to fight poverty, malnutrition, ignorance, disease and other conceivable humanitarian causes. The essential point is that good money chases some dreadful deeds of war disguised as noble causes quite regularly – freedom, democracy, human rights, and other such.

But yeah, the money is there.

The limited wallet size can become an excuse for the lack of will or a better argument. Where there is diminishing public engagement, it becomes easier for authorities to prevail, push through a narrative that absolves them. There are enough signs of a waning public interest in the fate of MH370.. Profession of care, sympathy and concern from family, friends, colleagues and well meaning citizens seems to run parallel with apathy or fatigue, helplessness or wilful forgetting with regard to the unanswered questions that have a bearing on the future of safe flying.

The search for MH370 may yet be wound up. But do know that it can never be because we couldn’t pay the bills.

Image from News18.com

This article originally appeared on my Facebook page.