Wired

Whilst we enjoy the sunshine here in the UK and people in flip-flops at a place not altogether different from the Nova music festival sing along to chants about killing Jews, some 2000 miles to the East there's a whole different vibe: the optical.

In fact the Ukrainians mark 2025 not so much the year Rod Stewart shuffled onto the stage at Glastonbury, as the year during which warfare changed radically again.

And its war by Deliveroo, Ukrainians making their own napalm from bulk purchases of soap and so forth, and dropping it in lemonade bottles.

Optical drones though sprang from a 'military accelerator' deployed in Russia; which differs from the model here where we ponder by committee for months prior to awarding the grant to BAE Systems after all, because 'nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM'... until now.

In fact the much-vaunted recovery of territory on the eastern border of Ukraine has been reversed almost exclusively by what is effectively fishing twine: optical fibres up to 30km long that preclude the jamming of communications with drones, whilst allowing deaths to be viewed in colour and at a higher resolution. Given life on the sofa here, what's not to like?

The irony is that if you check out the Ali Babas selling these reels ~ relax everyone, I don't need proscribing ~ you would never guess what they were for. Extra long-range fly-fishing aside, however, there's only use for them and it's blowing people up to make money on YouTube.

Which like Alan Partridge I was going to mention in the chat box, but thought better of it.

The off-the-shelf netting that we use here mainly for protection against 'black ops' like golf is a reliable form of protection... will look nice in the Cotswolds, won't it?

Dronehenge

Around the summer solstice I like to mark the event by inviting a few young friends to dance naked on the lawn, and I've asked Prince Andrew to sponsor it.

Hereabouts though was once the largest inland mere in the UK, boggy terrain that almost sank the world's first passenger railway before it had even begun.

I like to think should we be inundated again and the wood preserved in peat, many centuries from now Melvyn Bragg ~ who'd still be alive ~ may host a radio program where archaeologists suggest that this is a site where Colin's ideas went to die.

The pic concludes construction: at left the first to be used for test-rigging the motor and rudder, at right the second for testing on water and at rear the beta-product to test our stock design from the website.

Vee-sectomy

Alternatively to stiffen things up you can foreshorten the prow as I've done here in the OR. First release the ski and then after removing say five inches of length from each of the sides prior, re-fit the hub.

Strip Club

This the second prototype, when I used 4mm stripwood instead of 6mm for laterals and came to regret it ~ the front-end feeling wobblier than I would have liked.

But it's all about versatility in the field nowadays, isn't it Gromit? Accordingly you're able to stiffen these up on the fly with, say, carbon fibre batons like these.

If you do so, use a washer at the rear and a large-head rivet on top so as to spread the load... and run a squeeze of silicone in a 'silicone sandwich' along the length to take up the slack.

Mounting Excitement

I realise whilst we await the furniture-foot-come-motor-mount that left over from the cat (and before that, left over from the quadcopter) I've a U7 motor ready to pin to the boat in much the same way it was prior. You have to be creative when you are prototyping and especially so in order to keep the costs down, which I've a laser focus on nowadays.

Glued to the rear face of the motor is no less than a wardrobe bracket whose main advantage for our purposes is the fact it is available from any DIY store (and more specifically in my case the one within walking distance). It too was destined to hang clothes until one day it realised it had a higher purpose.

If you think this is a bit dodgy, removing these brackets in the past has required a hammer and chisel. What I did previously with it and what we shall do now is to fit a short length of 25mm dowel (or circular timber spar) into the leading edge of the deck with a lengthy screw, recalling the centre-spar used to root the keel is there to cater for it.

In the prototyping trade it's called 'COTS' incidentally, or 'commercial off-the-shelf' and there is nothing more off the shelf than a wardrobe bracket. Online I see that for around £7 you can have one in brass, so long as you're happy with £8 delivery. 

Must say I was tempted, as there's nothing more nautical than a brass fitting. The first prototype is destined to last only long enough to prove a point, however, and not to lie on the seabed until such time as James Cameron decides to visit.

Onward and upward, eh Gromit, onward and upward?

Make It So

If you don't think electric motors and microprocessors will change much at sea, you need to check out Regent's progress. The Rhode Island venture has been flying full-scale crewed prototypes off the back of $9 billion dollars worth of advance orders.

It can operate in conventional displacement mode, or as here on hydrofoils prior to transitioning to flight in ground-effect above the water and whilst the pic is of scale testing, the current prototype is the largest electrical flying machine anywhere.

Subject testing and adapted with canards up front to complement airfoil profiles at the rear, the longer-term aim with the monoski under development is a watercraft able to operate comfortably both on the surface at speed as well as just above it.

Regent's craft is not unique worldwide, now that we are finally able to realise travel in ground-effect ~ something that absent computers, electrical motors and batteries of high energy density was previously unviable.

I think we have to face up to the fact that in so far as the UK goes, when it comes to transport we're no longer able to achieve anything much on a grand scale as we used in the past.

We may still make a difference when it comes to drones, but the jury's out.

What you can see from the pic though is that the machine is using only a fraction of the energy to go rather faster than the conventional RIB in trail. With the monoski under development all that remains beside these desiderata (Ed. come on, WTF?) is something that uses only a fraction of the material normally required to build boats.

Footloose

Ordered a sample* because in my book when it comes to developing a prototype you can't argue with free.

When building cats https://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/6-flat-cat.30015/ prior to the monoski, which I pursue to paraphrase JFK not because it is easy but because it is difficult and because I'm that stupid, I used something like it to mount the motor.

In that case I glued the plate to the back of the motor and drove the shank into the airframe, which proved sufficient and especially so because the motor supported a 'pusher' propeller that drove it towards that airframe rather than a 'tractor' that would try to separate it. 

Happily the centres of those holes are already set at 29mm, not far adrift from the 30mm bolt-holes used to mount the U7 motor. It appears a universe known for slinging mud my way is conspiring to get the mono-ski built?

* Does mean I'm signed up for a newsletter but am always keen to keep up-to-date with the latest furniture feet at weekends.

Only Fans

Okay, just one more but then it's bedtime, right?

I happened upon Captain Steeeve's YouTube channel by a bot called chance, though normally tune in to either Pilot Debrief in the US or Mentour Pilot (stet) in Europe as and when the fancy takes me. The eminently qualified Hoover who hosts the former has thrown his own hat in the ring as regards Air India's 787 and slides all his chips onto a square marked 'shut off the wrong engine'.

Hoover surmises that they may have lost an engine on take-off, in which aftermath the good engine was shut down by mistake. Combined with the drag of an extended  gear, this would account for a gradual reversal of the climb rate, especially should the failed engine still be producing an element of thrust.

A few things are worth examining, based upon the hundreds of assessments I have either observed or performed myself with regard to executing the drills required for an engine failure on take-off (EFATO... we loved our acronyms).

Firstly, the GEAR is often forgotten in the excitement. If you've been in a car crash you will know the feeling of life going by like a projection on a screen before being interrupted by a jarring sensation that what is happening cannot possibly be. I've rejected a take-off at 150 m.p.h. and despite seeing the birds disappear beneath the flight deck and suspecting they were destined for the engine, could not quite believe it when it happened.

Best you can hope for is that at some stage one or other pilot twigs the gear is the reason the aircraft is still not climbing away on one engine.

Second, there is a huge element of DISTRACTION from drills in so far as the pilot doing the flying is wholly concentrated on staying airborne, monitoring drills being a side hustle that you get better at only after many years and constant iteration.

I knew of a 737 flight-test where in plain sight a co-pilot disconnected the electrical generators instead of hydraulic flight controls; and a simulator exercise when they pulled both fire handles instead of deploying both fire bottles, the simulated aircraft descending into terrain with 'flying' urging 'non-flying' to review everything they'd done. At times of stress, you miss the obvious.

Third, our brains are wired in two halves, causing left-right CONFUSION. One of the founders of the study of 'human factors' in flying was David Beatty, and his interest was triggered during WW2 when bombers were ferried 'line astern' to North Africa via the Bay of Biscay. They needed to fly south until, near Gibraltar, they'd only to turn left. The aircraft ahead of him turned right, and was never seen again.

In fact I was six years with the same airline at Heathrow, flying the same route in the same type of aircraft that landed on the M6 motorway after the 'good' engine in place of the 'bad' engine was shut down; if they not been able to restart the former then they would have come down a long way short of even the M6, close to the final stages of the approach.

There's a fourth factor though that goes largely unrecognised, and that the urgency with which the orthodoxy requires an engine with any sort of failure to be shut down and indeed after the East Midlands accident many of the older heads I worked with at Gatwick ~ many trained by the military ~ expressed the opinion that they would rather leave an engine producing any level of performance running.

The training orthodoxy is lost in the mists of time, but challenge it and you'd be out the door with no way back. Aviation like all businesses is corrupt, and a way for bad training captains to maintain their status is to cast unorthodox views as heresy, using 'human factors' to convince the hierarchy you're not the right stuff.

Now with the 'gate closed' however we've the leisure to reflect. Firstly, the training methodology which spread globally stemmed from where most flying took place and from manufacturers: UK, Germany and France in Europe, beside the US. Secondly, airliners started life with a motor in front of the cockpit or else fixed to the spar that supported the wings... and thirdly, they'd fail or catch fire relatively often.

All of this meant that fire drills would require engines to be shut down soonest, fire or not. When jet engines were introduced things were no better, as they were often embedded even closer in the airframe. A feature of the Concorde's demise was the flight engineer had the authority to shut down either engine on fire on the left wing, even should the captain had preferred to keep them running (I believe), but with a re-heated engine so close to the fuel, who'd blame the guy?

Then Boeing discovered that a podded engine strung below the wing made sense if only because it actually unloaded the wing ~ if you pitched weight forward there was less 'flutter' and wings could be made lighter ~ beside making maintenance a whole lot quicker. Meantimes the fire issue and the orthodoxy remained in place and for good reason... I saw with my own eyes a Boeing 707 that afterward departed Heathrow with an engine fire and returned to land on the (then) crosswind runway, apparently only minutes from the fire burning through the wing-spar.

Then things changed, but as with much in life including the internet it takes longer for people to adapt than it does the tech. The likes of GE and RR, boosted by wars in the Middle East and accompanying fuel crises, developed the turbo-fan and what is now considered a jet engine is better considered a jet engine driving a very large fan. So large in fact that those on the 777 are wider than the cabin of the 737 on whose flight deck it was largely based... you can fly both with the extra training.

Now what happened, as again I've seen with my own eyes but via the all-pervasive video footage, was airliners like the Airbus 300 might fly with an unconfined engine fire for the 20-30 minutes required to find a place to land. A reason for this was precisely that growth in the size of engines, and advances in the design and build of landing gear to support it on the ground. Things were better than they seemed, too, because the root cause of many fires is likely to centre on the core of the jet, which was now centred even further from the wing.

Though we've still circs where training overwhelmingly focuses on engine failures on departure, that was starting to change as I was beginning to leave. One reason for the spotlight to move, incidentally, is the increasing automation of airliners, so that for instance 'swing' due engine failure (much like a blow-out in a car) is effectively eliminated in aircraft like the 787.

Why then a rush to extinguish engines without ~ or even with ~ fire at the get-go, given the shock, stress, confusion and distraction which flesh is heir to? And given three-quarters of all accidents are attributable to pilot error? And pending the day when AI will surely intervene like the mainframe in 2001 to say, No Dave, I can't do that?

What Hoover is saying, in conclusion, is that given both engines failing were a cause for the RAT to deploy, the most likely reason (given a choice of fuel contamination, bird-strike or pilot error) is statistically the latter. And who'd gainsay that? He points out no-one else has posited it as a likely cause, and likewise no-one outside these pages has suggested electrical glitches might have commanded the same thing... though were I playing poker with Hoover I'd probably fold.

Why the pic, though? The 737 was maybe the only airliner to have been successfully adapted to carry the much larger turbo-fan engine in place of the original fighter-jet engine in the shape of the JT8-D. It left so little ground clearance that the profile could no longer remain round, and pilot notes highlighted the chances of ground contact during landing and take-off. It's failures forced two aircraft that I know of into forced landings ~ one fatal and one not ~ but it went on to be the most reliable engine ever and a perfect marriage of French and American expertise.

Flight training is much like the Catholic Church, the same observances and uniforms required worldwide. I've worked for different airlines around the world, where rites and rituals remain the same. One anomaly is that even should there be a vast length of runway remaining, 'V-speed' rules developed in the UK might require the problem to be taken into the air. When a Chinese captain was punished in Shanghai (along with the whole class) for re-landing an empty airliner following a bird-strike, I was alone in defending him... a Sukhoi-27 jock, excellent trainer and a good egg.

Fey Deck?

I (very) occasionally review the stats and there was a sizeable response to analysis of the Air India crash. Accordingly I've reviewed Captain Steeeve's latest prognosis, which does not add much nor change the gut-feeling that electrical interruption may be key... whether or not the symptom or cause of the engines' demise.

I transitioned (Ed. wait for it, there's more) from a largely non-electrical Boeing in the shape of the 737 to all-electrical in the shape of the Airbus 320.

The latter was uncontrollable absent all hydraulic channels and we were told that it was the norm, so that the loss of a DC10 due just that need not concern us again: until such time as a Russian missile fragmented the rear end of a fly-by-wire type relatively recently, which crashed.

Electrics, same argument and tho' ghosts aren't real, I never felt wholly comfortable at night is thunderstorms a long way from land in electrical types. In contrast I found (in a simulator... don't try this at home on the flight deck) that the 737 like a Cessna just keeps on flying sans electrics, sans hydraulics and sans teeth.

For what links modern airliner levers to the bits both powering and controlling flight is no longer mechanical, but merely a signal to something elsewhere to do some or other. This is true of cars nowadays, and why there are many cases of runaway EVs that cannot be restrained or stopped. Steering thankfully remains mechanical, being the quickest way to depart Earth.

In fact people nearest the centres of power in London would often find their cars did not function at all due interference from high-powered radio transmission. Though much of this has been solved, transport remains ~ and this does include airliners ~ an ongoing experiment.

My own first means of locomotion was a moped that needed no battery (like WW1 aircraft) and self-generated electrical power for lights alone with a magneto whilst the motor was running. To the best of my knowledge the FADEC or digital controller of jet engines retains such a feature in order that should all else (electrical) fail, then thrust from the engines will neither be lost nor continue uncommanded.

So I gathered you all in the lounge here for afternoon tea with a waxed moustache to ask, Could there be an element of electrical 'contamination' linking these events? 

And where was the Reverend Green at the time the RAT deployed?

Now I do not know whether both fuel cut-off and thrust levers only connect FADEC via electrical wiring and ~ you know me well enough by now ~ cannot be bothered by the due diligence.

But could electrical transients have been responsible for transmission of erroneous signals to one or other engine ~ or both ~ commanding a reduction or cessation?

Aircraft accidents require wide-ranging analysis post-event, and long post-event in a way that doesn't suit our tech overlords and their ongoing efforts to reduce the span of our concentration to that of goldfish. Accordingly Captain Cooolin (stet) is unlikely to be commenting more upon this accident, and suggests you get a life. Incidentally Danny Fyne, founder of Pprune, was both my co-pilot and the better man...

Adam Curtis

People ask me what I do in my downtime (Ed. they don't) and one thing I looked forward to was 'A Point of View' on BBC radio on a Sunday morning... sardonic but trenchant views of the likes of Will Self among the highlights. After decades, the programme was pulled, most likely because it required self-examination and jarred with the media belief that no view is better than any other: the internet affording a platform to the village idiot whom previously was ignored.

Accordingly Adam Curtis' documentaries on the decline and moral degeneration of the UK is only available to stream from the BBC ~ for much the same reasons viz. no-one wants to dwell on a ship of state sinking. A continuing highlight of our global contribution is entertainment, but largely in the way the orchestra continued playing as the Titanic went down.

The above is a screen-shot from the latest doc in the series, 'Shifty', which focuses to a great extent upon Margaret Thatcher's revolution that never was. Steve Coogan recently played Brian Walden who interviewed the PM frequently, and suggests that nowadays she would likely be diagnosed with a mental pathology. I've travelled the places Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler pursued their agendas and there is an element of similarity in that each of them pursued policies irrespective of the consequences.

Key in each case is that we prefer not to have to think, which is why so many of us (though not so much in the UK nowadays) go to work: it saves having to question what we do and affords us leisure to complain about things in general: accordingly we're a sucker for anyone who appears to have all of the answers.

(Ed. yeah, and he streamed it from the sofa in his underwear with a four-pack).

Looney Tunes

Looking a little closer, drones able to 'fly' on or under water have been around for over twelve years: this 'Loon Copter' developed at Oakland University in Michigan prototyped in 2014. The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_wiVdY5BWU shows too how well these things work in water, where in many ways they are more impressive than in air.

Why is it only now though that maritime drones are surfacing in public conscience?

Sadly it is in the way that WW1 brought aircraft to public attention, and WW2 led to the broad adoption of air travel by that same public.

Only this week it has been said that the drones of one kind or another will constitute 80% of the British Army inventory; and in the way TVs seemingly went from a box shape to a flat in just a moment, use of drones in all spheres will be normalised by the current generation.

We have discussed the use of ballast in our own drone: this one here was among the first to use it to transition between movement above, on and under the water.

Don't look so stupid nowadays, do I?

(Ed. Yes, he does.)

Re: Build #20

Park a weight on the ski ~ one reason for that flat run-off I described earlier ~ and this bad boy will sit like this all night. To complete this phase of the build I had gaps around the edges of the deck caulked by one of the lower ranks, whilst I enjoyed afternoon tea in the captain's quarters.

Re: Build #19

I've applied a filet of adhesive along the foot of the keel, for one reason because the cut edge of the plywood may leave gaps here. Incidentally if there is an excess of buoyancy in the keel, this is broadly how it will appear at rest in water.

Practically this is no great shakes and has its advantages, so that for instance it can sit in the shallows pending action. A problem though is that it then requires an input of rudder during take-off onto the plane: easy for digital flight controllers but less so for you and me.

Re: Build #18

According to Wikipedia the laying down of the keel is often marked by a ceremony attended by dignitaries, and again we can supply dignitaries to suit your needs so long as you provide the catering and escorts. Drive a screw through to the hub that follows the angle of the ski when under no undue pressure; the screw shouldn't be so long as to fix the boat to the floor (Ed. he did this with PVA yesterday).

With its rear end supported on a couple of G-clamps fixed flush with the underside of the keel and a weight to keep it in place, slide the hydroski until you achieve the preferred curvature. I like it to run straight in the run-up to the leading edge of the keel, which with a 6' (1830mm) ski leaves a 1" to 1.50" (25-40mm) excess... you may wish to remove this for religious reasons, or to provide the footing for a rudder-post.

I personally prefer to remove the excess, because this allows the boat to be stood in the corner of the room... Patrick Swayze permitting. Unique among boats too, this means it can be left standing in order to drain off.

Re: Build #17

Here's where a line feature comes in useful... absent one in your own workshop, we can paint one for you at a cost of only $250. Park the back end (Ed. 'stern' I believe they call it) on timber of the same thickness and fix each stripwood in place with a pair of bradawls. People without two of these were probably the kids who pitched up in class with no pencil-case. Mark out on any timber that is to hand, and cut to suit.

Re: Build #16

Recommend when fitting the laterals that these are trued up on the garage floor but afterward you can park them on a surface like this to provide for easier access.

Re: Build #15

Fasten what remains of the stripwood to the edge-spars on either side of the deck; where these parts stand proud, run a filet of adhesive around the abutment.

The timber will have a natural tendency to bend one way or another and you should work with that: the English long-bow was crafted in ideal sections of yew, sustained draw weights of 180lb and could penetrate armour at 250 yards.

Fortunately tho' our work here is more 'IKEA bargain-bin' than 'Battle of Agincourt'.

Re: Build #14

I've a mail from a builder in Australia who says, 'Your plans call for two-foot spars and yet I come down in the morning and discover you've used longer ones. Don't know how you can live with yourself mate.'

Accordingly I have removed the extensions at the rear and when the issue of the rudder-post rears its ugly head we shall deal with it at the time.

But now we turn to capping the deck, which is done by borrowing a two-foot length from each of the 6 x 25 x 2440 lengths of stripwood that we'll use for the laterals.

Bell... Carve

We discussed placing ballast in the keel space like batteries, though it might result in undue 'pendulous' stability in something designed for banked turns.

Larger bells often feature a counterweight, fixing ballast above the axle to make them easier to swing: a battery up top would have the same affect, bearing in mind deflection of the rudder surface ideally applies roll and yaw in the desired direction. Transferring mass below the axis would result in less roll, and a flatter turn.

One reason for focus on this design and not the catamaran is to mimic the motions of a water-skier on a slalom ski, or a motor-cycle instead of a car. Somewhere an author waxes lyrical about the beauty of a banked turn that can only be experienced on two wheels instead of four and I'm thinking it was 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.

The bell is from Barcelona and pictured upon removal for renovation... kevlar straps were only rarely used by master builders in the Middle Ages.

Re: Build #13

We're familiar with the drill now, clamping the keel-spar in place prior fastening? A question arises though as to whether we fill the interior with foam, an option that is facilitated by this latest design which features a keel open at each end: allowing for ready inclusion of fuel, battery, ballast, buoyancy (or selective buoyancy) modules.

We saw at the local pond how triangular sheets of foam can be used here so as to pitch the deck nose up or down while at rest, as an alternative to shifting payload. We have also seen however that the design suffers from an excess of buoyancy that makes it list to one or other side at rest with much of the deck exposed.

Filling the space here with foam alone would displace some 7lb or 3.25kg, which will be useful should we eventually fit 22000 mAh battery-packs weighing some 2.50kg. For now however the emphasis is on minimising weight and running with the lighter battery-packs, and so for now we'll omit the foam.

Re: Build #12

The preferred method of sealing the interior of the keel is with a specialised tool we call a keel interior applicator, exclusively available from the merch page for $99 with all proceeds going toward a space-rocket shaped like a dildo.

Re: Build #11

I've a mail from a fan and fellow-builder in the UK and he says, 'I note that you've used interior-grade ply and yet we've no way now to seal the keel? You're a cunt.'

Ever responsive to your needs, I've a couple of solutions at this stage of the game: the first to seal the ends of the keel, add a coat of choice, gargle, rinse and repeat.

Note that for illustrative purposes floor-cleaner appears in the photograph; use of unauthorised finishes voids your warranty.

Sea Change

Let's take a break from building for a moment to see what is emerging in the wider world, away from the UK where ~ despite having the longest coastline in Europe ~ things move at a much slower pace, if at all. The best description I've come across for our governance here is that we operate a 'Butler Economy', principally designed to provide services which cater for the rich and connected to managing their wealth.

Almost invariably the leading edge of drone development springs from places like the US and China instead, and the submarine drone that we saw at the expo in Shenzen is, it appears, not as new an idea as we thought. The pic on the right is of the 'Naviator', initially begun as a student proj twelve years ago and developed sufficiently far enough for the US Navy to consider deploying them in places like the Taiwan Strait if it all kicks off thereabouts.

On the left, the 'Saildrone' developed (where else?) in California for surveillance at sea and most recently deployed by Danes to deter people from 'accidentally' cutting undersea cables by the reckless use of an anchor.

'Many people said to me that both air and water operation was not possible.'

...which was said not by me, but by the lead developer at Navigator in New Jersey, whilst in fact I found that airscrews work passably well in water wholly by accident. 

Key takeaways from this are the gestation period: the Naviator having taken a full twelve years to develop to the point that the US Navy might want to include a fleet in their inventory. And how, watching the video, drone motors appear as happy to operate at around 100 r.p.m. submerged as they are at several thousand in the air?

Such questions ~ aside from driving a truck in order to pay the bills ~ are what get us out of bed each morning.

Re: Build #10

I can think of no better use for these than as ballast to set things in place overnight. If it were a beta-product then the deck would come ready-assembled, so that you would have only to slip the keel into place to fasten and filet. I suffer for your sakes.

Re: Build #9

At this stage, if you're happy and you know it and you really want to show it then you can do no better than apply a filet of adhesive down each side. The Spitfire had filets where the wing met the fuselage, but that had more to do with smoothing the airflow at 400 m.p.h. than it does here.

Re: Build #8

... in fact so close as to require tamping into place with a substantial block of timber and a pile-driver in the shape of my ample physique.

Re: Build #7

Using spray adhesive or lashings of PVA as I have done here, cut a section of foam sheet of the same thickness as the spars: it should fit so close as to have delighted the builder of a hammerbeam roof.

Re: Build #6

Taking our trusty G-clamps, set the sides of the keel broadly square and fix them to the centre-spar with five screws, using an offset so they don't clash with each other.

Re: Build #5

Attention turns now to the keel, and again prior to cutting I have posted a little tick on the clean edges, as these will be rooted to the underside of the deck and I want them to sit as true as possible.

Re: Build #4

I've trimmed the forward end and left overhangs at the rear of half the width of the jig-saw footplate, which saves measuring. This will serve to mount the rudder-post and actuator, beside supporting the boat when it is stood on end to drain off after it has been for a dip.

Do you like the rubber feet?

Re: Build #3

I'm going down the 20mm spar route because I've lots of that left over, along with some 20mm foam sheet from a discarded experiment. We don't say 'failed', do we, when we've simply been challenged?

Although the pattern on the site calls for made-to-measure 2' spars, there's nothing wrong with a little overhang because (a) it helps prevent wood from splitting during construction and (b) we'll hang on to some at the rear for reasons to be explained.

I've used four G-clamps to fix the lateral spars so that I can flip it over and apply a line of five screws (one at centre, two at either end and then two more in between). 

Re: Build #2

Here's the deck jig-sawed square so as to leave a rough edge that I've marked with a 'B' to show that it will face the rear and leave everything neat up front for fixture of the motor.

Re: Build #1

Meanwhile back at the boat and hoping it's third time lucky, a final rebuild to prove the method and materials posted on the website at www.teledrone.com

And first off, marking up the pattern on the 2' by 4' sheet of 3.6mm plywood and I have gone large with the felt-tip as no-one is working to microns here.

Deck to the left and keel to the right, marked up in straight halves and a dotted line down the centre of the deck to mark the location of the spar... easy-peasy.

Captain Steeeve Smells a RAT

Closer video analysis apparently reveals that the RAT had deployed during the initial climb of the Air India 787. Despite not having sat on a flight deck for seven years I was pleased to be able to recall that this occurs not only due double engine failure but due major electrical and hydraulic problems... although of course the first cause would lead to the second and third, which is what triggers deployment.

The BANG heard by the one survivor could it seems relate to an interruption to the flow of air through either engine, although again you could not rule out starvation of fuel to some extent leading to a mismanagement of that delicately-balanced airflow with that same result.

In the unlikely event of contamination the focus then shifts then to some extent to vaporisation of the fuel, and again history informs us... the most recent dual failure being attributable to ice clogging the fuel filters during the descent and approach of a British Airways Boeing 777 into Heathrow airport.

Jet fuel has an upper and lower operating limit, the former being circa 49C. Given the temperature was at least 43C at the airport on the day, superheated fuel that is more prone to 'boil' cannot therefore be discounted.

There was during my time flying a hullabaloo after the explosion in mid-flight of an airliner departing the US that was attributed to an electrical spark igniting the fuel vapour in a TWA 747.

Beside this there have been two instances of 737s exploding on the ground due an overheating of fuel in the tanks.

Key to all three incidents was high ambient temperature during a prolonged spell on the tarmac: which was undoubtedly the case in India. A feature of hot weather is that the air conditioning systems are working flat out during stop overs to keep you comfortable, though an undesirable by-product of that is the fact air-con units live close by the fuel-tanks.

Combine all of these sources of heat viz. solar radiation absorption, hot-air exhaust, thermal heating of apron and runway, collective body-heat and on and on... and the safe operating limit of 49C does not seem all that remote any more.

Like AI and its role in flight management, however, this could ultimately be a very modern problem: due human-induced climate change, hotter parts of the world are getting hotter.

Heavy ZEVI

Eager readers (Ed. both of you) will recall how I recently requested a look at the winners of a recent £80,000,000 round courtesy of the Department for Trade and though the round closed in March, it remains instructive. The fear has always been expressed that seeking grants in the UK is in itself a full-time job, which is why it invariably goes to firms who can draw on funds elsewhere to fund the application.

This is borne out by the first of the sixteen pages, where for instance Shell would hope to be in receipt of £30k of taxpayer revenue, having only made £24 billion in the last financial year in the UK.

The way grants often work is that third parties whom the government insist handle applications sprout like mushrooms and consume the bulk ~ or all in the case of individual applicants ~ of the funding.

Simple fact is, the individuals key to the advancement of the Industrial Revolution that began here would be most unlikely to qualify. They were however invited to participate in competitions like the Rainhill Trials at their own expense, although by the time Charles Parsons invented the steam turbine, even that had been quashed.

Shen Zen

From the world's biggest annual showcase taking place in Shenzen, a selection that includes drones which travel, float and swim... the latter boding well for the chances of monoskis launching from rest, aided only by an airscrew like those fitted on this.

AI

One reason for a drift away from mainstream media like UK newspapers or the BBC is firstly the evident bias built into the reporting, besides the corruption* inherent in paid-for media, plus the fact that much of it is fairly shit and no moreso in regard to aircraft accidents: where a far superior analysis is provided by the likes of Captain Steeeve here on YouTube as regards Air India's 787 accident.

Plus whilst I can't be bothered, I'm more qualified myself than most of the has-been 'contacts' available to the mainstream media: I've taught Indians how to fly airliners beside any number of years flying them myself, and was among the first to operate the first 787 flight simulator in Europe... at Gatwick itself, where Air India's 787 was headed. I've also an encyclopaedic knowledge of aircraft accidents, having once literally owned the encyclopaedia.

So here goes... and of the principal speculations, only Steeeve here appears to have nailed the third.

The first to rear its ugly head on YouTube was a failure to extend high-lift devices that airliners rely on to get airborne. Whilst based at Heathrow in fact my airline in concert with many others altered procedures to include this immediately following push-back rather than enroute to the runway. Plus the checklists now operate as an electronic to-do list that cannot be circumvented, plus the warnings should you set take-off thrust when these are not deployed are unmissable.

That said Boeings have been put through take-off runs with these devices retracted, as I recall from an incident with a 727 at Madrid.

Nonetheless as Steeeve points out, the take-off roll appears normal whereas aircraft of this size will struggle to get airborne at all along the length of the runway absent this particular check.

The second is a general loss of thrust, and here is what I (rather than 'we') know:

Large jet aircraft have got airborne and afterward lost all engine power and crashed due fuel contamination, specifically a Vulcan nuclear V-bomber out of West Malling and with water beside fuel in the tanks.

One reason for the above may have been the fact that the pitch up after take-off might have pooled the water at that point where it was drawn off to supply the jet engines. The only other obvious reason for loss of all engines however would be a bird-strike and though this has happened recently to a Boeing in Korea, nothing has happened here that points in that direction.

Nonetheless, and this might be key, the surviving passenger reported both a BANG and a flickering 'green and white' light after take-off. Should an engine fail, electrics are reconfigured and that causes momentary interruption to some supplies, beside the fact modern cabins use LEDs to alter the colour of the interior for your peace of mind; the effect of electrical transients on these systems is anyone's guess.

Bear in mind in either case that beyond a point you would normally have retracted it, the landing gear remained extended. This is an oddity, for in the event of failure of either engine to guarantee a climb-out the landing gear is among the first thing to address. The one exception to this is if the nominated 'pilot flying' (or captain should the captain wish to overrule) feels an impact is unavoidable, the landing gear may be left extended in to absorb much of its affect.

Which brings us to Captain Steeeve's conclusion, which is like the denouement of an episode of Agatha Christie's 'Poirot': instead of retracting the gear on the command of the pilot-flying, the non-flying pilot retracted the high-lift devices (i.e. the flaps at leading and trailing edges of each wing). This would cause a catastrophic reduction in lift and lead to a gradual sink toward the terrain. One reason this sink appeared to be relatively graceful is that as airliners approach a surface, additional lift stems from 'ground-effect': an entrapment of air that increases the efficiency of the wings.

Now having spent around a thousand hours watching crews train in flight simulators and studying accidents and incidents in the wider world, like Steeeve I view this as wholly plausible. Few passengers realise that even modern airliners have levers that are shaped to highlight what they do: flap levers capped with a little flap, or landing gear levers sporting a little wheel.

A pertinent accident I recall stemmed from a training captain's actions in Zurich, leaning forward to pull back both throttles to idle shortly after take-off. Exercises in simulators often focus on this phase, and the fastest way to reset simulated aircraft back to the runway is to pull the levers, drop the gear and hit RESET. It becomes a 'muscle memory' which the hapless captain used purely from habit in the real thing.

What's the take-away from all of this as regards our quest to build a 'flying' boat? Well aside from ground (or surface) effects experienced nearest either ground or water, as ever nowadays the question hinges on the extent to which our lives are automated. The sad fact is that crews continue to be responsible for most aircraft accidents and tho' there are few avenues left for them to effect, procedures nearest the ground are among the most critical.

In the way that you are safer now on the road in an automated EV, in many ways you would be so in 'intelligent' airliners that will make mistakes beyond imagination, but many fewer. For now though, in the event the wrong lever was selected, it may be more 'our' mistake than 'theirs'.

AI... Air India, or Artificial Intelligence?

* Next travelogue you read recommending one destination or other, remember that (a) it's on the airline's route network and (b) the journo was given free tickets.