Monday, July 28, 2025

Blue Robotics


Meantimes back at the scale I'd prefer to inhabit ~ not least because of its potential ~ the Blue Robotics story is of interest. Guy in LA trashes a surfboard and decides, as you do, to try to sail it to Hawaii under solar power alone. Realises that nobody makes suitable thrusters (motorised props) and finds that there is sufficient latent demand in the wider world to produce the first six hundred in his garage and to sell them on.

Aerial drones are ubiquitous platforms for capturing video, but increasingly they are used for ancillary roles in surveying, inspection and reconnaissance. Aside from me, few people want an FPV powerboat that can be driven from a sofa near the seaside; though there's a burgeoning demand for maritime drones for hydrographic surveys on or under water at a reasonable cost.

The fact is, these things ~ like their airborne associates ~ fulfil roles that previously did not exist, being unaffordable. The model above retails at £5000 here, altogether cheaper than chartering boats and crew.

When it comes to drones then (a) waterways and seas are under-exploited and (b) there's money to be made from successful maritime designs.

Though as with all successful enterprises nowadays, it's best begun as a bit of fun.

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Deep-osits


In retrospect the mistake I made with experiments over many years with electrified means of flight, was imagining that it was ever going to be cheap. The front-runners seen here ~ developed in Europe, the US and UK ~ are all taking deposits up front for deliveries from hereon in, although Pivotal (centre) lead Jetson (above) and are far ahead of Axe (below).

Broadly however in terms of pricing the Jetson starts at around $150,000, the one looking like a flea from $200,000 and the spindly one an eye-watering $350,000.

They are a part however of an aviation/boating ecosystem that considers $100,000 as a bargain-basement price for anything you can sit in that moves.

There are though a lot of rich people out there, and if I had the disposable I'd want one too. If you are considering one, and I doubt anyone reading this is, I can offer a little advice that stems from a lifetime in and around aircraft.

Firstly, they haven't started crashing yet and are not immune to accidents that even a computer won't get you out of. I began my flying career sat with a parachute built into the seat, and I think I'd still want something similar strapped to my backside in the event of flying any of these.

And the temptation to fly low in each of these ~ watch the promo vids ~ is contrary to a century or more of aviation practice that views considers height to be the best possible insurance against death. The Jetson has two propellers at each corner for redundancy, but inadvertent collision with unseen elements of the urban landscape means you are going down... and doing that from 50' or 100' feels much like 1000'.

On balance, which would I choose? Well helicopters have always been about specific roles and flexibility of use, while fixed-winged aircraft have always been about going places. The Jetson is therefore a great means of hopping between your super-yacht and the shore, or else flying for pleasure.

It is and always will be, however, decidedly limited by physics in terms of range and endurance. Add wings as Pivotal have done, and you can reduce the power used in vertical take-off and landing from 80% to an extraordinary 10%... helis like Jetson recover only a fraction of that efficiency once in forward motion.

The one advantage I can see for the Axe in conventional terms would be its ability for rolling take-offs and landings. The most successful fixed-wing VTOL in practise was the Harrier jump-jet, but its fuel-consumption in the hover ~ where it was near twenty times less efficient than a helicopter ~ was significantly reduced during what were called short-field take-offs and landings with nozzles nearer 45° degrees 90°.

What eVTOL developers have found from flight trials is that near-vertical take-offs and landings burn through a sizeable proportion of fuel reserves, which is probably why they all still feature wheels.

Whether it makes the Axe worth almost twice the Pivotal or three times the Jetson I shall leave to you, but clearly there are people out there that do.

The joker in the pack as ever, though, has to be the Chinese. As a paid-up member of the Vertical Flight Society I cannot help noticing that ALL the latest developments in means of personal mobility like these stem from thereabouts. They are in process of making the global market for EVs their own, and I see no reason why this need not be extend into spaces soon to be occupied by PAVs or 'personal air vehicles'.

They may yet be altogether more affordable in fulness of time, like the family car.

Whether it happens while I'm still about is questionable, so I'll just keep droning on.

Saturday, July 26, 2025

Clutterfuck


This nice man, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX68_FZl8UE explains how it is that the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been largely confined to port whilst its senior personnel have been fired over losses which their replacements have proven equally helpless at preventing.

Aerial drones are comparatively simple to shoot down ~ unless their numbers prove an issue in itself ~ because they are relatively easily detected by radar, and shot out of the sky by radar-controlled means.

Apparently this is not nearly so easy when it comes to drones that move on water, because the sea is as adept at reflecting radio waves as it is the light waves that make for all of those sunsets captured on our holidays.

What this means is that once within anywhere upto about 1000 metres from a ship, drones are really only detectable by sight... which at night means not at all.

We could be living in an age where lots of big things looking for each other with a view to kill is replaced by lots of smaller, like mammals fighting over territory that dinosaurs once ruled. At the outbreak of both world wars, military leaders were also seen as dinosaurs... and I suspect that they still move among us.

As yet though drones have dominated air rather than sea, building as they do on a rich heritage of RC hobbyists flying model aircraft and more recently multicopters.

In contrast, the reason maritime drones still look like scaled-down boats is that little thought has been expended on how they might be improved.

A situation that may yet be set for a sea-change.

Friday, July 25, 2025

Skewered


Here's another top tip for eliminating fasteners: laminated XPS of the kind we're using at present is easily fastened with either tooth-picks, cocktail sticks or indeed kebab skewers. Titter ye not, as Frankie Howard may say: the latter are almost indestructible, being from places prone to hurricanes where plant-life has evolved to bend and not to break.

Kebab skewers are harder to source once summer aisles are depleted at the store, where you should check with staff that they are suitable for flight in ground-effect. An alternative is Aldi Wagyu Beef Kebabs at just £3.99, including four skewers that I shall be stress-testing in the lab once I'm done eating. 

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Wickesepedia


In an effort to make the build simpler and quicker, besides eliminating brackets and fasteners, I've looked again at a Wickes product called NoMorePly. It's extruded polystyrene (XPS) sheet laminated both sides so as to eliminate plywood... as the name suggests.

It is designed to be suitable backing for tiling, but it meets our purposes admirably: easily cut, lightweight, robust and waterproof from the get-go.

I've cut the 600mm by 1200mm sheet into four and devoted two parts to either side of the deck, a third to the keel and another to stabilisers that we'll see soonest: the split along its length being 280/280/320/320mm.

I secured the keel the last time I used this material with a plain abutment and was not entirely happy with the result. Here then I have carried it through the deck like a 'dagger board' so that filets of adhesive can be applied to all four corners where the parts intersect.

It's not the fastest adhesive you see here, but then neither is it the most expensive. If you're in more of a hurry, fast-setting epoxies can be used instead.

The sheet weighs 3.74kg or eight pounds and is black, which saves on spray-paint.

And £17 per sheet is not a bad price to pay for a hull, all things considered.

Warrying?


From 'sliders' to 'sea-gliders'...

The UK is increasingly relying on foreign supplies when it comes to how the next war ~ which military sources admit it would lose ~ is likely to be fought, now that 60% to 70% of losses in the current one in Europe are attributable to drones.

The British Army are therefore trialing 'kamikaze' drones from Helsing, whether air launched or sea... like these here, which 'fly' under water.

The company's domain is 'ai' because it combines areas of expertise the UK fails at: specifically the facility to mass produce drones beside AI to make them independent of communications.

In WW2 the UK combined with Russia to defeat Germany ~ strange world, eh?

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Prince Regent


What's nice about the German Slider we looked at yesterday is that the work of its pioneer has been taken forward by his son, with modern means reviving an aircraft that needed a leg up in order to realise commercial returns.

A wholly new venture in ground-effect is the Viceroy aircraft from Regent, designed to finally realise the potential returns from flight over water at competitive cost and much reduced environmental impact.

The reason water has been underused by aircraft is two-fold, the adverse affects of saline water on alloy aircraft, beside the surplus of concrete runways left after WW2 that are still used today in the form of any number of international airports.

Said airports are, like much else however, a blight on the landscape and one of the planning committee that looked at the feasibility of turning a US base into Stansted later came to regret its desecration of an otherwise bucolic rural landscape in Essex. 

Nonetheless we needed means by which we could desecrate the larger world by way of low-cost flights that wrote off the cost to the atmosphere... and why not, as most of us won't be here to bear the consequences? But ground-effect aircraft like these need little by way of the built environment while suffering altogether less from the effects of sea-water on corrosion.

A criticism of eVTOLs is that they represent simply another means by which the rich can move around more quickly, as they do in helicopters currently from one side of Rio to the other. It's true of high-speed rail efforts in the UK, which would principally serve the rich by either extending the capitol's suburbs to greener landscapes, else allowing them to attend football matches in person in the North of England for just the day... which was at least the plan.

What Regent are doing is altogether more credible as a universal means of moving coastal communities around at a reasonable cost, however, and they have done so by combining three realms of travel for the very first time.

Conventionally seaplanes have literally had difficulty getting off the ground (or sea) due to the disproportionate drag produced when travelling fast on water. The use of hydrofoils mitigates this obstacle, allowing for a seamless transition between travel on a displacement hull to elevation on hydrofoils and from thence into flight within ground-effect... and vice-versa.

As with ground-effect efforts of the past, obstacles to hydrofoils have been largely overcome by electrification. Firstly, stabilising the ride height has been addressed by computing power. Secondly, the chances of collisions with flotsam and jetsam that led to high maintenance costs and disruption in the past is alleviated: aircraft like this using them principally as a means of launch and recovery.

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

kt/kW


If there is any value at all left in what I do, then it is this... to replace speed records on water in particular with records pertaining to the efficiency of travel represented by knots per kilowatt. The term kt/kW does not yet exist, and as of now you need to give me a £1 royalty any time you use it.

Look however at how little energy is required for a surface-effect vehicle to pace a powerboat, and how little a footprint it leaves in doing so (although there is a small Chinese guy in the one up front and at least two at the rear).

Innovation stems from young people who have yet to realise that getting out of bed is not really worth it, which is why it's in vertiginous decline in places like the UK or US, paradoxically. Though China's population is also ageing, with so many of them in the first place there is still a surfeit of young entrepreneurs.

A tragedy of surface-effect is that most of its pioneers, invariably from Italy, Russia or Germany, passed on or gave up when the cash ran out. This is because prior electrification of transport combined with ubiquitous computing power and modern materials, prototyping was exorbitant.

Even now, experimenting and designing the craft in the picture involved 240 days and lots of polystyrene prior to a successful manned test-flight... it's usually men, specifically those without better things to do.

You can view the effort at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV-VmuJpGsU

The technology dates back to Gunther Jorg and his 'Flairboats' in the 1970s, which were so much more fun in this and every other way than the 2020s. The notion is being revived at scale at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8einbiG1d0Q where they claim that you are watching the world's first ground-effect drone.

Technically that may be true, it traveling on land and sea in ways Regent's aircraft does not.

We'll look at theirs next, should I be bothered to get out of bed.

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Rigid Deflatable Boat 2.0


Revised experiment for what it's worth. Germ of an idea but I'm very aware of the input required to bring a concept to market. Pour encourager les autres, maybe?

Sunday, July 13, 2025

Air India, Answer's 42?


Having done due diligence viz. read preliminary crash report, the ‘fuel cut-off’ safety bulletin and Honeywell’s glossy brochure I can confidently state we’re no nearer the truth.


But of most concern to the ‘fliterati’ of which I’m a founding member was the time it took to shed light on an accident involving a near-total loss of hull and life, yet led to no fleet-wide safety recommendation in the aftermath. This can only mean that those in the know were in the know very soon after the event, and possibly within minutes.


For satellite communications routinely relay maintenance data to manufacturers of engines and airframes, including failure analyses. And of these, your double-engine stoppage is given top billing. I’m no expert, but am throwing that ADS-B in there as a possibility?


Back to suicide though (before I set the ‘mise en scene’) ~ of which there are some half-dozen recorded cases and more prior involving life insurance. For there is likely no better time nor way of doing this than stopping both engines on take-off at time ending :42 and just three seconds after becoming airborne. Having been an airline pilot too long, I don’t view it as something too tasteless to ask, or at least not given the tastelessness of two hundred fatalities.


And back to review the only eye-witness account which featured only an alteration to the cabin lighting that we attributed to engine generators dropping off line and the subsequent switching… and the BANG, which remains unattributed?


The latter had me thinking, but firstly let's re-cap those engine fuel cut-off switches. They are and always have been the means of starting or stopping jet turbines. At start a motor run on compressed air cranks the engine to a 'max-motoring' RPM at around 20%, when the fuel is introduced by manually shifting a lever (as was) from CUT-OFF to RUN; and to stop the engines at the gate, simply reverse this motion in quick succession. 


I say switches, because modern airliners with computer-controlled jet-engines use these instead of mechanical controls to provide fuel to start, re-light or stop jet engines when otherwise pilots would have manually operated a lever. If you're still with me, give yourself an airline transport licence.


Now on the ground at the get-go and gate, the switches are operated by PF or pilot flying, which in the case of the ‘accident’ was the co-pilot. Until recently aviation on the Indian sub-co was administered by old farts, and the sensible way to circumvent this was to obtain a licence fraudulently. It meant though that for a long time only the captain started the engines and taxied to the runway, but under pressure from manufacturers this is rarely any longer the case... although some aircraft out there still only sport a single 'steering wheel' or tiller for the captain.


This though is the only time ~ and on the ground ~ when fuel-cut offs are operated unguarded by either pilot or indeed the design of the mechanical switch. Airborne neither switch is manipulated without duel consent, which is natural given you may be about to shut down the one engine you have left. To stop inadvertent selection, what once were levers but are now switches have to be lifted out of a 'detent' or an internal catch before they can be raised or lowered: the switch in the picture is the  type on the 787, less a plastic knob-end (of the kind on switches and not seats).


So far so bad, and so as to the safety bulletin regarding these switches, SAIBS are issued by the thousand. You know when you’re so bored you read the safety card? Well pilots do that with SAIBs. And flying being (like Parkrun) a competitive sport tho' we pretend it is not, there's always the pilot who says 'Let me stop you there, Kev, because I do believe that’s the Honeywell 4TL837-TD you’re referring to and not the TC' whilst adding another tick to his book.


But the SAIB regarding the switch basically says that the guard may be missing if you try it, and if you do so and it is missing then it needs replacing soonest. Such SAIBs however are divided among a to-do list, and I suspect this one to have been given top billing since the crash. Previous though it was a ‘nice to do’ and thus kicked down the road, being something of a pain in everyone's ass, like the curtain-pole you're not fixing until prior the first viewing.


Yet engines do not turn themselves off, because we’re not driving Teslas, so what else might cause this in the circs: whether external, internal or human?


Regards the first, despite aviation analysing anything you could think of forensically ~ and thus being aped for safety purposes by every other organisation ~ one thing I can call to mind that happened like clockwork (yet merely viral among colleagues) was a bang on take-off at Belfast, where 737s used the same runway on the same shuttle to London incessantly and ALWAYS took off at the same point. Thereabouts on the runway there was a depression resulting from wear-and-tear that crew would experience as a marked BANG from the undercarriage much like the government does to us with its pothole program.


On one occasion flying with the good ship Evans ~ who went on to senior roles at Easyjet ~ we heard such a report on departing LHR and left the gear down to return by way of a precaution. (In those days the 737 had a spy-glass under the carpet in the cabin where you could inspect the landing gear… passengers would ask me why they had to move and I'd tell them it was so that we didn't die.


Could this have accounted for both the BANG the survivor heard, along with shock displacement of much-too-easy-to-move cut-off switches? No, but one Poirot would throw into the mix as he leant on the mantelpiece. The prelim confirms it, too, as it states cut-offs were moved three seconds after take-off and a second apart: much, as Poirot points out, as they may were they used during a routine shutdown.


As yet, the CVR only reveals that one or other pilot asked the other why the other just did that ~ as you may, should you be dying ~ but the great and good say they have yet to analyse whose voice is whose. One belongs to a fifty-six year old and the other to a thirty-two, so I guess it’s not rocket-science; the US sufficiently is litigious however to defer this even were it Darth Vader chatting with Minnie Mouse.


So listen up you at the back, because though I’m as bored with this as you are, there will still be questions.


During take-off it remains routine ~ I cannot be bothered checking, it being 2025 ~ for captains to rest their hands on the thrust-levers, so as to be able to call STOP in the event of emergency prior take-off, and pull them back soonest. (In a concession I recall British Airways let PF leave a hand there, the captain's resting gently on top: leading to at least one same-sex marriage at the airline.)


Assuming the captain though to be charged with the thrust levers, the PF or co-pilot is wholly concentrated on keeping several hundred tons of aircraft going straight, as marked by a white dashed line from which ‘cats-eye’ style embedded lighting is off-set. (Eventually during this phase I could tell when the twin tyres of the nose-wheel straddled these lights with nairy a drift left or right, given the knocking that ensued otherwise. I really was that good, at least before that crash that took it all away).


Then at the call of V1 or go-speed the captain will stop covering the thrust-levers to avoid inadvertent mistakes, while PF will pitch toward V2, blue line or safety speed. This is a target for best rate of climb should one engine drop out, beside a few knots for granny. At such time PF will move to cover the thrust-levers, which after lift-off have anyhow come under the command of the auto-thrust: this is because said A/T does not have the last word on reducing thrust in the event of fire or failure, which is left to pilot discretion and a checklist.


So during the take-off the co-pilot has a clear albeit peripheral view of what is going on. Trucks nowadays use cameras with a comprehensive internal and external view and despite it being long a recommendation among aviation authorities it has yet to be implemented, resisted by all concerned and not least aircrew, who may (it has been known) be seeing tits got out up-front.


But in our case under review one or other pilot asks the other why, three seconds after lift-off and prior retraction of the landing gear, the other moved said switches… and we don't know who did what in the absence of video or more info from the CVR or cockpit voice recorder. In response and only seconds later, each switch was set back to RUN in turn, enabling the FADEC (computer controlling the engines) to try for a relight of the sort that is easiest whilst engines are still spinning at speed.


As a consequence one re-light was proving successful ~ likely the later to have been shut down ~ whilst the other proved more problematic. It is intriguing to think that even at this late stage had the landing gear been raised to reduce drag, the aircraft may yet have climbed away. But then life's not always like that.


Reasons though for cutting off fuel switches, by way of re-cap, include (a) life not as good as it could be, and this being a way to end it (b) a mental moment not unlike climbing stairs and wondering why (c) muscle memory that does something that it shouldn’t.


These have all sorts of names amongst what pilots call psycho-babble, but don’t in the UK any more for fear of imprisonment: sequence errors, errors of omission and commission, perception errors and unwritten ‘fuck-you’ errors like landing heavily or taxying extra slowly to aggravate a management who likely deserve it.


What is most telling though is why in this case and when challenged, he who turned the fuel off turned it back on again? Would you do that had you moved the switches OFF on purpose?


Well in a reflex that I’ll call ‘naughty corner syndrome’ and which I hope appears in textbooks, it may be a caught-in-the-act response or simply a change of mind or a reversal of an inadvertent action whilst the situation might still be recovered. For the only other part of the CVR transcript we have relates to a MAYDAY call in which they forgot to identify the aircraft with an emergency and a suggestion to air traffic control that there was simply no (or insufficient) power.


So we’ve considered external (or pot-hole) besides human reasons for de-selection, but what of internal? Moving one wrong switch or any when none require it is known as ‘finger trouble’ among pilots, but inadvertent switch selection might also be known as ‘flying object’ trouble should anything removable collide with switches.


Fighter jet cockpits are as sterile as operating theatres and should you drop even a pin, have to be taken apart until it is found and removed. Airline flight-decks are a smorgasbord of past meals, a detritus  of lost pies and bottles that has worked its way to the deck below and sits on a tarp that protects the electricals: remove it and its contents and you’ve a ready-made picnic.


(Landing once in Sweden I registered something like a large rodent pass by my feet only to disappear thus: a two-litre bottle of water so large and unnecessary as to need reporting to our equally large and unnecessary management.)


'Could then an object have knocked both switches down inadvertently, mon amis?


'Non, and not unless it did so in a sequence one second apart!’ exclaims Poirot.


For here’s the rub: despite switches being selected OFF at time :42 and one pilot asking the other why he had done this, the other said that he had not.


I'm going to leave you with Columbo now in his crumpled mackintosh as he gets to the door, ruffles his hair, holds his hand to his forehead and turns back to say:


'There’s just one thing I can’t figure ~ which I mentioned to Mrs Columbo ~ just how it is that one pilot knows the other has cut the switches anyhow? As a young PF here I'm fixated on those instruments at a critical phase yet able to link dual engine failure to something that never happens and query it for the benefit of the tape?' 


'I’m gonna need a coffee here because I’m wondering if the captain drops his hands from the thrust-levers via those switches, selects them off and and then asks pilot flying why HE just cut the fuel off... that same pilot who says that he hasn’t?'.


For Agatha Christie, mysteries were not something to be considered super-human but invariably something altogether less so. It may yet have been the aircraft and not the crew, but a reason to demur in the case of aircraft accidents is that should the cause prove embarrassing, it no longer matters as we're already onto the next.


Like Gregory House MD, I'm just the one penning stuff on the whiteboard. 

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Stretching a Joke


In the ongoing effort to avoid having to fork out for the sort of fabric used in RIBs I rinse what I've got in a mild solution of PVA and water and leave it out to dry in the sun, as the ancient Greeks probably did.

But I mean, there's got to be more to life?

Deflated


When you're down and troubled and need some loving care, and nothin', nothin' is going right I do what Carole King does and take a folder of my patent specifications down from the shelf.

Whereas Kate Moss never got out of bed for less than ten thousand pounds, these days I cannot get excited about projects that look set to shift less than ten thousand units.

Though I think this one might, despite its dating back nearly twenty-five years. Like the drone at www.teledrone.com though it's been revived by advances in electrical motors, specifically outboards of that type.

For bar none, rigid inflatable boats have blown every other type out of the water in terms of numbers. But like the guy in London who figured carpet cleaning could be better done by sucking instead of blowing, there might be nautical mileage in boats that are deflated instead.

And what else would you do on a Monday morning than give it a whirl? And armed with sheets of stretchable fabric and MDF ~ beside a vacuum ~ I did just that. And you can see the result at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLWW7XThBGU

Remarkable thing is, like many of the best inventions the RIB or rigid inflatable was effectively pioneered by a group of sea scouts and their leader at a school nearest the Bristol Channel. And all they did at the get-go was to add plywood at the bottom of the boat.

The advantage of a deflatable boat however is that it could be flat-packed and ready to deploy in seconds, and cheap as chips: think of it as IKEA on water.

Ultimately whether I advance this or the drone depends on which I see as being the most fun. And as I can sit on it and float gently down a stream like the Leeds and Liverpool canal then this has to be a contender, as life is but a dream. And as it appears from the work of Desmond Hoare (RIB), Christopher Cockerell (hovercraft) and Tony Blair (Iraq), we've a habit of blowing things up and being left deflated...

The test ~ with my trusty Miele on its lowest setting ~ sounded like a descent to the Titanic in a home-built submarine. Watch on full volume, therefore, and be afraid.

Monday, July 7, 2025

Fold


Here's a remarkable fact for you: since the 1970s the rate of company formation in the US has halved and it is broadly an indicator of the economic health of a country.

Nonetheless it remains true ~ since the Industrial Revolution ~ that as often as not the key inventions which underly our prosperity stem from individuals prior to their incorporation.

In the US it is still possible to procure sizeable investment prior to incorporation and I've attracted interest in the recent past to the tune of a half million dollars from an organisation that appears to prefer to review prospects on that basis.

In the UK, in contrast, whilst there is little interest in investing in an individual with an ideas nowadays, there was once in the shape of the 'British Technology Group' that financed the development of an idea of mine back in the 1980s. The evolution of this government initiative stemmed from the amalgamation of the NRDC and the NEB, the former having financed development of the hovercraft: which also sprang from individual experimentation.

What happened to the BTG is instructive, however. Assigned the task of commercial exploitation of inventions from both universities and individuals, it was best known for having backed the development of MRI scanners and monoclonal antibodies, of the sort that we practically depend on nowadays for surviving pandemics, for inst.

Inevitable then that it should have been privatised and like all else stemming from Thatcher's efforts to empower individuals... sold off to a US corporation.

So for those of you mulling the government grant I applied for (and which doubtless because of this blog and the transparency it provides you've yet to reply to)... you're off the hook.

P.S. had to list under aerospace manufacture as nothing related to the production of drones, tho' there would still be a classification for whalebone corset manufacturers. 

Wednesday, July 2, 2025

Death Trap?


In a turbulent world I like to highlight the 'good news' stories, but there aren't any.

Here though an issue of note that touches on the past which is all I have nowadays. No fewer than 180 ex-services personnel are suing the Ministry of Defence for early presentations of various cancers... and winning, despite the MoD refusing to accept liability.

The issue appears to focus on the inhalation of exhaust fumes from helicopters, and looking at the pictures you could understand why: invariably helicopter turbines are situated on the roof, while winch men like the ones pictured in the BBC article were sat all day at the doorway directly underneath.

Many though are ex-pilots, some of whom trained the royal family who were given helicopters to play with, sensibly because this was viewed as the least likely way to die: unless you spend your working life in one. Accordingly there could be a simpler explanation, and that relates to the cabin air drawn from the compressor stages of the engine and used for cabin heating and cooling, beside pressurisation in airliners in particular.

Briefly, the compressor spools go round and round and their bearings are lubricated with oil to keep that happening and when oil overheats (as it likes to do in bearings) then the oil vaporises and chemical additives are ingested eventually into the lungs. 

This was an issue among airline pilots, but you are up against airline manufacturers and oil companies and the revenue they provide their governments... not forgetting the fact that together they get us to the seaside each summer. Failing to investigate such issues is a corporate corruption that we all take part in, therefore, in the way that we're all involved in killing Russians and Palestinians whether we choose to or not.

One reason these campaigns die:

The BA cabin fumes campaign refers to efforts by aviation unions and some crew members to raise awareness and address concerns about potential health risks associated with contaminated air in aircraft cabins. This campaign highlights instances of "fume events" where engine oil fumes, potentially containing toxic compounds, enter the aircraft's ventilation system and contaminate the air breathed by pilots, cabin crew, and passengers.

...is that the people running them keep dying, so that it's a bit like trying to arrange football tournaments from the trenches in WW1: sadly they're likely to be one-offs.

Though many years ago I did attend a small convention at Cranfield, which was like a coach-tour to Lourdes... following lame, wheelchair-bound and confused people into a small hall for a series of personal presentations. Remember the fallout from the Icelandic volcanic ash that shut down trans-Atlantic aviation? Well the captain who flew the Easyjet flight immediately following its engines having had a chemical rinse was sat like 'House' with his stick behind me.

And what struck me too was the number of oil-rig workers: the same services that turbines provide airliner cabins also service the living quarters and all else on North Sea oil-rigs. And indeed I had myself experience of a 'fume event' shortly after the engine start on an old Airbus taxying out at Manchester one night, its tell-tale odour of 'sweaty socks' being unmistakable; albeit most co-pilots wore sweaty socks.

The thing is, children, that when adults get together in groups they're emboldened to act in immoral ways that otherwise guilt and shame would most likely prevent them from pursuing in their individual lives. Yes, we all enjoy watching people die on YouTube over coffee and pastries, but it's not something we actively participate in until we join the airlines, or the Catholic Church.

Funny thing is ~ and I came close from time to time ~ were we to be asked whether we still wanted to fly helicopters if it meant dying sooner, most of us would still say yes the way few teenagers connect flying a fast jet with killing themselves or others, at least at the outset.

Set homework for next week: An Irish Airman Foresees his Death, W.B.Yeats.