FLYER Forums

kanga wrote:
[Incidentally, in that respect, they sometimes resemble obscurer and underreported Select Committees of the House of Lords. There, non-political cross-bench Peers can often provide expertise, and penetrating scrutiny of Bills and witnesses, in ways in which Commons ones cannot.]

I assumed you were about comment on the smell of fox p*ss... I mean, ermine....

Rjk983 wrote:

kanga wrote:
[Incidentally, in that respect, they sometimes resemble obscurer and underreported Select Committees of the House of Lords. There, non-political cross-bench Peers can often provide expertise, and penetrating scrutiny of Bills and witnesses, in ways in which Commons ones cannot.]

I assumed you were about comment on the smell of fox p*ss... I mean, ermine....

[as no smiley ..]

no, I was not. There is an extraordinary range of expertise among cross-bench Peers, very few of whom are there because of any family privilege. Many attend only when there is a Chamber or Committee debate on which they have relevant expert knowledge, frequently greater than that of a Minister or Official. Bills are often usefully amended thereby, which is one reason why Lords Amendments are often accepted by Ministers in the Commons.

kanga wrote:

Rjk983 wrote:

kanga wrote:
[Incidentally, in that respect, they sometimes resemble obscurer and underreported Select Committees of the House of Lords. There, non-political cross-bench Peers can often provide expertise, and penetrating scrutiny of Bills and witnesses, in ways in which Commons ones cannot.]

I assumed you were about comment on the smell of fox p*ss... I mean, ermine....

[as no smiley ..]

no, I was not. There is an extraordinary range of expertise among cross-bench Peers, very few of whom are there because of any family privilege. Many attend only when there is a Chamber or Committe debate on which they have relevant expert knowledge, frequently greater than that of a Minister or Official. Bills are often usefully amended thereby, which is one reason why Lords Amendments are often accepted by Ministers in the Commons.

Very remiss of me, I have edited my original post. Tongue was firmly in cheek, I would much prefer that we still had a full house of hereditary peers and appointed experts [and I stop here so I don’t get barred for political posting...]

BBC gist of AAIB report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... s-62086128

"..a forced landing after its battery was switched off as part of a flight test.."

Unsurprisingly, Flyer gave a more competent summary of the AAIB report, along with a link to it.

https://flyer.co.uk/ad-hoc-changes-to-f ... per-crash/

A very very competent job by AAIB in my opinion.

G

Some fascinating info there in all areas, and I came away having thought a lot and learned a lot, as always the danger of assumptions!

I was intrigued at the way certain I imagine highly commercially sensitive parameters for the fuel cell were redacted.

Couldn't they have done their tests in a less expensive aircraft?

An old nail piston Malibu is hardly an “expensive” aircraft given the constraints of the mission.

Grelly wrote:Couldn't they have done their tests in a less expensive aircraft?

For what they were doing, and compared to the cost of developing the powertrain, the aircraft looks pretty inexpensive to me. I doubt that the airframe cost as much as 10% of the overall project, and likely rather less.

G