Security – John Vincent

Future Aircraft Systems

I read that there’s lesson to learn from the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) experience that plagued Boeing. And led to fatalities. There’s a lot that has been written about the tragic saga. Much of great value.

It’s true. Aviation advances as the community learns lessons from incidents and accidents. Yes, there’s variability in the effectivity of this learning process. Occasions when oceans are written about one case and dozens of others are given an inappropriate light touch[1]. A trustworthy centralised repository of safety recommendations from published aviation accident reports is a useful tool. A point of reference. In the first months of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in Cologne, back in 2005, my team established such a database. It’s only possible to track the follow-up of key safety recommendation if there’s a well-maintained administrative system. Safety is often about the intelligent use of data.

Cockpit design, and the human factors issues involved, are without doubt one of the most critical parts of an aircraft. Society is not ready for fully autonomous passenger carrying aircraft. I believe it will happen, in decades to come but the horizon is way off. For certain types of vehicles, autonomy must be the solution given that flight control is beyond human capacities. Here’s I’m thinking mostly of hypersonic and space flight.

For a pilot to exercise responsibility for a flight there’s a need to have, at least, a basic understanding of what a machine is doing. In past times of strings and wires and clockwork instruments that understanding was ingrained knowledge gained from training and experience.

Future aircraft systems will not be easily described as functional blocks that perform well understood and dedicated functions. An autopilot, an autothrottle, autobraking, a flight management system, even an engine. Hybridisation is coming.

That does not mean a pilot must understand the inner working for a multicore microprocessor or complex software algorithm. Flight test pilots being the exception, in this case.

The design goal should always be to make safer systems. Engineering these aircraft systems is not a case of purely fitting together a set of Lego like components. The error made with the MCAS is one that ignored this fact. Interdependencies are manyfold.

Ideally, future aircraft systems, however capable and complex, should be describable, predicable, and ultimately trustworthy. These words sound so simple. One reason this is not simple is that very word – complex. The minute that there’s a massive number of possible combinations and permutations of conditions at may exit boundaries must be set. What’s a little more reassuring is that complexity if far from new in human experience[2].

Just to make the airspace of the future even more complex it’s no longer correct to think of an aircraft as alone and free to make any appropriate manoeuvre. Increasing connectivity, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (AI) all come into the mix.

To stay safe, pilots will have to appreciate how constraints and boundaries are managed. This information must be provided transparently and preferable with options.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/opinions/the-safety-paradox-fewer-accidents-greater-responsibility/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Sustainability in Aviation

Conventional thinking pervades. It’s the model for seeming to be reasonable. To grow consensus and find a middle way through opposing parties. To bend in response to the wind that blows from popular opinion. Institutions are inclined to go this way. This is not surprising when an organisation is set-up to serve a large constituency. There’s the need to emphasise the parts of public policy that coincide with the mission of the institution. To push back gently against the ones that run adverse to that mission too. The Royal Aeronautical Society’s (RAeS) position paper on Airports[1] is a nice example. Here’s a few points that come to mind.

Linking Airports and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) isn’t such a good idea. Yes, there’s the fact that Airports have infrastructure which every form of air transport needs. That’s the upside. The downside is the competing for resources and high cost of the provisions at major Airports. There’s a degree of environmental saturation that can’t be avoided.

One of the greatest opportunities for AAM is that of entirely new air transport links. Afterall, a Vertiport needn’t take up much space. As long at there’s plenty of electrical power and links with other modes of transport there are exciting possibilities.

A long time ago the commuter class of aircraft operations was created in the US. These were referred to as air taxies (fixed wing). The idea was then to open a travel market at a layer below large transport operation. It wasn’t that successful but does show mixes of types of traffic at major Airports doesn’t work out for the smaller parties.

Regional airports, and their potential, are greatly undersold. It’s wrong to see them as merely part of a hub and spoke network. What they do best is to serve their local communities. Having recently flown through Bournemouth (Hurn) Airport for the first time, it’s clear that so much can be done to spread the load and make traveling again a pleasant experience.

To me, I see the emperor’s new clothes. The case of the expansion of London Heathrow Airport (LHR) is not viable. Dressed up as an investment opportunity this continuation of incremental development is what we do badly in the UK. Environmental saturation has hit the rails. The proposers are dressing up a project that is the proverbial putting of eggs in one basket.

I don’t think the same can be said of London Gatwick Airport (LGW). In fact, squeezing the amount of capacity out of what’s there now is a feat of amazing ingenuity. Surely, that major London airport does need a genuine second runway. Even with less good than needed surface access this former racecourse has the ingredients for success.

Yes, I know it’s difficult to get away from London centric thinking in the UK. Nevertheless, that’s what’s needed to ensure the whole country thrives. Airport policies that lump everything else as “others” or under one label as “regional” aren’t tacking the challenges. The UK as major cities. Each has significant needs for air transport.

Some say that environmental objectives and Airport expansion are not compatible. The difficulties are clear to see. Each area of concern needs resources at a level commiserate with the needs. Quality of life, in and around Airports, should not be traded for economic benefits alone. Tackling air quality, water quality, on and off Airport noise, waste management, traffic volumes, overflight privacy, and enhancing biodiversity are not merely nice to haves.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/media/29306/raes-airport-expansion-in-the-uk-position-paper-april-2026.pdf

The Power of Words

Two hundred and fifty years. It’s good to see and hear that we still have decent speech writers and a monarch able to deliver an address with immense style and a fair degree of humour. This week, King Charles III delivered an important address to a joint session of the United States Congress. It’s a wonderful reminder that the spoken word can be powerful.

Now, I’m not saying that these good efforts will change much in respect of world affairs. In fact, my view was that the King may have chosen a better time to make the trip across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, what is, is. If nothing else the perspective the King offered is one that looks over the whole of the experience of relations between the UK and US. Not focusing on the aggressively tribal and divided polices of the moment. Perspective is so important.

The reference to the history about the British burning down the White House, in a raid on Washington, was one I knew. It was part of a story I learned when visiting Baltimore years ago. Walking around Fort McHenry[1] and thinking what it must have been like when the battle raged. 1814 was a turbulent year.

The forging of independence was ferocious. It wasn’t actions that passed quickly or in one simple sweep. If I remember rightly, events were such that they could have gone either way. There were plenty of Americans who questioned the fight as much as there were those dedicated to it.

Here’s where I’m going. One of the factors that shifted the ground was not the cannon and the riffle. Although war did much to determine the outcome. In the end, it was too costly for the British to continue and the Americans were unrelenting and well organised. To fight and win, motivation is at the heart of the matter. There’s got to be compelling reason to commit all the energies needed. To take on all the inevitable risks and suffer the losses.

This is where the name Thomas Paine comes up. Described as an English-born American. He certainly was English, and thus British. He was a writer. Not a warrior or a politician or even a wealthy man. A simple object. A pamphlet stirred the emotions in a way that fired revolution.

He’s best described as a radical. What that means is a person with the ability to light a fire. To take people on a journey from one place to another. That’s frequently met with discomfort, prevarication and grudging reluctance. There’s every reason in the world not to upset the apple cart or to be content with the status-quo. A true radical will not accept this condition. They are not the easiest of people to live with and often come to a sticky end.

There are two things at play in this story of “modern” history. One is the power of the writer and the other is the medium itself, the pamphlet. Both are required for a storm to brew. Both need to be in tune with their times. This is not merely a story of history. Before and after, Paine there were writers and pamphlets but none that resonated so effectively at a critical moment. Thus, words gave momentum to change that stuck.

Today, there seems to be a surfeit of thinkers and writers. The problem is that none of them seem to be sufficiently in tune with the core of our society. The other problem is the medium for dissemination. New pamphlets exist in digital form. Social media is the river that carries the day’s espials, chronicles and visionary tracts.

In 2026, can someone capture what we want, write it down and draw a crowd around it? I think they can. Where are they?

[And it doesn’t have to be more than 90 pages long.]

[1] https://www.nps.gov/fomc/index.htm

Young People in Britain

You know, I find this argument so utterly tedious. Economics can be boiled down to old people verses young people. Polarising policy debates and setting one generation against another.

The UK Reform Party are pushing a commitment to the triple lock on state pensions. Not because they believe British pensioners deserve a good deal. No, it’s populist bandwagon to lock in the vote of one generation. Knowing that there’s a higher likelihood of older people voting for them than younger people [According to opinion polls].

It’s true that there’s a madness that has overtaken the British mentality. However, it’s not new. The value of land and property far exceeds its utility. The marketplace has been one of ever forcing a finite commodity to a higher price. The owners and inheritors of land and property have gained whilst its has become harder for younger people to get a foothold.

There have been different times. I remember my father talking about the inter-war period. It was of his father’s time. Practically farmland could not be given away. Estates were broken up. Labour was short. Taboos were challenged. The dynamic of marketplace for changed.

However, in the post-war period, the last 70-years, the cost of a modest dwelling, as a ratio of average earnings, has rocketed. Ownership of land and property has become concentrated.

British humour addressed the situation in a famous TV sitcom. As said by the character Del boy over breakfast – this time next year, we’ll be millionaires. Only Fools and Horses captured the aspiration. Only that Del boy though it was second-hand cars that would lead to riches. Now, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that roughly 27% of people aged over 65, in Britain, live in households with a total wealth of exceeding one million.

So, what do we conclude? That this pot of wealth has been taken from young people in a transfer from one generation to another. No, that would be playing a sectarian political card worthy of an unprincipled populist. A foolish strategy too.

Deep within British culture there’s an attachment to assets. This particularly goes for commodities that are restricted in supply. Remember Del boy got his wish in the end. Antiques saving the day. Now, amongst most popular TV shows is the Antiques roadshow.

Maybe it’s a latent mistrust of bankers. The shady image of people who hoard money for the sake of hoarding money. In Britain, holding land and property are seen to be a stable assurance of long-term security. I’ve heard it said about land many times – they don’t make it anymore.

The tragic element here is not that young people finding it harder to become just like their parents. To harbour the same attitudes towards land and property. It’s more a question of society undervaluing their contribution to prosperity. Now, and in the future.

It’s pure idiocy to set one generation against another. It’s a mean political trick. What does need to change are the rungs on the ladder, especially at the early stages of life’s journey.

For example, the law in respect of student loans is dire, unjust and unsustainable. Making young people pay a higher marginal rate of tax, when early in their working lives is abysmal. The government penny pinching of education funding and thinning out of courses is short-sighted in the extreme. Apprenticeships must be substantial not hollowed out routes to poor rewards. The world of work [and leisure] is changing more rapidly than it ever has in the past. It’s imperative that society equips young people with the tools needed to navigate a complex and dynamic world. It’s not generous to make a priority of all aspects of education and training. It’s absolutely essential.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.” As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

The False Dichotomy

Like a clock work toy. Wind them up and away they go. It goes something like this. Space exploration is a waste of scarce resources. We’d better spend them fixing problems here on Earth. Compare and contrast as if a viable choice was just to move piles of money from one place to another. This line of argument is favoured by nationalistic green politicians and liberal journalists tasked with filling newspaper column inches. A bunch of academics like to jump on the bandwagon too.

They like to divide the world into billionaire technologists ardently in pursuit of progress at the expense of everyone but themselves and open-toed sandal shoed environmentalists who’ve inherited the legacy of 1970s hippiedom. These two exists, of course, and they have influence, but they are oddities to most people.

So, much of the debates that fill the media are carved out of planks of wood. As if there are only ever two sides to every argument. Two choices to make. Two views open to debaters. As a good liberal, I must reject this dichotomy.

However, to address the subject, I’m corralled into the compare and contrast stock yard.

On the one hand, the environmental challenges before humanity are such that they need ardent attention. The stupidity of “drill baby drill” is mindbogglingly thoughtless. Stupid at a level it’s difficult to comprehend. It’s true that taking short term gains that lead to long term pains is not new. It’s one of humanities troublesome failings. Surely, we can learn from history.

On the other hand, Exploration is human. From the moment primitive bipeds took off across open plains we’ve wanted to know what’s over the horizon. What’s around the corner. Are there opportunities or threats? It’s linked with the fragility of our existence. Space isn’t a boundary that puts a stop to this curiosity. We must see with our own eyes.

Now, I’ll demolish the false dichotomy. Both above, to degrees, need to be respected. Both can be seen through the lens of human imperatives – safety and security. In fact, to an extent both are linked.

Understanding how to mitigate the negative impact of our technology, we need to develop better ways of doing business. Solar power is an example.

The fate of our planet is better understood by studying other planets, and our own from space. Nature presents itself in a myriad of complex different formula across the universe.

To get away from the either/or mentality there does need to be a marshalling of political will. This is probably the greatest challenge at a global level. I believe we can both confront climate change and progress human exploration. It requires imagination.

Why King Charles Should Delay US Visit

I’m doing that Keynesian double-take. The facts change, so what do I do? I change my mind. That’s what I’ve done in respect of the current situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Shear pig-headed stubbornness is in fashion in high places. That prideful assertion that says nothing I do or say can be wrong. Well, I’m not going to fall into that foolish trap.

Should the UK’s Head of State pay an official visit to the United States (US). The answer must be “yes” at an appropriate time and place. I listed a respectable number of reasons why the UK and the US are linked by history and a whole lot more. However, I’ve put a caveat on the view presented. At an appropriate time and place, is a way of saying that there should be conditions.

As it stands, the King’s planned visit to the US this year should be called off. The conditions are not right for a successful visit. The US -UK special relationship has a past, it may have a future but at the present there’s a big problem.

In this anniversary year of American independence, I had argued that it was good to celebrate a long-standing relationship. However, just at this moment, the US and UK are in quite separate places. It maybe the case that the citizenry in both countries is thinking similar things. What’s clear is that the leadership of both countries are not on the same page.

If the non-partisan opinion polls are to be relied upon, the citizenry in both countries have a highly negative view of the decision to enter a war in the Middle East. Putting the UK’s Head of State in a position where an appearance can be manipulated to indicate support for the instigation of war in the Middle East is not a good place to be.

It’s right to acknowledge the facts. There is a war in Europe which is of greater concern to most British people. That situation needs to be resolved. Engaging in a war of choice in the Middle East is not in the best interests of people in the UK, or Europe. It’s happening and the daily news gets worse and worse.

From what I gleam, and what little I know, King Charles is doing well at upholding the dignity and integrity of the British Monarchy. Not so easy a task when blessed with a wayward brother and long-standing family splits. The King is faced with small protests in the UK given his brother’s past associations and the blind eye that was turned to his brother’s behaviour.

I’m a British republican in nature but continue to have respect for our peculiar constitutional settlement. Yes, we could do better but that’s an argument for another time. Imagine how much distaste a substantial number of the British people will feel if our King is seen to align himself closely with an unpopular American President. Not good optics, as they say.

My points are made without thought of political bandwagon hopping as favoured by lots of UK Members of Parliament (MPs). That just doubles-up the complexity of making the right long-term decision on this difficult real time issue of international relations.

It’s clear to me that, in his second term, the legacy that President Trump will hand down to the next generation, is and will be a horrid and tragic mess. We’d better start looking further ahead at how the 2030s[1] can be made a better decade. Historian will look as aghast at the late 2020s. The political volatility of the current situation is such that predictions become even more difficult. Power drains away when politicians ignore the people – let’s see how that goes.

Post 1: I agree with David David Dimbleby labels King’s visit to US ‘an embarrassment’

Post 2: Now there’s no doubt in my mind that the King should not visit the US at this time Iran war latest: Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran demanding Strait of Hormuz be opened – BBC News

[1] Trump’s term of office: 20th January 2029.

Importance of UK-US State visits

I agree with him on numerous issues. In this case I think he’s wrong. Not only that but he’s making himself look just like the ambulance chasing willow-the-wisps Badenoch and Farage.

This morning, Ed Davey’s argument is that the planned United Kingdom (UK) State visit to the United States (US) should be cancelled. That’s withdrawing from the meeting between the King and the President. By the way, Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrat political party in the UK.

I don’t buy the argument that King Charles meeting President Trump will be a public embarrassment. Let’s put aside any thought of my personal feeling towards either man. It’s not a case of who they are as much as it is what they represent. They have met before as Head of State for the UK and US. So, it’s not as if the situation is a complete unknown.

A few points to make on the subject.

One point concerns the role of Head of State. It’s inevitable that through the course of their work they will from time to time be embarrassed. Reflecting on Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she dined with some notable unpleasant leaders not as a matter of personal choice but as a matter of duty. In many ways, it’s part and parcel of being a Head of State.

Two. This year is like no other. The US marks 250-years of independence. It would be incredible if one of the parties involved, the UK, chose to ignore this pivotal event. The current US President is inclined to hype but here’s an event that needs no hype. It’s one of the most significant dates in global history. The US Declaration of Independence is of monumental importance.

Three. Regardless of the personalities involved, the UK and US share democratic values. Fine, with different interpretations of what that means. Fundamentally, despite differences, there’s common ground which will, I hope, always be there regardless of who has the top job. Our international partnership is an inseparable bond, yes, with its inevitable ups and downs.

Four. There’s a fair chance that these Heads of State will not only talk to each other but may listen to each other. That dialogue has the potential to do some good in the world. It’s a dialogue that needn’t be trapped by everyday political struggles and tensions. To me, it’s fascinating to speculate on topics like global environmental concerns, where the two individuals clearly have an entirely different perspective.

To be topical. The last 250-years record a great deal of involvement of the UK and US is the affairs of the Middle East. Whether this has been wise, or not, is a different matter.

In the 1950s, both countries kicked off the oil industry in that part of the world. Both have had a hand in what has developed since. Our economies are tied to oil as a result. That legacy is not easy to walk away from even if change is inevitable.

Transport of Flight Delights

Air Taxies are becoming a reality. It’s not Science Fiction anymore.

The history of the “hackney carriage” is along and illustrious one. They remain firmly attached to the road. They do move with the times. From horses to combustion engines to electrified cabs[1], I wonder if London back cabs will adopt Hydrogen fuel next?

Providing safe and reliable public transport for about 8-passengers, in reasonable comfort, with a limited amount of luggage, they are a vital part of the city landscape. Ferrying people from place to place and even going south of the river (a popular saying from the people who live north of the River Thames).

In New York, “Yellow schools of taxi fishes” in a song by Joni Mitchell. Schools or sholes of taxies swimming in a sea of traffic. Frantic and colourful as they are shown in a lot of 1970s movies. A chaotic scene where the protagonist runs out into the middle of dense, barely moving traffic.

What happens when these modern convinces take to the air? If they were still with us, I’m sure Flanders and Swann[2] would have written a song about this new marvel. The distain of London buses towards black cabs is there in the lyrics. So, as air taxies take-off, as it were, will the cab drivers of the city protest or join the ranks of new flyers?

Please don’t answer that question. I’ve in mind more serious issues. The whole history of aviation safety data analysis shows us an immutable fact. Take-offs and landings are riskier than flying in at altitude. It really matters not if flying horizontally or vertically.

How does this come to be? A simple answer would be to say that the results of aviation accidents eventually end-up on the ground. Gravity does its work. Put that aside for a moment. Take-offs are optional but landings are mandatory. That’s a traditional saying that amuses non-flyers but is all too real to pilots and alike.

The act of taking a flying machine from the freedom of movement in 4-dimensions to a preselected stationary point on the ground. Those policies and plans that are published refer to Vertiports being established much as Heliports have been in the past. Some may double up. The theory is good. A pre-defined clear space that can accommodate a typical eVTOL aircraft used as an Air Taxi, with all the necessary operational and safety provisions. Surrounding areas protected from the down wash of the Air Taxi. Care to remove any foreign objects from the vertiport surface. A mini terminal to add to the cityscape.

One of the biggest variables in this brave new world of public transport is as old as the hills. It’s the local weather. Dubai can roast an aircraft with clear skies and 50C while Aberdeen can soak them in rain and impenetrable mist. Dust and wind can blow through Marseilles while deep snow and ice covers Montreal. Whilst in Lahore the air itself can be hazardous.

Terrestrial vehicles do cope. Often this means that there are different rules and regulation that take account of the local conditions and priorities. The impatience that some advocates have for a rapidly formulated globally set of harmonised rules and regulations might be misplaced. In fact, it may even impede the introduction to service of Air Taxi services.

Since I’m discussing the busy urban environment, I can presume that any accidents and incidents will be the focus of a great deal of public attention. Ultimate safety is a nice aspiration, but then reality takes hold. There will be occurrences. When they happen, city councillors are going to have their say.

Post 1: Air taxis are an exciting development in air mobility, but to get off the ground. SESAR Joint Undertaking | EUREKA- European Key solutions for vertiports and UAM

Post 2: Infrastructure Developer Highlights Timeline Convergence as eVTOL Certification and Vertiport Development Both Require Nine Months, Creating Binary Decision Point for Property Owners | citybiz

POST 3: The Air Taxi topic has become newsworthy this last week. US lawmakers push FAA certification reforms for eVTOLs:

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-mobility/lawmakers-push-faa-certification-reforms-evtols

https://www.flyingmag.com/congress-faa-electric-air-taxi-certification/

Click to access Aviation-Innovation-and-Global-Competitiveness-Act-Final-Bill-Text.pdf

[1] https://www.levc.com/

[2] https://youtu.be/7yHrpPRYgYM

FLANDERS & SWANN – ‘A Transport of Delight’ – 1957.

Aviation Insights

One shilling and seven pence, that’s what a copy of Flight magazine cost in 1960. Today, roughly that’s equivalent to £6. Which is not so far off the weekly cost of a typical printed magazine taken off-the-shelf in a newsagent. Now, Flight is a digital subscription[1] at £22 a month. We consume our News in a different way, but the overall price is not so different.

Spending money in charity shops always contributes to some good cause or another. Certainly, our British High Streets in 2026 are markedly transformed from that of 66 years ago. Fine, if I get hung up on that elegant number. It’s not a bingo call. It’s the number of times I’ve circled the Sun. Circled, that is, while safely attached to this rocky planet.

The young woman behind the counter was chatting to what must have been a regular when she looked up. I pointed an unregarded dusty box on the floor in the corner of the shop. “How much to you want for that box of old aviation magazines”. She looked slightly fazed. Nobody had even thought about pricing them let alone selling them. They had probably been donated as someone emptied the attic of their grandparents. Probably on the verge of going to the recycling bin.

Eventually, we settled on a modest price. She looked me up and down. I’m sure she thought that I was completely mad. That said, charity shop workers, volunteers, must face that colourful situation more than a couple of times a week. Even a day.

What struck me was the first inside page. The weekly editorial could have been written yesterday. It’s titled “Facing it” and reads thus:

“More than one great newspaper has given warning that our nation is living beyond its means – that our export prospects are poor, and that we are taking a commercial thrashing”.

“Bleak prospects for a people who have never had it so good, and one that promotes us to consider how the aircraft industry is facing up to cold reality.”

It went on to highlight that there had been few new aircraft at the Farnborough airshow of that year. It was an October publication[2]. There was a lot of talk about industry and Government cooperation but that this was not delivering.

“And now that the industry is needed, as it has never been needed before, it will not be found unready or unwilling.”

But the lament was about the failings of the Government of the time, and there being no room for complacency. This was 4-years after the Suez Crisis.

Today, we have an increased security threat, much as arose in the Cold War days. Industry and Government cooperation needs to be a lot more than fervent aspirations. We seem to be in the same phase of formulating strategies rather than implementing actions.

Don’t let me paint a picture of gloom and doom. What this Flight magazine had is great stories of British technical innovation. Electronics and control systems were advancing rapidly. Automatic landing systems were being pioneered. Technology applied improved aircraft performance and aviation safety significantly. In fact, in numerous areas Britain was not only leading, but guiding the world.

[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/subscribe

[2] Flight Number 2691 Volume 78.