On a pack of supermarket own-brand peanuts (not mentioning any names, but starts and ends with ‘A’):

WARNING: May contain nuts :stupid:

Yes, but what this proves is that whomever produced the text copy for the A**a labels doesn’t fully understand the requirements of EU Food Labelling /Allegen Labelling Regulations, which state that such warnings need not be present where the product name would be sufficient to identify the presence of an EU-defined allergen. So, a packet labelled as “Salted Peanuts” need not carry the “Warning may contain nuts/peanuts”

However, to avoid risk of being sued by an opportunisitic pedant for not having made it blindingly obvious to the less observant/knowledgeable consumer (;)that a product contains an allergen, many brands/chains tend to add warnings anyway. And I guess there may possibly be some people out there who are allergic to other nuts, but are fine with peanuts – the peanut product may well have been processed in a fcatory that handles other nuts too, and so there may be a miniscule risk of other nut residues finding their way into the peanut product. So perhaps A**a see the additional warning as a sort of “belt and braces” approach.

That said I once sat in meeting with senior Technical staff from a major UK supermarket, where one of their graduates suddenly piped up with “Oh, I didn’t realise Cod Liver Oil came from fish…..”. Made me wonder what is at fault – the UK education system, that supermarket’s recruitment process, or the EU Food Labelling regulations……

As the saying goes…”Is it just me…?”.

Sounds like the Breitling Constellation heading to Fairford for RIAT at the weekend.

Thanks Ant, that would make sense, though heading south over Hastings suggested it was heading back to the continent – though I suppose it way well turn west and then track along south coast to avoid Heathrow and Gatwick airspace, before turning north for Fairford.

Paul F

Assuming it was the Connie then it’s nice to see one airborne again – last time I saw one was the MATS Connie when it was at Biggin for the Berlin Airlift anniversary many moons ago

So, if it comes to compulsory blackouts to reduce UK power consumption, then I’ll follow the route my friends in Bangalore use. As they frequently suffer power outages (demand regularly exceeds electricity supply), most offices/factories and “better off” households have standby generators wired in that automatically cut in (or can be started up by a manservant) to generate a local power supply until mains comes back on line. Easy innit!

Ofc ourse the power cuts do tend to cause glitches with sensitive electronics (computers etc), but I am sure that could be overcome without too much trouble by installing suitable batteries to cover the time delay between mains power being lost and generators kicking in.

As for all these bloomin’ windmills – I am in no doubt that they NEVER generate more power during their lifetime than is used to manufacture, transport, install and service them during their operating life, and they are only “in vogue” as they are so heavily subsidised by HMG at the moment. Likewise solar panels….

Maybe wavepower or tidal turbines are the way to go, far more predictable in nature, but really difficult to work with. But then , if we can beat the North sea to get the oil out I am sure we can develop sea-related power generation technology.

And of course, there is always the argument that global warming would be happening anyway as it may well be down to natural forces more than down to human activity, in which case all this green energy malarky is going to make naff all difference to global warming….. but I won’t open that can of worms…..

This is the logbook of F/O Robert Urquhart DFC who was the Navigator to Maudslay, ….

Hi Simon,

I assume it was yourself who gave the excellent “A Canadian Dambuster” talk at Shoreham airport on Thursday evening?

If so please accept my thanks, as it was excellent, and to sit there with F/O Urquhart’s logbook on my lap, open at that very same page, looking at the signatures of Maudslay and Gibson, on the eve of the 70th Anniversary was a real “goosebumps ” moment.

Thanks for helping keep the memory of one of the lesser known Dambusters’ “names” alive.

Paul F

Hi Jay,

There are two different issues here, one is ensuring that any bleed air drawn off from the engine compressors (or other engine related source) is not contaminated with things like traces of engine/compressor lubricants, and two trying to ensure the air in the cabin is as free from microbial contaminants (viruses and other undesirable organisms as possible).

Each aspect needs it’s own controls and checks – for example checks on efficiency and integrity of relevant engine seals and heat exchanger cores will help prevent contamination with lubricant oils etc, checks on efficiency and integrity of things like HEPA particulate filters may help keep levels of airborne microbes down.

I am not an aviation engineer, but I work in another tightly regulated industry (pharma/food production) where contamination of the end product is a similar concern, and all relevant steps and controls have to be in place to reduce the risk of contamination to an acceptable level (which will be within any agreed limits). We have to show that appropriate controls are in place, are working, and are being checked/maintained so that they operate properly.

I presume similar procedures and checks are required in the aviation industry in relation to cabin air supply systems, and that cabin air quality has to meet an agreed standard (thought the standard may vary between Countries/States).

However, it is also important to realise that no system or procedure can ever be 100% foolproof, and that errors or deliberate decisions can be made that lead to system failures.

Given that there is no requirement for passengers’ health to be checked prior to boarding most (if not all flights), there is always the chance that one or more passengers aboard a flight may be carrying a virus (etc), which may or may not be known to them (i.e. in its early stages a virus/microbe may well be virulent yet be causing no identifiable symptoms in the carrier).

I assume cabin air quality standards are designed to manage (i.e. control) levels of airborne contaminants aboard the flight, but I doubt they “sterilise” the air they handle (i.e. actively reduce the level of microbial contamination to zero).

Short of screening passengers prior to boarding (which may well fail to detect illnesses that are not yet causing measurable symptoms), then sterilising all air introduced into the cabin, and then also taking precautions to track the health of all passengers after each flight so that there is a chance of identifying any illness that develops to the point that it can be determined it was present, but not yet detectable, during the flight, I can see no way of ensuring that “good health” can be guaranteed.

And anyway -what do you mean by “good health”?

Do you mean an environment where no-one aboard the plane has any chance of catching any sort of illness/disease?

Or do you mean an environment where the chances of catching such an illness disease are reduced to say 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 passenger flights/flight hours/flight legs?

Or does “good health” mean that the flight may leave a small proportion of people aboard (i.e. not more than “n”% carrying an illness they didn’t have prior to boarding, but that the flight will not be introducing any new illness/disease strain into the destination?

And in the last case, how do you allow for the fact that passengers waiting to board any single flight will probably come into contact with passengers waiting to board flights to other destinations in the departure lounge, and similarly may well come into contact with passengers arriving from other starting points as they pass thorough immigration/passport control a their journey ends?

Short of ensuring passengers are tested to prove they are 100% communicable disease free, that they come into contact with no other people or animals except those due to take the same flight (once they too have been certified as 100% disease free), and that all aircraft are boarded via a totally sterile airport environment, and that aircraft retain that sterility in flight via suitable air handling/recirculation/filtration/sterilisation systems then I think we all have to accept that, as in most aspects of our daily lives, we are at a risk of contracting an illness every time we fly.

That said, we have to trust that whomever regulates the airline(s) we choose to fly on set air quality requirements that manage the risk to an appropriate degree (nil risk probably being an un-achievable goal I am afraid!), that the airlines’ staff (flight crew, maintenance engineers etc) operate all systems and procedures properly at all times, that the airliner’s systems operate properly to meet the standards required, and that our fellow passengers (and flight crew) do not fly if they are carrying an identifiable/known transmissible illness!

As with everything in life, it’s a gamble…. is the benefit/outcome of taking the flight worth the risk of contracting some unpleasant illness during the flight? :apologetic:

The usual “shock horror!” media stories about “germ ridden” or “Toxic” ‘planes are often taking a very one-sided view of the problem (don’t forget, they are trying to sell their newspaper/magazine/film!), or they reflect one or two incidents where things went wrong (through equipment failure, human error, or human mis-judgement), and they often forget to mention the vast number of flights where everything worked properly, and no-one aboard suffered any lasting ill-health as a result….

The fact that we have not (yet) seen any major global illness/epidemic spread solely as a result of airline flights, suggests the standards set are probably about right in terms of controlling spread of disease. (And no, I haven’t forgotten SARS and Birdflu!).

As for control of possible engine-originated contaminants there have been a few well documented cases (mineral oil contamination due to leaking oil seals etc), but once a problem is properly identified and confirmed, rather than just base things on a few apocryphal stories, then systems tend to kick in to resolve any common cause.

Paul F

Hi Topspeed,

I have not checked the calculations, but assuming they are correct, it may work, but I am not sure it will serve any useful purpose other than proving it can be done?

To travel 2000km(1200miles) will take 10 hours at 120mph, much of which time will be spent at an altitude where the “passengers” have to pedal to power the pressurisation system. I doubt many regular pasengers can sustain that level of physical effort for such a long period without access to energy (food) and fluid (water). So you need to factor in the weight of carrying sufficient of those two components too. You may need to factor in a degree of spare man-power capacity to allow a series of rest periods, at which point the unproductive, resting, passsengers become dead weight until they return to “cycling” mode.

The passengers are packed tightly together, so the heat energy, moisture and CO2 they exhale will make the “cabin” very unpleasant, if not intolerable, unless the “dirty air” is replaced with fresh air far more often per hour than we see in a typical airliner.

So, Mathematically possible?… possibly.

Technically possible? …maybe

Commercially viable? …. seems highly unlikely to me.

Even if the passengers were to be the top 40 or so riders from the Tour de France I am not sure it would be anything more than an academic exercise to prove the maths behind the concept were correct.

But 100 years ago no-one believed it was possible to fly non-stop around the world, so maybe one day we will all happily pedal ourselves off on our summer holidays in the sunshine.

Paul F

Is it me….?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21923218

Err, isn’t worrying about the shape of the bl**dy things treating the symptom rather than addressing the underlying disease, which is surely a lack of discipline?

And assuming addressing the lack of discipline is not an acceptable reaction for fear of infringing the kids’ human rights, What brainless numpty chose square as a better shape? Four corners instead of three, each single can still be cut into two triangles anyway etc etc

Why not just ban FJ completely and only permit sponge cake – softer on impact, less dense so harder to throw any distance etc etc :D:D