• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Malcolm last won the day on February 1

Malcolm had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,009 Excellent

About Malcolm

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,596 profile views
  1. Global markets fall amid slowdown fears ‎Today, ‎March ‎22, ‎2019, ‏‎59 minutes ago The FTSE 100 saw its worst day of trading this year, while US stock markets have also fallen sharply.
  2. March 22, 2019 10:51 am Updated: March 22, 2019 11:04 am WestJet will stick with Boeing 737 MAX 8 as first airline looks to cancel order By Ross Marowits The Canadian Press WestJet Airlines plans to stick with deliveries of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft once regulators approve the plane for re-entry into service.ory continues below The Calgary-based airline says it won’t follow the lead of Indonesia’s flag carrier, which cancelled its multibillion-dollar order for 49 MAX 8 jets, citing a loss of confidence after two deadly crashes in the past six months. READ MORE: Boeing 737 MAX fallout continues as airline seeks to cancel $5B aircraft order WestJet had expected to add two more of the planes this year to increase its fleet to 13, but Boeing has suspended all future deliveries. Spokeswoman Lauren Stewart says the 37 remaining deliveries in its order won’t take place until the grounding is lifted and it thoroughly evaluates any upgrades. WATCH: Some safety features sold as options on Boeing’s 737 MAX jets “If the grounding has been lifted and the aircraft is approved for re-entry into service by all relevant regulatory bodies, we will take all deliveries as intended,” she wrote in an email. Stewart said the narrow-body planes remain “a vital part of the fleet,” having performed “safely, reliably and efficiently” since 2017. “WestJet remains unrelenting in putting safety at the forefront and will thoroughly evaluate processes, procedures and any further required training before these aircraft once again take to the skies.”
  3. Ethiopian ET302 similarities to Lion Air JT610 Reports from Ethiopian investigators have implicated the same Angle of Attack (AoA) sensor malfunction that was observed on Lion Air. Lion Air captain AoA sensor read about 22 degrees higher than the First Officer AoA sensor (a large bias error). Initial assessment of Lion Air AoA failure modes did not reveal any obvious electrical malfunction that could create the bias. The simplest explanation was that the AoA vane had been bent, causing a gross aerodynamic offset in the readings. If ET302 encountered the exact same offset, with the likelihood of it being bent exactly the same way not being conceivable, some other factor must be in play. For example, the ARINC 429 representation of AoA uses two's complement fraction binary notation (BNR). It is interesting to note that bit 26 represents 22.5 degrees which would be the bit "flipping" between the Captain and F/O AoA values (all other bits would match). Is it possible that the ARINC 429 word is getting corrupted (software defect)? If the ET302 offset was something like 20 or 24, this theory falls apart. The document is quite lengthy and contains charts etc. so here is the link:
  4. 'Why didn’t they … fly the airplane?' 'Why didn’t they … fly the airplane?''Why didn’t they … fly the airplane?' Congressman and pilot questions foreign pilot training, standardsCongressman and pilot questions foreign pilot training, standards March 20, 2019 By Jim Moore Two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes prompted international grounding, but Rep. Sam Graves, a longtime pilot and Missouri congressman, said foreign pilot training and standards should be scrutinized as much as the aircraft. Graves, a warbird aficionado who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and is the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in a March 19 telephone interview that he is concerned about the slow pace of facts coming to light since Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed shortly after takeoff on March 10, killing all 157 people aboard. The FAA, which initially defended the aircraft’s airworthiness, grounded all 380 of the 737 MAX-8 and MAX-9 aircraft delivered to date on March 13, citing similarities that had come to light between the Ethiopian crash and the loss of another Boeing 737 MAX flown by Indonesia’s Lion Air in October 2018. The NTSB has participated in the investigations, though an agency spokesman told The New York Times March 17 that any information gleaned by investigators could be made public only by Ethiopian officials. Boeing took the same position, citing longstanding protocol. Physical evidence and data made public to date strongly suggest a problem with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which was designed to activate the stabilizer trim if the aircraft exceeded a safe angle of attack with the autopilot disengaged. In both crashes, flight telemetry data suggest the pilots fought a losing battle with runaway trim. “We’re concentrating completely on the wrong thing, here,” Graves said. “We’re looking at equipment and equipment failures. You can have that in any aircraft. What I want to concentrate on are the pilots. Why didn’t they just disengage the system and fly the plane?” Graves said he has talked to FAA and Department of Transportation officials daily since the Ethiopian Airlines crash and has yet to hear any indication of concern that a deadly mechanical defect lurks inside the newest iterations of the bestselling passenger jet that first flew in 1967. He said pilots should be expected to cope with the kind of malfunction that appears to have been involved by simply disabling the system. “I don’t care if you have a (Piper) Seneca or a 737 MAX, the first thing (you do) is you disengage the system and you fly the plane,” Graves said. Pilots with 737 experience and other aviation experts told AOPA that the stabilizer trim system can be shut off with switches mounted between the pilots that either can easily reach. It appears U.S. flight crews have done exactly that when responding to similar system problems on the same jets. Pilot and journalist James Fallows, on the same day the FAA grounded the 737 MAX-8 and MAX-9 aircraft, wrote about and republished publicly available Aviation Safety Reporting System submissions from flight crews who had encountered similar situations with very different outcomes—a safe continuation and completion of the flight. The stabilizer trim switches of a Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft are located on the center pedestal and can be defeated by either the pilot or the first officer, according to a career pilot familiar with the aircraft. Courtesy photo. Graves said acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell and his staff were aware of these reports, and the FAA assured him that none of the incidents represented a threat to flight safety. Bloomberg reported March 19 that a Lion Air 737 MAX encountered an identical problem the day before the fatal October crash, and a third pilot riding in the jump seat advised the crew to cut power to the malfunctioning system. That flight landed safely. Another longtime pilot and aviation journalist, J. Mac McClellan, wrote in a March 11 article in Air Facts that Boeing engineers must have counted on pilots to quickly disengage any malfunctioning automation feature: “Though the pitch system in the MAX is somewhat new, the pilot actions after a failure are exactly the same as would be for a runaway trim in any 737 built since the 1960s. As pilots we really don’t need to know why the trim is running away, but we must know, and practice, how to disable it.” Graves said the Ethiopian government has an incentive to protect the reputation of its government-owned airline, and that worries him when it comes to fact-finding. “It’s their crown jewel,” Graves said. “They are being very, very careful on who gets to see the data.” As for the NTSB staff dispatched to participate in the probe, “I’m still waiting to hear just how well they’re working with them, how much they’re allowing them to be part of the process. To be quite honest with you, it does worry me. It’s in the best interest of the world flying public to get this information.” Graves said that while Congress may ultimately probe the certification process and the FAA’s decision making, as some have suggested, he is more concerned about the training and competence of foreign pilots. “I’ve got real heartburn when I’m flying on a foreign airline,” Graves said. “If they’re training to U.S. standards, they’re certainly not adhering to U.S. standards.” Graves worries that foreign carriers are under pressure to fill cockpit seats and may not be taking enough time to teach fundamentals. “That’s what I’m concerned about … some of these countries are trying to get pilots in the pipeline so fast that they’re teaching them to fly computers” and not providing adequate real-world aviation training, Graves said. “There’s no doubt that technology has made aviation safer, but you’ve got to wonder … technology … does it correct pilot deficiencies, or is it creating pilot deficiencies?”
  5. Business News March 21, 2019 / 7:36 PM / Updated 16 minutes ago American Airlines pilots will test 737 MAX software fix in Boeing simulator Tracy Rucinski 3 Min Read CHICAGO (Reuters) - American Airlines pilots will test Boeing Co’s 737 MAX software fix on simulators this weekend, the pilots’ union told Reuters on Thursday, a key step in restoring confidence in the jet after two fatal crashes. Boeing has been working on a software upgrade for an anti-stall system and pilot displays on its fastest-selling jetliner in the wake of the deadly Lion Air crash in Indonesia in October. Similarities between the flight path in the Lion Air incident and a fatal Ethiopian Airlines crash on March 10 have raised fresh questions about the system. The two crashes killed a total of 346 people.
  6. ‎Today, ‎March ‎22, ‎2019, ‏‎31 minutes ago Wilson-Raybould to provide emails, texts and written statement on SNC-Lavalin affair ‎Today, ‎March ‎22, ‎2019, ‏‎31 minutes ago | CBC News Jody Wilson-Raybould says she will provide a written statement and copies of text messages and emails to the Commons justice committee that shut down its probe into the SNC-Lavalin affair.
  7. Garuda looks to scrap Boeing 737 Max 8 order after crashes 7 hours ago Image copyright Getty Images Garuda Indonesia is seeking to scrap its multi-billion dollar order for 49 Boeing 737 Max 8 jets after the plane was involved in two fatal crashes. The move is thought to be the first formal cancellation of an order for the aircraft. A Garuda spokesperson said passengers had "lost trust" in the plane. It comes as investigators work to establish the cause of a recent crash involving a 737 Max 8, which killed 157 people. It was the second fatal disaster involving the jet in five months. A Lion Air flight crashed in October, killing 189 people. "We have sent a letter to Boeing requesting that the order be cancelled," Garuda spokesman Ikhsan Rosan told AFP. "The reason is that Garuda passengers in Indonesia have lost trust and no longer have the confidence" in the plane he said, adding that the airline was awaiting a response from Boeing. Garuda did not immediately respond to a BBC request for comment. A spokesperson for Boeing was "unable to comment on customer discussions". Garuda had already received one of the 737 Max 8 planes, AFP reported, part of a 50-plane order worth $4.9bn (£3.7bn) at list prices when it was announced in 2014. Investigation ongoing Garuda was among Boeing's customers that had indicated they could scrap their orders. for the 737 Max jets but the Indonesian airline appears the first to take action. While there is no conclusive evidence so far that the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air disasters are linked, French experts analysing the Ethiopian Airlines' flight data black box say early investigations point to "clear similarities". Experts believe a new automated system in Boeing's aircraft - intended to stop stalling by dipping the nose - may have played a role in both crashes, with pilots unable to override it. The company said a software update is coming following the crash of the Lion Air flight. Investigators intend to to issue a preliminary report into the Ethiopian Airlines disaster by mid-April.
  8. Thanks I took a look at the article and I see that WestJet only purchased the Light and not the angle of attack indicators which I guess, from boestars post, are not critical.
  9. I wonder what options WestJet purchased for theirs?
  10. Media bailout puts chill in spine Not appropriate for government in a democracy Calgary Herald 21 Mar 2019 ANDREW COYNE If you weren’t careful, you might have missed it: a brief 160-word item, tucked deep inside the budget, labelled Supporting Canadian Journalism. Mostly it was a rehash of the measures already announced in November’s Fall Economic Statement: a labour cost subsidy (in the form of a tax credit — presumably this sounds more palatable) for journalism organizations, a tax credit/subsidy for digital news subscribers, and charitable tax status for news organizations that register as non-profits. Only if you turned back further still, to an annex marked Tax Measures: Supplementary Information, would you find the details. What you would discover, if you did, was how a bad idea in principle was likely to be infinitely worse in practice. There are any number of objections to the government getting into the game of propping up failing news organizations: that taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest; that it will produce newspapers concerned less with appealing to readers than to grantsmen; that it will not only leave us dependent on government, but without standing to oppose such dependence in others; that it will solve none of our problems, but only encourage us to put off dealing with them; that it is all so bloody unnecessary. But the most potent objection is that, as the government cannot possibly bail out everybody — for in the internet age what was formerly a tidy little constellation of newspapers and other outlets has exploded into a vast universe of what could plausibly be called news organizations — it must inevitably get into choosing who should receive its blessing and who should not. Whether this is done directly by the prime minister or by his designates, whether the preference is based on partisanship, or ideology, or connections, or mere incumbency, it is not an appropriate role for government in a democracy. Subsidizing speech the government likes is not materially different from suppressing speech it doesn’t like, and indeed may have much the same effect. You might understand that in the abstract, but it’s when you see the details of how they propose to go about it that the chill really sets in. Henceforth, if this goes ahead, the Canadian journalism business will be divided into two groups: on the one hand, a coterie of government-approved trough-feeders adorned with little merit badges identifying them as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations, and on the other, everyone else. Eligibility for QCJO status is ostensibly to be decided by an “independent panel” of journalists, but the government has already dictated a list of its own not-so-independent criteria in advance. Thus, a QCJO would have to be “organized as a corporation, partnership or trust” (no sole proprietorships), incorporated in Canada and 75-per-cent Canadian-owned (no foreign-based or -owned publications); and “primarily engaged,” not only in producing “original news content,” but news content of a particular kind: “matters of general interest and reports of current events, including coverage of democratic institutions and processes,” but not “primarily focused on a particular topic such as industry-specific news, sports, recreation, arts, lifestyle or entertainment.” So: the government will subsidize department stores, but not boutiques. Why? The same reason the 25-per-cent wage subsidy, like the 15-percent subscription subsidy, is restricted to news organizations that “primarily” produce “written content.” Because that description neatly excludes anyone outside the existing Canadian newspaper industry. And that’s who this policy is designed for: not the future of news but the past; not the scrappy startups who might save the business, but the lumbering dinosaurs who are taking it down. That’s, as I say, before the independent panel has even been struck. What additional criteria its members will come up with can only be guessed at — the November statement suggested they would also be asked to “define and promote core journalism standards” and “define professional journalism,” which sounds even more ominous. How independent will the panel be? How will its members be chosen, and by whom? If previous such exercises, for example the Senate selection model, are any guide, they will not be partisan Liberals, as such — just reliably progressive in outlook. Of course they will be. For they will have already selected themselves: not just by their enthusiasm for the idea of a government body picking which news organizations live or die, but by the firm conviction that they are just the sort of person who ought to be a member of that body. And why not? Membership on the panel, as on the (presumably separate) administrative body that will “evaluate” organizations according to how well they adhere to the panel’s criteria, will carry with it extraordinary power — over businesses, over careers. Possibly news organizations will be prohibited from lobbying panel members, but nothing can prevent them from sucking up to them, whether in the issues they cover or the stances they take. But then, again, their work would be half-done before they had started: self-selection would have already winnowed the field. What sort of news organization do you think would operate as a non-profit, the kind that charitable tax status would benefit? Would it be likely to be, say, a strong believer in the profit motive? What sort of organization would be most likely to apply for the labour subsidy? The kind that advocates for less government intervention in the economy? And yet, those organizations that refused to apply would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage relative to those that did. The inevitable result will be to tilt the field, gradually perhaps but irreversibly, in favour of progressives and of progressive views — not necessarily congenial to the government of the day, but certainly to government, and absolutely certainly within the ambit of “acceptable” opinion. The radical, the unorthodox, the unsettling or unappealing — to some, though not to others — need not apply. You say something like this is already in place, in broadcasting? Yes it is. I’m not sure the CBC is really an advertisement for the wonders of subsidized newsgathering. But that’s not the point. Maybe there’s a place for the CBC, or something like it, as one offering among others. The point is, if this goes through, everything will be subsidized: print, broadcast, the works — a whole industry of CBCs. If you were searching for a way to kill the news business, you couldn’t do a better job. TO KILL THE NEWS BUSINESS, YOU COULDN’T DO A BETTER JOB.
  11. Well, look who’s talking tough on border security Calgary Herald 21 Mar 2019 CHRIS SELLEY ERNEST DOROSZUK/POSTMEDIA NEWS Border Security Minister Bill Blair says he is talking to lawmakers in the United States about closing a loophole in Canada’s border agreement with the U.S. The federal Liberals have always bristled at the suggestion that tens of thousands of “irregular” border crossers from the United States might constitute a problem. The system, they insist, works just fine. “This process is working to keep us safe,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told The Canadian Press before Christmas, and he accused the Conservatives of deliberately trying to frighten Canadians into believing otherwise. “It’s always easier to try and scare people than to allay fears in a time of anxiety,” he said. In January, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen accused the Conservatives of planning “to militarize the border,” which is certainly not an example of trying to scare people rather than allaying their fears. One of the ideas the Conservatives have long supported is “closing the loophole” in the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) that allows “irregular” arrivals — those who cross between official border posts — to claim asylum. (There’s no point blaming them: If they tried to arrive “regularly,” they would be turned back.) The idea has long been dismissed as unworkable, if not unconstitutional. But wouldn’t you know it, in an interview with The Globe and Mail this week, Border Security Minister Bill Blair said he was in negotiations with Washington on precisely this point. “If, for example, there was an agreement of the United States to accept back those people that are crossing at the end of Roxham Road (in Champlain, N.Y.), then Canadian officials … could theoretically take them back to a regular point of entry … and give effect to (the STCA) regulations at that place,” Blair said — i.e., would-be asylum seekers actually apprehended crossing the border would be sent back. It’s not clear why the Americans would agree to this: If thousands of non-citizens want to decamp and take their chances in Canada’s refugee determination system, one suspects President Donald Trump would be most inclined to let them. But it’s intriguing enough the Canadian government now wants to be seen pursuing the idea. “Closing the loophole” might be difficult to negotiate, but unlike everything else the Liberals have tried, it would almost certainly accomplish the goal they can never quite admit to having: To keep these people away. The most resourceful and desperate migrants would try to sneak across the border and claim asylum inland, once it couldn’t be proven how they arrived — a dangerous and potentially deadly undertaking and an invitation to human smugglers, Liberals would argue if they were in opposition. But that’s infinitely more complex an undertaking than packing your suitcases, bundling up the kids and clambering over the border into a waiting RCMP car. The vast majority of people would be dissuaded. The federal budget’s section on border security, meanwhile, is altogether extraordinary. It claims that “elevated numbers of asylum seekers, including those that have crossed into Canada irregularly, have challenged the fairness and effectiveness of Canada’s asylum system.” It proposes to target “individuals who cross Canadian borders irregularly and try to exploit Canada’s immigration system.” It moots “legislative amendments … to better manage, discourage and prevent irregular migration.” This is the same government that has sworn blind no one is jumping any queue, that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the system no matter whence they arrive, that the system is working perfectly — all repudiated in a single paragraph. It adds up to a $1.18 billion commitment over five years. And the proposals are vague enough that Finance Minister Bill Morneau doesn’t seem to understand what they entail: “If someone comes across the border (and) claims asylum, we want to make sure we process that quickly so they either are moved back to where they came from, if it’s inappropriate, or in the case where they are legitimately seeking asylum, we deal with them in a compassionate and rapid way,” he told reporters on Tuesday. That’s baffling. How do you decide what’s an “appropriate” or “legitimate” claim without adjudicating the damn thing? Nevertheless, it’s clear enough heading into the election campaign that the Liberals want to be seen fighting irregular border crossers rather than managing them as the legitimate asylum seekers they always insisted they were. The way to do the latter would be to spend scads more money hiring scads more people than they already have to adjudicate asylum claims as normal — only much, much quicker. That was what refugee advocates argued for nearly 20 years ago, when hundreds of people headed north for fear of a post-9/11 immigration crackdown. Refugee advocates lost the argument; the STCA, ratified under Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government, put an end to the northbound queues at border crossings; and most everyone in Canada instantly forgot those people ever existed. A significant political headache had been expertly healed. It’s both telling and appropriate, as Trudeau’s government rapidly abandons its touchy-feely shtick, that the Liberals would land again on a “get tough” approach at the border.
  12. March 21, 2019 / 8:34 AM / Updated an hour ago Boeing to add extra safety alarm in 737 MAX jets: FT (Reuters) - Boeing Co will install an extra safety alarm in the cockpits of all its 737 MAX aircraft after intense criticism in the wake of two fatal crashes, the Financial Times reported on Thursday. The planemaker will include a warning light in the new 737 Max planes and retrofit all existing ones, according to the report. The light will tell pilots if two key sensors do not agree, the FT reported, citing a person familiar with the situation. Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shares of the company were down about 1 percent at $372.49 in morning trade
  13. I didn't know there was such a thing as Google Flights but tried it out. For April 6 with a return on the 10th, here is what it offered.
  14. Swoop teams up with Google Flights ‎Today, ‎March ‎21, ‎2019, ‏‎24 minutes ago | Canadian Aviation News Provided by Swoop/CNW Fares and flights are now displayed on popular search engine CALGARY, March 21, 2019 /CNW/ – Swoop flights are now showcased on the industry’s leading search engine, Google Flights. The addition of the distribution channel promotes the visibility of Swoop flights, which can also be booked direct through its website “Teaming up with Google Flights is key to sharing our ultra-low-fares with more travellers,” said Karen McIsaac, Senior Advisor of Communications at Swoop. “All of our flights are non-stop. This, in combination with our fares, is sure to surface Swoop flights as the most attractive option quite regularly in the markets we serve. We’re especially excited about the fare-compare functionality, proving just how affordable we are.” The agreement is great news for travellers, who can now use an interface they know and love to book Swoop Flights. To learn more about Swoop’s destinations, schedule and ultra-low-cost model visit or connect with Swoop on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
  15. Science & Environment Science & Environment Bloodhound: Land speed record car is relaunched By Jonathan Amos BBC Science Correspondent Media playback is unsupported on your device Ian Warhurst: "My kids kept saying I should buy a fast car, so I bought the fastest" Exit player Media captionIan Warhurst: "My kids kept saying I should buy a fast car, so I bought the fastest" The Bloodhound supersonic car is back, under new management and preparing to renew its pursuit of the land speed record. The project went into administration last year, unable to secure the financing needed to go racing - even though the vehicle was all but built. But with the purchase of the car by entrepreneur Ian Warhurst, Bloodhound has been put on a new footing. Engineers are looking to start high-speed trials "as soon as possible". These could take place in the South African desert later this year, although team-members are being cautious about giving hard timelines for the re-booted venture. Mr Warhurst is determined, however, that the new set-up should keep its promises and deliver on its objectives. "My kids kept saying I should buy a fast car, so I bought the fastest," he joked. "I knew that I could buy the car, save it and put it in a museum. But once I'd bought it we looked into whether we could run it, whether we could resurrect it as effectively a new project. "It is commercially viable. We believe the value of the sponsorship will easily pay for the project," he told BBC News. Bloodhound supersonic car project saved First public runs for 1,000mph car Image copyright BLOODHOUND LSR Image caption Bloodhound, in its new livery, arrives at the university technical college in Berkeley What remains the same? Casual observers may not notice much of a difference. Yes, the car has a new white and red livery but it's exactly the same vehicle that made its inaugural slow-speed (200mph/320km/h) runs at Newquay airport in October 2017. It will still be powered by a Rolls-Royce EJ200 jet engine and a Nammo rocket, and RAF man Andy Green (the current land speed record holder - 763mph/1,228km/h) will do the driving. Mark Chapman, too, the engineering director, remains in charge of the technical side of the project. And Ron Ayers, the aerodynamicist and legend of land speed record design, is still involved. But there are some significant changes behind the scenes. Media playback is unsupported on your device The Bloodhound car got up to 200mph in about eight seconds Exit player Media captionThe Bloodhound car was tested in Newquay, Cornwall, in 2017 What has changed? People might notice that the patchwork of sponsors' logos has gone. Previous statements of support were all contracted through the old holding company, Bloodhound Programme Ltd, which no longer exists. The new legal entity is Grafton LSR Ltd, which has Mr Warhurst as its CEO. The HQ has moved. It's no longer in the Bristol suburb of Avonmouth and has shifted along the Severn Estuary to the university technical centre in the Gloucestershire town of Berkeley. What fans really want to hear, however, is that the financial underpinning of the project has changed. It's understood Bloodhound will still pursue a sponsorship and partnership model, but Mr Warhurst will act as a kind of guarantor, ready to step in if cashflow faces a bottleneck. Depending how successful the project is in raising funds, the Barnsley entrepreneur, who made his money in turbochargers, could be putting his hand deep into his pocket, or not much at all. But that "safety net" was never there in the past, which meant that when cash coming into the project slowed, it would often be forced into hibernation. Momentum was lost. There is another key departure from the past approach. Sponsorship opportunities now include the project title and the car's livery. Bloodhound may not stay white and red for long. Media playback is unsupported on your device Mark Chapman: "The ambition is to start running as soon as possible - but only when we're ready" Exit player Media captionMark Chapman: "The ambition is to start running as soon as possible - but only when we're ready" Technically, where is Bloodhound? As it was - very nearly complete, certainly in the guise required to begin high-speed trials, which would take the car into the 500-600mph region. That's the realm where airflows get interesting and the team can learn about the vehicle's handling and how to operate it when an attempt is made to go through the sound barrier and on to 800mph+. There are currently some body panels missing, which anyone who saw the car run in Newquay will recognise. The most obvious are the wheel fairings. There's some electronics work to do, the brakes need to be switched from carbon to steel, the parachutes to slow the car have to be installed, and the near-200 sensors across Bloodhound must be hooked up. "It sounds daft but the longest items are going to be the paperwork," said Mr Chapman. "All our assets are now owned by Grafton and the switch comes with a lot of bureaucracy that needs to be gone through if we're to take things like an EJ200 to South Africa. We'd like to get there before this year's weather window closes, but if we can't - so be it. We'll only announce a date when we know we can hit it." Image copyright BLOODHOUND LSR Image caption World's fastest car driver: Andy Green still aims to break his own record What happens now? The project will move forward in two phases. The first is simply to try to break the land speed record set by Andy Green in Thrust SSC way back in 1997 - the first and only time a car has been taken through the sound barrier. In the past, Bloodhound has always been spoken about as a 1,000mph vehicle - and its engineers firmly believe it can really go that fast. But to achieve this phase two goal, modifications would be required at the rear of the vehicle to improve the aerodynamics and to make room for the most powerful version of Nammo's rocket technology. So, for the time being the major focus is just on getting phase one done. Phase two is for a later conversation. "We are in a fantastic position with a mostly finished car which has already proved its basic performance with the runs it had at Newquay," Wing Commander Andy Green told BBC News. "We're still trying to achieve an astonishing global engineering adventure by getting the most advanced, straight-line racing car in history to a new land speed record. But Ian, sensibly, has said 'let's make this as manageable as possible by doing it in two bites'." Image