Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion Area / Re: Ukraine peace stalemate

« on: 05 December 2025, 10:59:15 »

People need to make up their minds - do you want an EU army/navy/airforce or not?

At the moment defence is not an EU function. Every European country (EU or not) has sovereign control of it's own forces. So whilst the EU is guilty of many things, it's got no role in military support for Ukr using any countries existing assets. Sure - it can provide funding for Ukr to buy stuff, but it has no control of any army, navy or airforce to send in.

If there were a "coalition of the willing" then one, some or all of the European nations could send in their army, navy and/or airforce now, with no approval required from anyone. That would certainly upset both the US and Russia, and would likely result in a response from Russia against those countries that took part. And worse, if Russia were to attack a NATO country as a result of their participation, that would not automatically invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, since it can be argued that the NATO country 'started it'.

I've said it from the beginning, this war is going to go on for 5+ years. The west will not get directly involved, and the best that can be hoped for is that western countries use that 5+ year period to re-arm. That's exactly what Poland, Sweden and Finland are doing, and to a lesser extent France and Germany. However, the UK response so far has been very poor. Lots of talk about 3.5% and 5% defence spending, but no sign of it actually happening.

2

General Discussion Area / Re: Budget.

« on: 01 December 2025, 14:32:44 »

Another one I heard from Martin Lewis yesterday evening, pensioners will not have to pay income tax on their state pension, even if/when the pension exceeds the 20% tax threshold, which it will do in 2027.
However, they will have to pay tax on their occupational pension.

Penson income has always been subject to tax, it's just that the SP has always been less than your personal allowance, so the applicable tax rate is 0%. The SP is always payed as the first tranche of your income.

What happens at the moment is the amount of your SP is deducted from your personal allowance. So if your SP is (say) £10K, and the 'normal' personal allowance is £12570, then your tax code will be 257 (12570 - 10000 = 2570), rather than 1257. This means any other income provider (work, occupation pension or private pension) will pay the first £2570 tax free, and then deduct 20% on everything above that.

If/when the SP exceeds £12570 it makes no sense for the govt to pay it all out, and then HMRC try to claim it back in tax. It would get really messy for pensioners whose only source of income is their SP. They'd end up filling in self assesement tax returns every year.

There must be some people whose SP already exceeds their PA. Anyone on the pre 2016 system with significant S2P/SERPS could be receiving close to £16K. I wonder how that is treated at the moment?

Hence my tax code changing from 12???M to 38M 

Yes, and if your SP exceeds your PA, then your tax code goes negative. This means that your other income providers end up deducting the tax you should have paid on the SP from the money they pay you. Works all fine and dandy, providing you have some other income from other sources from which the tax can be deducted.

However, if your only income is your SP, then there ain't no other source that the tax can be deducted from. It's a corner case at the moment because there can't be too many people who have built up sufficient SERPS/S2P to exceed the 12750 PA, but have no other retirement income. To have that much SERPS/S2P you would have to have been earning a good wedge when working, so it would have been foolhardy to not make other additional retirement provisions in addition to your expected SP.

However, if/once the old SP exceeds the PA that will change. Rachel from accounts seems to be saying the SP won't be liable to income tax, but does that mean those who are already above the PA threshold will get similar tax relief on their SP? That's what RonnyD is asking too. I can see this becoming a mess. 

3

General Discussion Area / Re: Budget.

« on: 30 November 2025, 17:27:00 »

Another one I heard from Martin Lewis yesterday evening, pensioners will not have to pay income tax on their state pension, even if/when the pension exceeds the 20% tax threshold, which it will do in 2027.
However, they will have to pay tax on their occupational pension.

Penson income has always been subject to tax, it's just that the SP has always been less than your personal allowance, so the applicable tax rate is 0%. The SP is always payed as the first tranche of your income.

What happens at the moment is the amount of your SP is deducted from your personal allowance. So if your SP is (say) £10K, and the 'normal' personal allowance is £12570, then your tax code will be 257 (12570 - 10000 = 2570), rather than 1257. This means any other income provider (work, occupation pension or private pension) will pay the first £2570 tax free, and then deduct 20% on everything above that.

If/when the SP exceeds £12570 it makes no sense for the govt to pay it all out, and then HMRC try to claim it back in tax. It would get really messy for pensioners whose only source of income is their SP. They'd end up filling in self assesement tax returns every year.

There must be some people whose SP already exceeds their PA. Anyone on the pre 2016 system with significant S2P/SERPS could be receiving close to £16K. I wonder how that is treated at the moment?

4

General Discussion Area / Re: Budget.

« on: 28 November 2025, 09:34:58 »

The reason that the £20K cash limit has been kept for over 65's is that SS ISAs are basically stock market investments, and these sort of investments are only suited to medium and long term savings. Whilst the returns on the stock markets exceed cash long term, they are volatile and can go up and down lots in the short term - 20% drops aren't unknown. Therefore, SS ISAS aren't really suitable for coffin dodgers who may need to cash in the investments at short notice.

Personally I think even £12K p/a is far too much in cash regardless of age.

5

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 27 November 2025, 15:42:29 »

There are 60 odd ex USAF KC-10's stored in the boneyard at Davis Monthan/Tuscon. They were only retired about a year ago. They've only ever been operated by the USAF, and were in service from 1979 ish. The last ones were built (tecnically funds were allocated) in 1987. The hours and cycles on these airframes will be well documented.

If I were NTSB I'd be asking the USAF if they wouldn't mind stripping the engines and pylons off a handful of them so they can inspect the parts that broke assuming the KC10 uses the same or similar parts.

6

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 27 November 2025, 01:38:43 »

Page 9 of the initial report states...

After initial cleaning of the fracture surfaces, examination of the left pylon aft mount lug
fractures found evidence of fatigue cracks in addition to areas of overstress failure. On the aft
lug, on both the inboard and outboard fracture surfaces, a fatigue crack was observed where
the aft lug bore met the aft lug forward face. For the forward lug’s inboard fracture surface,
fatigue cracks were observed along the lug bore. For the forward lug’s outboard fracture
surface, the fracture consisted entirely of overstress with no indications of fatigue cracking.
The forward top flange of the aft mount assembly was examined for indications of
deformation or pre-existing fractures, but no indications were found. The spherical bearing
was removed from the wing clevis for further evaluation (see figure 10).

What they're saying is there were pre-accident fatigue cracks in 3 of the 4 mounting lug surfaces for the #1 engine. The engine "fell off" when the 4th lug gave way under the overstress of the take off. Whilst it's possible a bird strike was the straw that broke the camels back, the root cause of the accident is the fatigue cracks. It appears the design can withstand cracks in one and two of the 4 lugs, but if/when the third cracks the fourth isn't strong enough to hold it all together. And you wouldn't expect it to be.

So the report will IMHO concentrate on how/why these cracks occur, and how to inspect them such that the fault is detected when the first crack appears, rather than waiting for the engine to fall off when all 4 become cracked. 

7

General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias

« on: 13 November 2025, 09:47:39 »

Yep, you win the cigar.   
Just started claiming state pension. Wife isnt employed so I make use of 10% of her allowance.
Theres also a reduction for employer provided private health insurance.

Just checking - the tax man can cock-up tax codes, and that one would/will result in you paying about £1750 extra in tax next year if you were not recieving your SP. I'm sure you would have been happy to loan Rachel from accounts the money :-)

8

General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias

« on: 13 November 2025, 00:28:09 »

Could do with one of those myself. Just got my 25/26 tax code.
Its changed from 1219M to 38M. 

Have you started claiming your state pension?

And nice of your missus to give you 10% of her personal allowance.

9

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 12 November 2025, 12:02:50 »

As a cargo plane, my thoughts were how likely would it be for engine debris, admittedly at high speed with a lot of spin, to penetrate the fuselage (easy, thin aluminium) and the cargo (less likely?)

There is no real difference between a cargo and a passenger planes construction.

Yes, the bit I was wondering is if debris would penetrate the cargo easier than it would penetrate the organic matter in a passenger jet....

Pax planes are usually full of seats, which are partly made of metal. I've got a memory of one incident where engine bits were discovered embedded in the seats, but can't remember which accident that was. It's simply pot luck if an engine fragment hits something soft and squishy or hard and resilient. Heavy/dense cargo is likely to be placed close to the centre of lift/gravity, so over the wings and behind the line of the engines. However, no way of knowing if this plane was carrying a load of light teddybears or the lead lining for a nuclear reactor.

10

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 12 November 2025, 10:03:37 »

As a cargo plane, my thoughts were how likely would it be for engine debris, admittedly at high speed with a lot of spin, to penetrate the fuselage (easy, thin aluminium) and the cargo (less likely?)

There is no real difference between a cargo and a passenger planes construction. Some cargo planes do have a strengthened floor to take the weight of pallets and extra loading doors, but the wings, skins and bulkheads are the same. I don't think the cargo has any bearing on this, because for parts of an engine to hit the cargo they have to travel up, so they will miss the other engine if they emerge out the other side of the fuselage.

AIUI there are contained and uncontained engine failures. Smaller things like individual engine blades are supposed to be contained within the engine cowling if they break off. The engine will be destroyed, but things shouldn't fly out of the sides. This is tested during engine certification, and is often implemented by having kevlar bands around the engine. Larger parts - like rotor disks (either whole or segments) are considered to have infinite energy and cannot be contained. If they do break off, they will go through virtually anything. The safety mitigation for these is simply to route critical wiring and hydraulics out of being in direct line with the high energy rotating parts. Engines are also mounted forwards of the front wing spar, so if anything does fly off it doesn't puncture fuel tanks.

If some high energy part of #1 did escape and somehow hit #3 it will be the first known incident of this happening. It will have very serious consequences for air travel. Aircraft are certified to be able to takeoff, fly and land on n-1 engines on the basis that it's highly unlikely that two engines can be damaged by the same event. If that assumption proves to be false then it opens a huge can of worms. n-2 isn't possible on any aircraft, and since almost all are now twins (B-737,767,777,787,A-319,320,330,350) n-1 means zero.

11

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 11 November 2025, 20:41:30 »

Sorry - that first sentence should have been....

"#3 is the tail engine? Anything departing #1 with enough energy to penetrate the fuselage is going to miss the tail engine."

Point is, I can't find any instances of an engine on one wing causing damage to an engine on t'other wing. Yes there have been instances (on both B-707's and B-747's) where one engine has failed and knocked the other one on the same wing off, but never on the opposite wing.

12

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 11 November 2025, 19:07:05 »

There seems to be talk that Engine 3 filmed out just after nose came up.  Could debris from Number 1 have penetrated the fuselage, and cargo in that area, and out again to damage No 3?

#3 is the tail engine. Anything departing #1 with enough energy to penetrate the fuselage is going to miss the tail engine.

However, if the whole #1 detaches from the wing then it doesn't just fall to the ground like a dumb bomb. At the moment of departure it's sucking in huge mounts of air, and thrusting out tens of thousands of pounds of thrust. On detaching it actually accelerates forwards of the plane for while before drag slows it down, and then the plane catches it up and 'crashes' into it. Also, any sections of the wing that are damaged during the detachment, (or by things like fan blades puncturing the wing), can/do get sucked upwards and over the wing. The fan blades themselves will probably miss the tail engine, but secondary damage canget sucked into the tail engine.

I don't think there has ever been an incident of an engine failure on one wing causing damage to an engine on the other wing. If that could happen, then the safety case for virtually all twin engined aircraft goes to pot. 

13

General Car Chat / Re: EV Drivers

« on: 07 November 2025, 11:12:26 »

I applaud this policy, and I know how to disconnect the odometer on all my cars :-)

The Govt currently raises £25bn per year from petrol and diesel taxes. If (say) 50% of cars are electric or plug in hybrid by 2030 then that's a loss of £12Bn to the treasury. By 2040 it'll be closer to the full £25Bn since the only ones still using dinosaur juice will be those of us still driving classic cars. Something has to be done to plug that gap in funding. We may or may not like whatever they propose, but at least they have realised there is a looming issue, and are thinking about how to deal with it.

An interesting point has been raised on the skiing forums. Dover to the Alps and back is (roughly) 1200 miles, depending on destination. At 3p/mile thats £36. All those miles will show on your odometer, none of them are in the UK, but are you still going to get charged by HMRC?     

14

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 06 November 2025, 18:53:14 »

It is not true that "wings will always provide lift as long as there is air flowing over it". Once a wing stalls, all it provides is drag.

AA191 crashed in the way it did because the crew reduced speed to V2 when they realised something was wrong. That's what the checklist says to do on a DC10 in the event of engine failure during take-off/climb out. However, the crew did not realise they had also lost hydraulic pressure in the left wing, and that loss caused the leading edge slats to retract. With no leading edge slats, V2 is not fast enough for a wing to produce lift and the left wing stalled. The right wing did still have flaps an slats, so was still producing lift. The result of lift on the right wing and a stall on the left wing are what caused AA191 to roll left and crash in the way it did. If the crew had maintained their original speed, the left wing would not have stalled, it would not have rolled left, and simulator test showed the plane could have remained airborne - although given it was on fire and had compromised hydraulics no way of knowing how long it could have remained airborne.

In this case, the plane appears to have been level until it hit the ground. Dashcams show no evidence of roll.

15

General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash

« on: 06 November 2025, 13:50:44 »

Only way a birdstrike makes sense is if the engine swallowed a big bird (or birds) and suffered enough damage for the resulting vibrations to shake the engine off the wing. Not impossible, but not very likely either.

The engine pylon fixings are frangible - they are supposed to break if there is enough engine vibration to endanger the structural integtiry of the wing/airframe. AIUI the MD-11 has two main engine fixings on each pylon under the wing. There was a previous crash where the rear fixing broke, but that caused the engine to pivot forwards and upwards, and it departed over the top of the wing. That doesn't appear to have happened here. My money is on the front fixing breaking, which I think would result in a forwards and downwards departure if it happened at or after rotate when the wing is pulling upwards.

If that's correct, then we're looking at either poor maintainace, or counterfeit parts. It's also possible there was a fire in the wing first, which then damaged the fixings. Either way, nothing the crew could do, and once the second tail engine starts to lose thrust the outcome is sealed. No way a heavy MD-11 is going anywhere but down on one engine.

RIP the crew, and those caught on the ground.