No. But we can court marshal them.
Pilots’ five harrowing last words before June 2025 Air India crash killed 260 people
Weird messed-up article. It has an “updated” dateline of today, the anniversary of the accident. But the vast majority of the content was released 11 months ago while the article is still written in the present tense. It’s really annoying that internet cites don’t stay constant over time. It’d also be nice if updated articles indicated their original publication date and what was added or changed.
The actual AAAIB preliminary report came out a month after the accident. So last July. And contained the bit about who/why the engines were cut off. So that is totally not news. AAIB Prelim report. Annoyingly here, the prelim report itself has no date on it either. Can’t anyone here play this administrative game? Gaah!
Further down that AOL page is the article that’s actually new; published now in June 2026.
Here’s a copy of the AAIB’s 1 year letter of condolence which mumbles along about eventually maybe releasing a final report when they get around to it.
The stench of coverup is overpowering.
<br/
ETA: to clarify my comments, I’m not suggesting @Elendil_s_Heir goofed with this cite. AOL tried real hard to make this look like new news. Only somebody who’s been following the case all along could be expected not to fall for their shenanigans.
Hopefully they’ve cleaned up their approach patterns and general control of planes. I’ve had planes come very close to hitting me.
I’ve seen some cool things at Sun and Fun. I saw 2 Taylor Aerocars flying at the same time. And I saw one of them drive in and assemble into a plane.
They would bring in interesting stuff such as WWII era carbon arc search lights that we got to handle. They use to have a Convair F2Y Sea Dart on display outside. Don’t know if that’s still there.
That’s at the museum on the airport:
Per Google Maps latest imagery, it’s still there. The museum’s logo includes a Sea Dart, so decent bet they’ll hold onto it hard.
Growing up in SoCal I’ve been to this museum umpteen times back in the day, and most recently ~2000.
They also have a Sea Dart out front. They were manufactured in San Diego and tested / flown from San Diego Bay. Not a great invention, but so cool in so many ways. I’ve always been disproportionately interested in them.
This is an unusually good article for a short-lived project:
YouTube has some flight vids too.
There was an era of “let’s build one and try it out” back in the '50s and '60s. A little fighter that gets carried in the bottom of a bomber, a plane that takes off and lands on its tail, a plane with a supersonic propellor? Let’s build one and try it out.
Yep. Their reach greatly exceeded their grasp.
What a glorious time to be in aerospace! Unless you were a test pilot on a bad idea.
A bit like IT in the 1995-2005 era, tech was advancing faster than anyone could use it. Your best efforts to be bleeding edge were obsolete by release time.
LSL, thanks for the Sea Dart info. I bet every mechanic involved with that thing was shaking their head. Not enough zinc chromate in the world to keep that thing flying.
You know, I kinda wonder if any of them could be done successfully now. There’s no need for a jet fighter that takes off from the water, but it would be cool to see if we could build one that worked.
The hard part of any seaplane / floatplane is getting up to speed on less than glass-smooth water without beating the airplane to death. So low takeoff speeds are a huge help. Which delta wings in 1954 surely did not have. So is high excess power. Which turbojets in 1954 surely did not have.
The other big gainer for water takeoff performance is having enough thrust to quickly transition from displacement to planing. And having a low planing speed. Hydroplane racing boats are enormously powerful and can leap up “onto the step” in a boat length or two. That’d be a real desirable feature for any seaplane fighter.
If I had to do it today I’d cheat and make it based off the F-35B. Which can lift off at ~100 knots. And has lots of excess power.
I’ve heard somewhere that glass-smooth water is not ideal for float planes; that a perfectly smooth surface creates a suction that holds the planing float on the water. A little bit of roughness introduces air bubbles between the float and the water. After a night at a remote lake in the wilderness, bush pilots would circle around on the surface to generate some waves before trying to take off.
As for a Sea Dart II, I don’t know what 21st-Century designers would come up with. With the current state of the art in materials, aerodynamics, and hydrodynamics, it would be interesting to see them try. Totally impractical, but interesting.
When I started reading about aviation history, I thought it was odd that the fastest planes in the world between the world wars were seaplanes. That’s a lot of extra weight and drag to carry. Then I learned the explanation. Those planes were optimized for top speed, with small wings and high-pitch propellors. They needed miles to reach takeoff speed, and there weren’t miles-long runways anywhere except water.
I just drove past one last night; I guess I know where we’re going when you come for a visit. 
Why not a Harrier float plane?
Could do too. Due to it being a true VTOL, it’s arguably a better baseline design to start from than the STOVL F-35B.
But …
The Brits have long ago parked their various Harriers. Like a decade-plus ago. The US parked their last McDonnell Douglas Harrier variants last year after a decades-long drawdown. Some other countries did, and may still do, operate a couple of them each. FYI, the 4 wiki articles on Harriers are a jumbled mess of conflicting info, especially as to operators past & present. As befits the rather confusing heritage of the machine.
I decided to go with something still flying, not a museum piece. Nothing more to it.
Late add / edit.
But …
The Sea Dart was intended to be supersonic. And was … barely. Had they continued development to production they’d probably have gotten it to fly supersonically routinely. The F-35B is also supersonic.
The Harrier is/was not.
Always good to have a helpful king around:
I’m surprised the Pope flies commercial. I would have thought the Vatican had a fleet of planes or at least chartered them.
I’m guessing it’s part of the “stay humble” persona messaging, perhaps most clearly shown by the former Pope Francis.
Depends on the flight. Many other non-superpower, non-filthy-rich world leaders similarly will either block out a cabin in a scheduled flight, or charter a plane from an airline that already operates between the destinations (to ease logistics). The generalized collapse/consolidation of “flag carriers” has also affected this.
An F/A-18 out of MCAS Miramar crashed at Rimrock Lake, WA (about 85 miles SE of Seattle, according to Google Earth). The pilot ejected.