johnwvincent

Why Timely Aviation Safety Reporting Matters

Waiting for accident reports can be frustrating. I’ve found this to be the case in past experiences. When a major fatal aviation accident happens the demand for information is exceptionally high. That means that every credible source of information will be drawn upon.

I don’t think anyone expects professional aviation accident investigators to come up with instant answers. Extensive and meticulous work is required to arrive at detailed findings. When it’s possible accident investigators publish interim reports to ensure that relevant information becomes generally available.

Countering this reality is the need to ensure that the aviation system is not operating at elevated risk during the period that investigation is being conducted. Information needs to flow to those who are empowered to take corrective action.

Given the nature of international civil aviation, accidents can occur anywhere at any time. There’s no rule, statistical or otherwise, that can stop these extremely rare events occurring. Much as it’s fine to promote an ambition for zero accidents, it’s not going to happen.

The frustration I’ve pointed to is shared by industry and authorities. As time goes by the level of speculation and misinformation always increases where there is an absence of verifiable facts. There’s always a need for industry, authorities and investigators to cooperate. As often each one will have a part of the jigsaw that when put together describes what happened.

For all sorts of reasons, this necessary cooperation does not always exist or exist as a smooth pathway to resolving a situation and initiating corrective action. Where barriers exist and delays accumulate the collective aim of assuring aviation safety is harmed.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), at their recent conference, highlighted this as being a significant issue[1]. There are international standards, but these standards are not always applied in the manner with which they were intended. It seems obvious to say. It’s essential to learn safety lessons and take corrective action as soon as it’s humanly possible.

Where sufficient resources are an issue then there must be cooperative arrangement to allow others to help. It’s by sharing expertise and equipment that the time between occurrence of an event and the implementation of risk reduction measures can be reduced.

Risk reduction measures do not always need to be the final measure. There are the conventional strategies for addressing aviation safety risk – reduce, eliminate or mitigate. Even if publication of a final accident report is a year or more away, there’s often much that can be done in the interim.

Bureaucratic protocols, political sensitivities and commercial interests are real. However, most governments have signed up to obligations within the ICAO convention and its standards. It’s recognised that timeliness is vital.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-10-14-02/

Recent Aviation Accidents: Lessons Learned, or not

I start from a position of apprehension. Making aviation accidents, documentary style, the subject of a television series does give me some concern. Obviously, there’s the importance of being respectful to those involved. To reveal something that is of genuine public interest.

Accident investigation and journalism seek to answer the six questions – Who, what, where, when, why and how. When it comes to addressing aviation accidents that have occurred in the last 18-months some of the process of investigation may still be ongoing.

My apprehension starts with – what is the purpose of the series? Does it go some way to answering the question – why? That’s especially the case given that word is in the title[1]. Practically the “why” is turned into a probable cause because the “why” can include multiple factors. It’s rare for there to be a lone factor that results in a tragic outcome.

Broadcast last night by the BBC, this series took a selection of the accidents that recently commanded international headlines. The fatal events have been much discussed within informed professional communities and across social media. I’ve written on them too.

[Fatal Boeing 737 Crash in South Korea, Investigating the Black Hawk and American Eagle Collision, Aircraft Safety and Fuel Starvation, Understanding Boeing 787 Avionics.]

We do this to seek to understand. If there are always lessons to be learned, it’s imperative that those lessons be learned without delay. Lack of an informed and timely response exposes the flying public to further risks.

Sadly, a few of the lessons learned in the past have not been translated into change. The fatal accident at Muan International Airport in South Korea is a case in point. Brid strikes are not new. The dangers of flocking birds have been highlighted time and time again. Whilst airports are built near large bodies of water this will continue be a risk. However, it wouldn’t be right to say this is the only cause of the accident outcome at Muan.

Truly tragic are what may be called: avoidable accidents. This is where the event is purely made up of human actions that need not have take the course they took. Processes and procedures were inadequate, and known to be inadequate, for the situation. To me, this is the case of the military helicopter that collided at low altitude with a passenger flight in Washington DC. It’s mystifying as to why past occurrences of near misses didn’t prompt a change to operations.

I’ll say this because it’s not often given credit. A testament to the good design of an aircraft, and the extensive certification work done and the rigorous training of crews, an accident in the Canadian snow did not become fatal. Upon a spectacular heavy landing in Toronto everyone escaped.

On take-off, a London bound, fully loaded Air India Boeing 787 failed to climb. The results were catastrophic in every sense. Not only were all on-board killed but there were multiple fatalities on the ground. This tragic fatal accident remains mysterious. The published preliminary report is a source of more questions than answers. Facts so far published do not explain the sequence of events.

What connects this spate of aviation disasters? Nothing, that I can determine. Although, there is the importance of lessons learned. They are not that compilation of dusty past accident reports that sit on a shelf. They are a source of everyday learning. That is learning that needs to be put into action. Timely action. Not waiting for a final publication.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002kw1n/why-why-planes-crash

Trust in Voluntary Reporting

Hard data is immensely useful. Now there’s a surprise. That’s facts and figures. That’s accurate descriptions of occurrences. That’s measurements and readings of important factors. From this kind of data, a picture can be painted of events good and bad. However, this picture is not complete. It’s certainly not complete for any system that involves the interactions of humans and machines.

What’s often less visible is the need for what I might call – soft data. As such it’s not “soft”. I’m just using that loose term to distinguish it. Fine, you could say that social media is littered with the stuff. Vast qualities of instant judgements and colourful opinions. An array of off-the-shelf solutions to life’s ills. That’s all well and good for entertainment. It’s not so useful as a means of getting to the truth.

In civil aviation voluntary reporting systems have been around for several decades. They are not always successful, mainly because there’s a fair amount of trust required to use them when something major happens. When volunteering information there needs to be a level of assurance that the information will not be misused.

The human inclination to seek to blame is intrinsic. We wake-up in the morning, look out the window, and if it’s rainy and windy then someone is to blame. Probably a weather reporter for not warning us of a coming storm. Blame is a way of making sense of negative events without having to do lot of tedious investigation and analysis.

Don’t get me wrong. Accountability is vital. If someone does something unspeakably bad, they must be held accountable. That is a form of blame. Tracing the bad event back to the root cause. If that cause is found to be negligence or malicious intent, then blame can be assigned.

Where a good safety culture exists, as it often the case in civil aviation, then it is wrong to assume that undesirable outcomes can always be linked to a bad actor of some kind.

Human error is forever with us. Even with the absolute best of intent no one is immune from this pervasive creature. It can be illusive. There are environments where owning up to making mistakes is fine. Sadly, I’m sure it’s not uncommon to have worked in environments where such openness is punished. The difference between a good culture and a bad one.

One of my past jobs involved negotiation with a contactor. Every change that we made to a complex contact had a cost attracted to it. So, there was an understandable sensitivity to making changes. At the same time our customer for the product kept asking for changes. There’s nothing worse than being in a tense meeting with a contactor and having my boss pull the rug from under my feet. Seeking to blame a change on my error rather than a customer request. Introducing a voluntary reporting system in such an environment is pointless.

My message here is clear. Voluntary reporting in aviation is a powerful tool. Reports submitted by employees can offer insights that are not available by just looking at hard data. These reporting systems maybe required by regulation or company policy. However, without a good sound safety culture they can be all but useless. A safety culture that is defended and supported by employees and the senior management of an organisation.

Global Ambitions to National Introspection

When did it start? At least in recent times. When did we start looking inward rather than outward? That introverted xenophobia that’s infected about a third of the country. If the polls are to be believed (and that’s a leap).

It’s strange, isn’t it? Britain, a country that spanned the globe with its trading accomplishments went from imagining a transformed world to sitting in front of an iPad complaining about either putting up Union flags on lampposts to taking them down. Painting roundabouts with red crosses or decrying the idiocy of it. Dressing up as crusader knights and thundering on about some lost imaginary England.

Pictures tell a story. Being in the aviation business, a global business, one picture that sticks in my mind involves a handkerchief and a British Prime Minister (PM). It seems a long time ago, now. Nearly 30-years ago. Back in 1997 British Airways (BA) took to celebrating their global coverage by getting international artists to produce new artworks for their aircraft fleet[1]. This was not to the liking of a former PM at the time.

For me this slippery slope was particularly evident. Living in the Surrey town of Reigate. An affluent former Conservative Party supporter, James Goldsmith set-up a new political party dedicated to one issue. The name gives it away. The Referendum Party took to the stage in 1994. Initially, seen as a joke and merely a plaything of a wealthy man, it captured the Member of Parliament for my town. For all the good it did (not), for a couple of weeks in 1997, George Gardiner, the MP for Reigate, joined the new party.

So, the British political mood in 1997 was evident, or so it may have been thought. Nothing of the sort. Of course that was the year of Tony Blair’s Labour landslide victory.

It’s possible to trace a lot of strangeness back to Margaret Thatcher. Although initially internationalist in outlook, she broke a domestic consensus and crushed a lot of hopes. Yes, the country needed radical change. It was the brutality of that change that people reacted against.

In 2001, BA succumbed and returned the Union flag to its tailplanes. Lots of poor excuses were made as to the reason for reverting. A Boeing 747 model and the handkerchief bit back.

Can I construct a thread of events from that moment to the European referendum in 2016? Certainly, there are connections as the country shook off the Blair and Brown years and plunged into a messy 14-years of incoherence. The financial crisis of 2008 didn’t help in the slide to introspection. A government that bailed out the bankers whilst making the population pay did nothing to earn a moral reputation. It further encouraged a growth of a blame culture.

So, if you supported the Referendum Party, the UKIP Party and the Brexit Party that followed, and now the Reform Party surely, it’s possible to see that you are barking up the wrong tree. It’s an empty cul-de-sac. It’s a fruitless orchard. It’s a road to decline.

These are not the heirs to Margaret Thatcher. They are bandwagon hopping con men. Money men who like their pockets lined. They will not help those who have missed out on their share of the country’s prosperity – past, present or future.

[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/linda_chen/albums/72157625997434719/

Exploring Space: A Journey

I haven’t got many of my childhood Ladybird books. One I have kept in good condition is “Exploring Space.” It’s got the characteristic illustrations and simple stories that are made to captivate. This book is the revised edition that must date from sometime after 1971[1]. The front cover has an illustration of a moon lander floating above the moon. It’s a picture that says – look what we can do, this is the tip of the iceberg. Such an optimistic outlook.

Most of my career has been in the aerospace business. More specifically civil aviation. For short while, I did get involved in building ground test equipment for satellite systems. Some of the people I worked with built the Giotto spacecraft in the UK. The mission was to study Halley’s Comet. This spacecraft, launched in 1985, took close-up images of the comet. It discovered organic material within the comet and proved that a spacecraft could cope with the harsh conditions of such a flyby.

My interest in space, and the complexities of getting there has been with me for a long time. It’s the ultimate adventure. It also shows what can be done by international cooperation. Giotto was the European Space Agency (ESA) first deep-space mission.

Mention the word interplanetary and what comes to mind? For people of my age. The Carpenters’ version of the song “Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft”. It’s an eccentric, but successful 1970s pop song about talking to aliens. It’s a cry for help that is as relevant now as it was then. “Please come in peace and help us in our earthly problems.” If ever we humans could do with help from a more advanced civilization, it’s right now.

A sense of wonder about the heavens is as old as our human story. What’s up there? Could we live there? Are there others living there already?

I like the idea of an English bishop[2] in the 1630s. An early science fiction writer he imagined a flight into space in a craft pulled by a flock of wild swans. Ten to be precise. Since there are plenty of swans here in the English town of Newbury, I thought about investigating that idea. Maybe not.

Last evening, for the first time, I visited the British Interplanetary Society (BIS)[3] at Arthur C. Clarke House in London. Their HQ is in Lambeth. Can’t say I like that part of London at all. It’s a peculiar mix of sterile skyscrapers and spaces waiting to be re-developed. Old London has been pushed aside.

The BIS has a long history. It’s no fly by night organisation. Not as far back as the English bishop mentioned above, but more than 90-years extant. They have promoted thoughts and ideas that go way beyond past achievements. Trying to imagine what a future may look like if our capabilities and drive for exploration continue to advance here on earth. I think there’s always a need for that creative imagination to push the boundaries of what’s possible.

This week has been Space Week[4]. A week to highlight all things space. Back in 1999, the United Nations (UN) declared that World Space Week would be every year from 4 to 11 October. For this celebration, this year, the BIS had put on an evening event called: Living in Space: A World Space Week Special Panel.

I won’t say too much only that it was a fascinating evening. We were a small gathering full of questions. BIS had assembled a prestigious panel of experienced individuals. There wasn’t much in terms of the practicalities of living and working in space that didn’t get discussed.

I’m reminded that despite the hostility of the space environment for our biology, what we know is that all the materials of which the earth is made are there waiting for us. Constructing habitats, with the robotics we now have, isn’t just science fiction anymore.

[1] https://www.royalmint.com/discover/decimalisation/

[2] Francis Godwin (1562–1633)

[3] https://www.bis-space.com/

[4] https://www.worldspaceweek.org/

Music to Dance Under the Moon

Flicking through the vinyl albums that no one wants there’s one I should have rescued this week. In a corner, charity shops usually have a pile of gifted vinyl records. I like to look for a hidden gem. Unfortunately, what’s left is the tatty and practically valueless disks. Versions of musicals that have fallen out of fashion, scratched classical concerts and embarrassing compilations.

It’s harvest time. Autumn is undeniable. A colourful carpet of leaves litters the pavements. Remarkably warm. Monday’s blue skies set of the spectacle of the trees display. When the October weather is like this there’s not much to complain about. Crisp walks through the dappled light as the low sun’s rays shine through the branches. Good to be alive.

Looking out of the window in the early morning it was as if it was a spooky daytime. In a monochrome light the outline of the tree line was like a cutout silhouette. Nothing could move without being seen. Grass glittered. Hedges stood like army ranks. All because of the intensity of the moonlight. Constant in the cool air.

The pop tune that entered my head was there for the taking but I’d left it to one side. This is a song that resonated from my boyhood. Some might cringe a bit. Let’s suspend judgement and let the 1970s be the 1970s. “Under the moon of love” is about as catchy as it gets. Showaddywaddy[1] dressed up in their brightly coloured exaggerated 1950s garb. They were not the only ones to do that for Top of the Pops. What’s memorable is the danceability of their pop classics. It makes me want to move. Don’t tell anybody. Sadly, my long hair has long gone.

It’s the time of the harvest moon. So, it’s a time for moon tunes. Not just any moon but the first supermoon of the year will grace the sky tonight, Tuesday 7th October. This bright full moon of 2025 will light up the nighttime. It will not have a musical accompaniment in my garden even if there’s a lot to choose from. The neighbours wouldn’t like it.

The best of the pile is Neil Young and his Harvest Moon[2]. 180 degrees from the Showaddywaddy pop effort. Neil scores top rating. It’s melodic, melancholy and memorable. Fantastic. Just right for a quite evening gazing at the moon overhead.

On a melodic theme the next one I’d recommend is from Nick Drake[3]. Again, it’s the 1970s that provides the music. It was a decade of variety, to say the least. Song writers were pushing the boat out and coming up with magical results.

And here’s another. Another to dance to in the moonlight. Moondance in fact. Van Morrison[4] this time. Perfect for an October night.

And if anyone has ever doubted the genius of Beethoven there’s the Moonlight Sonata.

The coming night will mark the start of a run of 3 supermoons. November and December will be graced with magical moons. I hope that’s an omen for good. Love and happiness.

POST: For more information BBC Radio 4: In Our Time: The Moon

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0m77cfm

[1] https://youtu.be/qigUdmLyMBs

[2] https://youtu.be/n2MtEsrcTTs

[3] https://youtu.be/xqe6TF2y8i4

[4] https://youtu.be/7kfYOGndVfU

Shifting Perspectives

Daily writing prompt

What’s a topic or issue about which you’ve changed your mind?

View all responses

If you write the perfect rule, you will get the desired outcome. Authoring a specification that is robust and watertight will assure success. Having the best possible plan will deliver the best possible results. All sounds reasonable – doesn’t it? It’s not surprising that someone like me, having been schooled in project management, and working in engineering, would have a rational and systematic approach to problem solving. A proven highly successful way of implementing complex technical projects and delivering successful outcomes.

As an analogy I’ll start with mathematics. Nature is a curious beast. What we lean about complex systems is that what happens is highly dependent upon a start point. The initial conditions. Graduate level mathematics about control systems with feedback show that their behaviour changes a lot with a change of initial conditions. So, it’s reasonable to extend that to a systematic approach to just about anything. It’s often true.

Fail to plan – plan to fail. That idiom is a simple few words to sum up this cause and effect. Used by famous names and often quoted. Management training books are littered with this notion.

20-years ago, my team introduced the first European Aviation Safety Plan[1]. This initiative was built around the idea that to achieve a common objective a plan is the best and quickest way to get there. A roadmap, a pathway, a strategy, call it what you will.

Start by identifying problems and then propose a fix for each one. Not all problems but the ones that fit that awkward Americanism – the low hanging fruit. Namely, the biggest problems (fruit) that can be solved with the least effort (easily picked).

Here’s where I’ve changed your mind. Maybe not changed in a dramatic sense but shifted perspective. It’s essential to have a plan, even if it’s just in my head, but it can be overstated as the most important part of a process of change.

The Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) cycle, starts with a plan. It must start that way. However, each of the four steps is equally important. Seems obvious to say. Even so, it’s often the case that a press release, or alike, will state – we have a plan, roadmap, pathway, strategy, as if that’s the job done.

Management teams will smile with a sense of achievement and show off their plans. A decade down the line that celebration might seem less momentous as the “do” part of the process turns out to be harder than anticipated.

This basic model for systematic change is a good one. Where I’ve changed my emphasis is in the distribution of effort. Don’t put all available energies into constructing the perfect plan. Yes, the initial conditions are important but they are not everything. The key part of the process is the cycle. Going around it with regularity is a way of delivering continuous improvement. Afterall, when it comes to a subject like aviation safety, that’s what’s needed.

[1] 2005 – DECISION OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD ADOPTING THE 2006 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

Engaging the 70%

A little analysis goes a long way. When that analysis chimes with what I observe, then all the better. Not that just because I agree with something that it therefore makes it beyond question. No, what’s satisfying here is to see that overlap on the Venn diagram of thoughts.

In an entirely off the cuff remark I said that if the major, and not so major, UK political parties all go off hunting for the votes of about 30% of the population, then there’s a huge opportunity for someone to address the 70%.

The UK political conference season is in full swing. Four political parties have completed their annual get together. Spent time agonising over their next moves. Damming and praising in equal measure both of rising and falling stars. Trying to avoid the media instinct to go for the live on-air gotcha moment. Being seen when the spotlight is turned on.

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. This one strikes a bell for me having been a fan of the Pareto principle. That’s often called the 80 /20 rule.

For example, a lot of work may need to be done but it’s often only about 20% of that work that makes a difference, in certain situations. I could campaign over a wide area, without focus, and find that most of my effort had been wasted. Identifying the most fruitful areas to campaign, namely the 20%, might just as likely result in a win but with a greatly reduced effort.

National opinion polls can be deceptive. However, in the absence of real elections they are what people turn to get an indication of what’s going on – now. Today’s opinion polls have politicians spooked[1]. What the meaning of the Reform Party hovering at 30% is an open question.

Is it just like the days of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1980s? A strong move for change that resulted in a flash in the pan. Well, it did open the door for Tony Blair and Co, years later.

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. Labour, Conservatives and Reform all see this 30% voting intention. It hardly matters if it’s real. They are attracted to it like a moth to a lamp. There’re both data and a perception of who the 30% might be. Suddenly their importance is magnified out of all proportion. Phrase like “hard working people” are banded around. Classifications are sought to move away from past stereotypes like “white van man.”

I read Ben Ansell’s article[2]. I think he’s right. An enormous number of political campaigners fit into what can be called the Professional Managerial Class (PMC). Lots of people aspire to be of the PMC or think they are when they are not. Why do the two biggest political parties, Labour and Conservatives appear to dislike their activists and members so much?

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. There is an enormous opportunity here for the Liberal Democrats. Not so much the Greens or nationalists. Just by speaking to the 70%. Just by addressing the issue that concern the 70%. Just signing up the 70%.

Not so much the vital few, more the vital many. Parliament could be a very different place in four years’ time.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

[2] https://substack.com/@benansell

Nostalgic Reflection

Daily writing prompt

Your life without a computer: what does it look like?

View all responses

Try telling the kids of today. They’ll never believe you. This is the punchline of the “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch. It’s a comic sketch of four retirees, enjoying a cocktail, or two, on a sunshine holiday. They tell stories and try to outdo each other with reminiscence of hardship and their humble beginnings. Naturally, it gets silly.

Here’s my go. My childhood was tough. My brothers and I had to entertain ourselves with board games, toy cars, Lego and Meccano. Kicking a ball around, building camps out of hay bales and fighting wars with cider apples as ammunition. Building a tank out of egg crates and a milk churn trolly. Trying to make kites out of scraps of polythene sheeting. Spending hours on a riverbank waiting for a lone dace, minnow or roach to take the line.

We used to dream of having a computer (not true). Massive arrays of flashing lights, panels of buttons and dials and deafening teletype machines. None of us would have known what to do with one if we had one. Any appeal would have been for roleplaying futuristic stories. The small screen gave us so many visons of the future to feed our imaginations. My image of computers was shaped by Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Space 1999. Blake’s 7, Captain Scarlet And The Mysterons and Thunderbirds, to name a few.

It’s nice to be nostalgic, occasionally. There was life without computers. It wasn’t so bad.

Back to the question. What would my life look like in 2025 without computers? Let’s just say – I wouldn’t be writing this answer.

Unpacking Trust and Suspicion

Tickling the natural suspicion that a politician may say one thing but mean another, is not new. There’s a languid propensity to think the worst of people in power by those who don’t have that power. I wouldn’t argue with that tendency, if that tendency doesn’t become an absolute cover all. There are good people in power, trying to do their best, often against climate set by rogues, troublemakers and opinionated clowns. [A quick summary of the Tory years from 2010].

Natural suspicion is as much a part of the liberal creed as any part. Questions deserve answers because we don’t give politicians a blank cheque after an election. Putting a robust question about past promises and declarations is fair game. Running away is not an option.

However, it’s difficult to defend the blatant distortions that get played out in the daily media. I’m no fan of the UK’s Labour Prime Minister (PM). I don’t think he’s a rogue or troublemaker or dishonest. He’s portrayed as such by his enemies. That’s no surprise. What’s highly disagreeable are blatant distortions of what a person says in all good faith. Populist media outlets that act as propaganda pamphlets do this frequently.

I may say that the declared policies of a right-wing political party are stupid or dangerous or ignorant. What that says is the words used by a spokesperson of that party fit that bill. It does NOT say that that the people who support, even fleeting support, that party are all stupid or dangerous or ignorant.

Reasons for supporting for X or Y or even Z are multifarious and less stable than for past generations. The assumption that most people of a particular “class” will fit into traditional voting patterns is history. That era has passed.

The word “fleeting” is ever more relevant. Often a spokesperson will indeed say something that is merely flying a kite or designed to stir-up controversy. Whereas if they found themselves in power their whole tune would likely change. Reality would bite. Haven’t we seen and heard that before? I may say; do we never learn?

A study rhetoric is as ancient a study as any. Feelings and impressions are as likely to influence us as facts and figures. Performative gestures and colourful language obscure dry reasoning almost always. This basic lesson had to be relearned because of Brexit. There the established facts were clearly against the UK leaving the EU, but it happened anyway. Lots of people regret what happened in 2016. Sadly, such damaging acts are difficult to reverse.

Earthquakes happen because pressure builds up and then there’s a dramatic release. That happens regardless. Events can be quite anarchic and destructive. I guess the trick is to sense that pressure and ensure it doesn’t build up or is redirected. That’s an area where the current PM hasn’t shown a great deal of competence. I wonder if he will learn and adapt.