johnwvincent

What If We Brought Back a Dinosaur?

Daily writing prompt

If you could bring back one dinosaur, which one would it be?

Let’s just say that the dino that I’d bring back, time machine permitting, would be the biggest vegetarian that ever existed. It would be downright irresponsible to bring back a meat-eater. Haven’t we seen enough excitable movies on the theme of what can go wrong? The last genetic recreation humanity needs is one that would like to eat us.

If reptilian brains had advanced as fast as homo sapiens maybe the world would be dramatically different. Still, they had several hundred million years, and they wasted the lot. Thus, there’s not much to fear when faced with a large slow-moving vegetarian.

As the planet warms, so there will be more habitable regions where big plodding 40-ton dinos can do some good. A spectacle for sure. And a way to reshape landscapes. Driving evolution in the wilderness.

Here’s a crazy thought. The permafrost in Siberia is melting. Carbon is being released into the atmosphere. That’s not good. Let loose a lot of ultra-heavy dinos across such a wilderness. Feeding on the forests. Fertilising the forests. Equally compressing and churning up the soil. That might keep some of the carbon locked up.

Lusotitan monsters[1] wouldn’t threaten humanity. They might be an asset as well as being fascinating. Large herbivores exist today. We might value them more in the sight of a large dino lumbering across the terrain.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ll5jcv

Exploration and Innovation

Is there a human on the planet who has never seen the Moon? I guess, there must be a small number. The Earth’s satellite comes and goes from the night sky. Its constancy can’t be denied. Lighting the way when it’s full.

Accurate measurements say that the Moon is drifting away from us. The pace is nothing to be concerned about. It’s not going to become a free flying object careering across the universe. Space 1999[1] is pure fiction. Let’s face it we haven’t even got a working Moon Base here in 2025.

What motivated humans to go to the Moon in the 1960s? The simplest answer is the explorer’s quote: because it’s there. A quote that can be applied to any difficult journey that’s being taken for the first time. It implies a human longing to explore. An insatiable desire to go where no one has gone before. That’s nice, only it’s a partial story.

Technology accelerated in the post-war era as science and engineering built upon the discoveries and inventions that conflict drove. Then the promise of peace dissolved into the Cold War. Sides arranged in immoveable ideological opposition. The technological race was on. Intense competition drove the need to be display global superiority.

Potentially destructive forces were, for once, channeled into a civil project of enormous size. The Apollo missions. The aims and objectives of which were “civil” in nature, however the resulting innovations had universal applications. Companies that made fighter jets and missiles turned their hands to space vehicles. Early rockets were adaptations of intercontinental missiles.

1969’s moon landing put down a marker in history that will be talked of in a thousand years. Putting humans on the Moon for the first time is one of the ultimate firsts. That first “small step for man” may be as important as the first Homo sapiens stepping out of Africa. A signpost pointed to what was possible.

More than five decades have gone by. Instead of looking up to the heavens we now look down to our mobile phones. Rather than applying our intelligence to exploration we strive to make machines that can surpass us. Of course this is not a true characterisation. Exploration has merely taken a different a direction.

Will humans step into the final frontier again? Yes, but not as the number one priority. Plans to return to the Moon exist. It’s the intense competition that drove the Apollo missions that is missing. The advantage of being first to establish a working Moon Base is not so overwhelming. Even this base as a stepping stone to the planet Mars is viewed as a longer term ambition.

One advantage of this century over the last is the advances in automation and robotics that have become commonplace. Modern humans don’t need to do everything with our hands. Complex machines can do much of the work that needs to be done. Footsteps on another planet can wait a while.

Enough of us continue to be amazed and inspired by space exploration. The challenge is not to achieve one goal. It’s to achieve many.

POST: I watched Capricorn One, the 1970s movie about a fake Mars mission. It could do with a remake. In many ways it is easier to fake now than it was with film and colour televisions the size of washing machines.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072564/

Rapid Change: Social Media’s Role

I don’t think we understand the impact our world of superfast global communication is having on human behaviour. A digital event happens with a group looking on, and gasping, and within hours it’s a talking point across great swaths of the INTERNET and social media. Worldwide in seconds.

We could be at a pivotal moment of human evolution. Every time humans have progressed there’s been something in our environment that has necessitated change. If we go back tens of thousands of years, it was the climate. People moved, searching for better prospects. When the rains disappear, migration happened. This still happens. Millions live in that time warp.

However, for those of us who live in communities where our basic needs are met, bar disasters, it’s different forces that motivate change. I say this after having watched a couple episodes of “Human[1]” a BBC series about the origins of modern humans. Billions of us fixate not on finding enough food or shelter but on scrolling.

I’m talking about a couple who got caught on camera. Obviously, they thought that their evening out at a rock concert was a private matter. It turned out to be anything but private. Suddenly these two people spark controversy and debate without any intention of doing so[2]. We live in a time where global social media can thrust a spotlight on any event, almost anywhere. The proliferation of high-definition cameras and the ease with which pictures spread has all speeded up in the last couple of decades. Any picture or video can go anywhere on Earth at lightning speed.

Past moments of human evolution never had these superfast phenomena to adapt to. Sure, we have had great steps in technology. I read that people are taller now than they were in medieval times. Industrialisation may have had downsides, but we are mostly better fed as a result.

Social media is not benign. It grabs attention, it demands an opinion, it drives rapid judgement and gets passed on to spark more cycles of comment and opinion. This conveyor-belt of comment and opinion takes on a life of its own.

There’s such a mix that it’s not always easy to determine what’s true and what’s people pushing their own certainties and prejudices. Judgements are expected to be immediate. Any appeal to caution and considered thought can be seed sown on fallow ground. Like a Vicar in an empty church.

These behaviours are being applied to the daily News and events like the recent Air India accident. Attention increases when there’s tragedy and mystery. There’s wisdom in saying that people should wait for the formal accident investigation to conclude. Only this does nothing to impede a rain forest of judgements. Real and self appointed experts fight to get their view top billing.

Maybe these are ephemeral and of no great consequence. I don’t believe that because, like it or not, decision makers are influenced by social media’s compelling nature. What this says to me is that adaptation isn’t an option it’s a necessity. Appealing to past custom and practice isn’t going to work. I don’t have an answer as to the nature of this adaptation. Sitting quietly waiting for attention to subside isn’t a good course of action.

POST: It’s kinda funny that a magazine like WIRED highlights how to dump social media. How to Delete All of Your Social Media Accounts: Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, and More | WIRED

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002fc72/human

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/astronomer-responds-coldplay-concert-kiss-cam-moment-rcna219678

Lowering the Voting Age

The line-up of predicable grumpiness is no more than might be expected. For once the UK’s Government has decided to bite the bullet and make a long overdue change. It’s time to bring the voting age down to 16-years old. This is a policy that has long been advocated by Liberal Democrats. Wisely so. Like it or not, we have a stubborn geriocracy in Britan. Political influence is top heavy. An agenda dominated by issues toping the polls with older voters.

Yes, we did see changes, a year ago with the last General Election. More younger candidates winning. However, the average age of a Member of Parliament[1] floats around 50-years. This average age hasn’t changed much over decades.

Studies on what motivates candidates to stand for election often point to community engagement and activism being part of their lives. It’s only when, in mid-life, opportunities present themselves and support can be marshalled that they stand for election.

And the retirement community of the House of Lords is solely built on the notion that age brings wisdom. Sadly, so often this does not ring true. Ten minutes watching the Parliamentary channel is a good way to see a range of speakers from erudite to senile. From expert to confused. From informed to delusionary. On occasion a few sleeping on the comfortable red leather benches.

When the elderly hold so much political power it’s difficult enough to get 18-year-olds to take an interest in voting. This is not an argument for the status-quo. Far from it.

Those in the age group 16 to 18 years are interested in society and the direction it’s taking. Youth activism hasn’t entirely perished in the world of tick-boxing education. Loading students up with enormous loans, with learning establishments seeing them as revenue generators, and deaf ears to their concerns has done a lot to supress youth engagement in elections.

There’s a lot to be said for “no taxation without representation”. Young people do work. They do pay taxes. They should have a stake in how those taxes are spent.

What’s not to be presumed is that a new youth vote will automatically lean to the left of politics. It’s easy to make that sloppy assumption. It may arise because the prominent youth activist who get media exposure are those campaigning on environmental and social issues. That does not say much about the majority who may choose to go to a polling station.

I think the larger number of young voters, despite the media stereotypes, will likely vote the way of their parents and friends. Having been nurtured in a particular way this is not so surprising. The lazy stereotypes of riotous youths biting the hand that feeds them is only true of a few, it’s not the majority. It’s belonging to dusty Woodstock documentaries.

It’s for the political parties to up their game and campaign with young people in mind. Even with the best of efforts election turn-out is still likely to be low. At least the message is that the next generation matter. If these modest changes are blocked because older people fear the next generation that is a very sad reflection of our society. Surely, it’s better to have younger people invested in their communities.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

The Greasy Pole

I think we should be indebted to the writers of “Yes Minister.” And the brilliance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, and Derek Fowlds[1]. No mobile phones, lap-tops or tablets, wood panelled offices, a Minister with all the backbone of a jellyfish and the cunning and mountainous pomposity of Oxbridge’s best.

It’s the ultimate lesson for aspiring British politicians. Fresh faced, with ambition and desire to make a difference they are confronted with the custom and practice of centuries. A bureaucratic minefield that tops anything Brussels can produce.

At first, it’s easy to see Jim Hacker as naive to the point of merely being indulged by the civil service. He learns fast, as a good parliamentarian should always do. Fun being seeing him turn the tables on the Whitehall establishment. Often at the expense of hysterically awkward moments and sporadic cynical manoeuvrings.

Last night, I watched “The greasy pole”[2]. Without a doubt this episode remains 100% relevant. It first went out in 1981. The story’s themes are universal.

A proposed industrial development offers secure jobs and potential prosperity. It comes with a hitch. Activism and noisy protests aimed against the project. Industry and the civil service want the factory to get built. The Right Honourable James Hacker sits on the fence. Blows hot and cold but realises that his political career pivots around sinking the project. The Minister wins out in the end much to the discomfort of the department officials.

It would be easy to write the entire plot in terms of 2025’s political difficulties. This morning’s News ran a story that wasn’t so far off the plot of “The greasy pole.”

A new Labour government minister tells of publishing a report that favours a point of view he wishes to get across. He continually mentions the name of the author of the report. Mimicking Jim Hacker as he makes sure everyone knows the report’s author, just in case he’s made a mistake.

Although, with the complete ridiculousness of the past British Conservative governments it may have been said that satire is dead. No, it certainly isn’t. Here it was playing out on the BBC on my kitchen radio at breakfast time.

This is the stubborn reality. In Britain we have a new absurdly named political party called “Reform.” They are flying high in the opinion polls because some people think the word has a political meaning. However, if these would be politicians were to gain a position of power, would they conduct long-needed reforms? Well, given the competence of the people involved and given the historic clashes between elected officials and civil servants the answer is most certainly – no.

It seems to me that new Labour government ministers are slowly getting the hang of the job. One year in they are still a bit wet behind the ears. Gradually, they are climbing the greasy pole. At any moment, because of the nature of the job, down they can come, and they know it.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006xtc3/yes-minister

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751819/

Aircraft Safety and Fuel Starvation

Unsafe. In common language it’s the opposite to being safe. So, take a definition of “safe” and reverse it. Let’s say to be safe is to be free from harm (not a good definition). That would lead to “unsafe” being subject to harm or potentially being subject to harm. The probabilistic element always creeps in since it’s the future that is of concern. Absolute safety is as mercurial or unreal as absolute certainty.

Let’s apply this to an aircraft. The ultimate harm is that of a catastrophic event from which there is no escape. Surprisingly, taking a high-level view, there are few of these situations that can occur.

Flying, and continuing to fly, involves four forces. Lift, Weight, Thrust and Drag. It’s that simple. An aircraft moves through the air with these in balance. Flying straight and level, lift opposes weight and thrust opposes drag.

Yes, there are other safety considerations. If there are people on-board. For example, it’s important to maintain a habitable environment. At higher altitudes that requirement can be demanding. Structural integrity is important too. Otherwise flying is a short-lived experience.

In the recent Air India fatal accident, the four forces of flight were not maintained so as to make a continued safe flight possible. The wings provided lift but the force that was deficient was thrust.

Two large powerful engines, either of which could have provided enough thrust, were unable to do so. The trouble being fuel starvation. Fuel starvation occurs when the fuel supply to the engine(s) is interrupted. This can happen even when there is useable fuel on board an aircraft[1].

Sadly, in the records there are numerous aircraft incidents and accidents where this has happened. Quite a few fuel starvation incidents and accidents occur because of fuel mismanagement. This can result from a pilot selecting an incorrect, or empty, fuel tank during a flight.

Now and then, it is the aircraft systems that are at fault. The pilot(s) can be misled by a faulty fuel indication system[2]. In one notable case, a major fuel leak drained the aircraft’s fuel supply[3].

When there is useable fuel on-board an aircraft, the imperative is to restart and recover. It is not uncommon or unreasonable for there to be a delay in restarting engine(s), especially when a fuel starvation event is entirely unexpected. Diagnosis takes time given the numerous potential causes of a starvation event.

In cruise flight there is time available to perform a diagnosis and take appropriate corrective action. Both take-off and landing have their hazards. Both are busy times in the cockpit. When looking at the worldwide safety numbers, less fatal accidents occur on take-off than landing. The numbers Boeing provide put take-off at 6% and landing at 24% of fatal accidents. Each one only occupies about 1% of the total flight time.

Although these are the numbers, my view is that, even though take-offs are optional and landings are mandatory, the requirements for adequate thrust are most critical during take-off. This is arguable and it reminds me that safety assessment is never simple.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/G-YMMM

[2] https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/322358

[3] https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/323244

Absolutely!

Daily writing prompt

List 10 things you know to be absolutely certain.

View all responses

For some obscure reason my mind goes immediately to René Magritte. A painter who knew how to play with reality and illusion. “This is not a pipe.” A painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe. So, why not say so.

I could say that there is nothing that we can be totally certain about. Afterall, some deep thinkers imagine that we live in a simulation where nothing is real. Personally, I don’t go with that theory. It’s absurd in the sense that the next question becomes – who made the simulation? And for them, could they not be part of a greater simulation? That would create a Russian doll set that would go on to infinity. And we all have a problem with infinity.

Let me go for 10 things that I think to be certain within the bounds of my limited knowledge.

My name. It gets used by those I met. Documents have it well recorded. My parents were consistent in using it. So, I’ll say that it certainly is John.
Earth. The existence of the planet where I live. The ground beneath my feet. The physical mass that generates enough gravity to keep me here.
Water. Now, I’m listing the four classical elements (Earth, water, air and fire). I depend on them every day. To walk, to drink, to breath, to keep warm in winter.
Air.
Fire.
Space. A generic name for the huge expanse beyond the Earth. Even with no personal experience of Space, I’m certain that it exists. Its precise nature is another matter.
Food. The existence of which sustains me. Without it I’d perish.
My senses. My five senses – sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
My size and shape. Measurements taken and recorded. Hight, weight and a proliferation of other dimensions. Not that they are static.
My emotions. Facts aside, so many likes and dislikes, engage, distract, motivate and repel with such consistency that their existence cannot be denied.

Having produced this fine list, I will now press the big red button marked do not press. Is there any reason why I shouldn’t engage the infinite improbability drive?

Understanding Boeing 787 Avionics

In what I’ve written so far, I’ve taken the humancentric view much as most commentators. The focus of interest being on what the two Air India crew members were doing during the critical moments of this tragic flight. Let’s shift perspective. It’s time to take an aircraft level view.

On the Boeing 787-8 “Dreamliner”, the flight deck has two crew seats and two observer seats. One observer seat is directly behind and between the two crew seats. Since these observer seats are not mentioned in the preliminary report, it’s responsible to assume that they were unoccupied.

In my days working on civil aircraft certification, it was often as a part of a multidisciplinary team. I suppose one of the privileges of working on aircraft avionic systems is that they touch every part of a modern civil aircraft. That meant working with highly experienced specialist in every technical field, including flight test pilots and engineers.

When it came to reviewing aircraft system safety assessments, we’d often put it like this, you look at the aircraft from the inside out and well look at the aircraft from the outside in. Meaning that the flight test team looked at how the aircraft flew and performed. Systems engineering specialists focused on how the aircraft functioned. What was the detailed design, the means and mechanisms. It was by putting these differing perspectives together that a comprehensive review of an aircraft could be established.

Here’s where I need to be careful. Although, I worked on the technical standards¹ for complex aircraft systems, I did not work on the Boeing 787 at initial certification.

If I go back 25-years, a major change that was happening with respect to aircraft systems. It was the move to apply Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA). This was a move away from federated systems, where just about every aircraft function had its own box (autopilot, autothrottles, instruments, etc.) There was a fundamental architectural difference between federated and IMA systems.

The Boeing 787 has what is called a Common Core System (CCS). As an analogy let’s think of a time before the smart phone became universal. I had a Nokia mobile phone, a Canon camera, a HP calculator, a Dell lap-top, lots of connectors and pen and paper. Now, the only one that has survived the passage of time is the pen and paper.

So, it is with modern civil aircraft. An Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) hosts the applications that are necessary for safe flight and landing. The IMA hosts functions that provide, Environmental Control, Electrical, Mechanical, Hydraulic, Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), Cabin Services, Flight Controls, Health Management, Fuel, Payloads, and Propulsion systems.

Information is digitised (sensors, switches and alike), processed and then acted upon. General Processing Modules (GPM) inside the aircraft CCS perform the functions needed. There’s an array of these GPMs and redundancy to provide a high integrity aircraft system.

An aircraft’s Fuel Shutoff Valve Actuator depend on the above working as intended in all foreseeable circumstances. No doubt the accident investigators are undertaking an analysis of the Boeing 787 avionics architecture to gain assurance that it worked as intended.

Standards: EUROCAE started a working group (Number 60) in September 2001, which was tasked to define guidance. Later, in November 2002, there was a merge with an RTCA steering committee (Number 200). ↩︎

Fuel Control Switches

I’ll not go any further than the investigation report that’s in the public domain. The Air India AI171 Boeing 787-800 Preliminary Report is published for all to read. The aircraft’s Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) has been replayed. Sadly, this report raised questions as much as it closes down erroneous theories.

It warrants saying again, and again. My thoughts are with the friends and families of those affected. They deserve to know exactly what happened and as far as is possible, why. Not only that but the global travelling public need to be confident that any necessary corrective action is being taken to prevent a recurrence of such a rare fatal accident.

What requires a one or two words is one of the commonest ways we interact with electrical and electronic systems. The humble switch. In fact, they are far from humble and come in lots of shapes and sizes. The general idea is that a mechanical device, that can be manipulated with a purpose in mind, is used to control the flow of electrical current. There are non-mechanical switches, but I’ll not go there for the moment.

I remember conversations with my aircraft electrical engineering colleagues. It goes like this – you deal with the small currents (avionic systems), and we will deal with the big ones (power systems). Also, a mantra was that all electrical systems are, in part, mechanical systems. Switches, cables, generators, control valves, relays, bonding, you name it, they are in part, mechanical systems. In the past traditional electrical engineers got a but jittery when faced with “solid state” controls (semiconductors).

Switches. I’ve seen the words “cognitive engagement” used. In simpler terms, by design, pilots interact with switches with a purpose in mind. Equally, as in the world of human factors, unprotected switches can be operated in error, unintentionally or by physical force.

So, what are the chances of two protected Fuel Control Switches moving, within seconds of each other, at the most critical phase of an aircraft’s flight?

[There is a discussion to be had in respect of timing. Remember the record from the flight recorders is a sampling of events. The sampling rate maybe as low as one per second. Note: EASA AMC2 CAT.IDE.A.190.]

These cockpit switches are designed and certificated to perform as intended under specified operating and environmental conditions. That’s a wide range of vibration and temperature (shake and bake).

Switch operation is indicated by their physical position[1]. In addition, operation of these switches will be evident by cockpit indications. The concept being that a flight crew can confirm that the Fuel Control Switches have moved by their effect on the engines. If a crew need to take corrective action it is in relation to the information presented to them by the engine instrument system.

The report makes it clear that both mechanical switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUT-OFF’ almost immediately as the aircraft became airborne. That is a worst-case scenario. The time available to recognise and understand the situation, for training to kick-in, and then to take appropriate corrective action was insufficient.

This leads me to think that there may be a case for disabling the Fuel Control Switch function up until at least an altitude where aircraft recovery is possible. Now, these switches need to be available up until the V1 speed is achieved (Example: aborting a take-off with an engine fire). After that an aircraft is committed to becoming airborne.

I suspect the reason there is no inhibit function is the possibility of adding another potential failure condition. Inadvertent and unrecoverable disabling of ‘CUT-OFF’ are scenarios that would need to be considered. No doubt a reasonableness argument was used. No crew would shut-down both engines down immediately an aircraft became airborne, would they?

POST: I hope I haven’t given the impression that this is a case of simple switches and wires. The Boeing 787 is a digital aircraft. Mechanical fuel technology plays its part but control functions are digital.

[1] Designs that offer switch illumination are not used in this case.

Insights from AAIB Report on Boeing 787 Accident

Now, we know more about the most tragic aviation accident of recent years. The report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) about the June 12 fatal accident of a Boeing 787 raises new questions.

The careful wording of the preliminary report[1] is eminently sensible. The facts are what they are, but it remains difficult to construct a scenario around these facts. I suspect that all the parties involved in this fatal accident investigation had a hand in ensuring that the words used where as clear as can be at this early stage. As I said, the facts are what they are.

It’s good that the report shuts down some of the fervent and erroneous speculation that was filling the international media. For this accident, fuel supply being the substantive issue, decisions around flying controls and other aircraft performance issues can be put to one side.

The crew encountered, or were responsible for a situation that once established led to one inevitable sad outcome. The time available to react, at such low altitude, was less than that which was needed to continue a safe flight.

A focus at this point is on the Boeing 787 aircraft’s fuel control switches. These switches are installed in the flight deck and used by a pilot to cutoff fuel to the engines. When correctly installed, these fuel control switches have a locking feature to prevent inadvertent operation.

Clearly unintended switch movement between the fuel supply and fuel cutoff positions can be hazardous. Inadvertent operation of one or both switches could result in an unintended consequence, e.g. engine(s) shutdown. What we know is that sufficient fuel was supplied to the aircraft engines to conduct a take-off. Then for some unknown reason that fuel supply did not continue as it should.

So far, the respectable technical speculation I’ve read (pilot and aircraft engineer led), raises a limited number of possibilities.

One being that the crew acted in an inappropriate or inadvertent manner. Another being that the aircraft’s fuel control switches failed or were caused to fail. Another being that aircraft’s fuel control system (including wiring) failed or were caused to fail. The movement of the flight deck switches may or may not have been involved. What we know is that the record on the accident flight recorder shows a condition occurred that should not occur.

There is no doubt that this would have been a highly stressful situation in the cockpit whatever the root cause. Normally, immediately after the aircraft is leaving the runway the pilot-in-command would have no good reason to look at the aircraft’s fuel control switches. They would be looking forward at the aircraft instruments.

We can take it that every aviation authority/agency/administration with a Boeing aircraft on its aircraft register will be closely watching the progress of this accident investigation. Since, to date, no Airworthiness Directive (AD) has been issued, related this fatal accident, it is reasonable to assume that aircraft systems and equipment failure or maintenance error has not been found. That said, it is worth noting FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 dated December 17, 2018.

We cannot rule out the possibility that this fatal accident was intentional. However, in the whole history of civil aviation this is one of the most extreme explanations. Looking at evidence, a situation when a competent and sane pilot is found to choose to act in an irrational manner is hard to diagnose.

POST: Just over 3-years ago, I wrote “The case for video”. That case to update the rules is now stronger than ever. The case for video.

[1] https://aaib.gov.in/