Aviation – Page 20 – John Vincent

How can we prevent organisational accidents?

Reading the commentary, deep and wide, that has flowed from the saga of the certification and introduction to service of the Boeing 737 MAX there’s palpable frustration. A large volume of analysis and evidence is now in the public domain. It has taken a long time and the persistence of many good people to bring out the results of investigation to the fore. Frustration stems from knowing that the factors involved in the MAX saga are not new or unique. They have been seen far too often in fatal accidents and serious incidents right across the globe.

One common reaction is to place all the blame on the corrupting effect of large amounts of money. The line “follow the money” became common usage as a result of the 1976 movie “All The President’s Men[1]” despite the theory that it came from elsewhere.

“Follow the money” is good advice for investigators whether they be journalists, air accident investigators or police detectives. It’s certainly one of the known motivators for people to circumvent or disregard rules and regulations.

I could go on to talk about corporate liability[2]. There’s often a distinct lack of capability or inclination to hold large corporations, and the individuals running them liable for gross negligence and unethical behaviours. Another problem with this is that this is the button to press after the event. Yes, strong corporate liability laws rigorously applied can have a deterrent effect. However, the calculation made by those people at the source of the problem is often that of slim likelihood of failure or getting caught or, as with banks during the financial crisis, being too big to fail.

Although all the lessons learned from the analysis of organisational accidents is a good route to prevention of future accidents, that just one part of the puzzle.

Another common reaction is to reach for the human factors’ textbooks. There’s absolutely no doubt that human action is at the root of the events discussed. It takes people, and groups of people to choose to do the wrong thing knowing of the risks they take. Indefensible actions done with the awareness of an organisation are more than just process or procedural failure.

I started writing with the assumption that organisational accidents are preventable and must be prevented. This is to say that zero accidents are achievable. Yet, organisational accidents keep happening and prevention keeps failing. All be it, relative to the volume of global activity, a rare occurrence in civil aviation.

Maybe it’s better to accept that the motivations of a minority of people are to act unethically for personal gain and to take unacceptable risks. The larger problem is the failure of a greater number of people to act when they become aware of that behaviour.

In the cockpit pilots are taught to challenge bad decisions. Maybe we need to teach people how to challenge effectively.

[1] The movie takes protagonists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein through their quest to figure out the suspicious acts around US President Richrd Nixon.

[2] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/corporate-prosecutions

Aircraft Level View

The latest innovations in aircraft design are, without question, highly integrated systems. We have departed from the days when every aircraft system was a box. An autopilot, a display computer, a power controller may all sit in one cabinet of equipment. Each one interdependent upon the other.

The other day, I saw advertised as an antique a British P8 aircraft compass. Maybe, 80 years old, it was claimed to be still working. This bit of kit was fitted to the Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Mosquito. Truly, a discreet equipment. One basic function and independent of all other aircraft systems except cockpit lighting. Afterall, a compass isn’t much use if you cant see it.

One reflection of mine from times past is the real difficulty of getting people to take an aircraft level view. Some might say this is aerospace design history. It certainly was a major struggle in the mid-1990s. It was a message that was not always well received.

Without mentioning any names, I’d roll up at an aircraft manufacture and be confronted with a hanger sized office divided up into cubicles. Sound absorbing partition walls of shoulder hight stretching far into the distance. This is where the Scott Adams[1] got the idea for the Dilbert cartoons.

In one corner of the engineering building would be a venerable grey-haired gentleman who had spent his entire life working on toilet flush motors. At another corner would be a gaggle of whizz kids developing software specifications for the latest computing hardware.

Everything was the same placid light green with only a few signs to give identity to groups of people working together. Segregation and segmentation were a part of the process. Each functional group developed their skills to the highest degree in their chosen specialisation.

My role in all this was to sit in a rectangular meeting room receiving briefings from each technical team. The certification task had been divided up and everyone was doing their part. Certification plans for an autopilot, a display computer or a power controller were all competently presented. Preliminary safety assessments were dutifully described.

After a while it became all to clear to me that everyone was dedicated to their assignment but that communication between different teams was sketchy to say the least. So, questions like, where did you get that number from, when talking about a failure probability number taken from someone else’s analysis wasn’t always convincingly answered. As a result, I got to hammer on about the need to take an aircraft level view to the point of great irritation. It’s not that people didn’t want to hear the message. It was more that the means to look at interdependencies between aircraft systems was fragile and underdeveloped. We changed and progressively the challenge of integration was met.

Today, I sit and wonder if the new entrants in the aerospace world, rapidly putting together advanced new forms of air mobility, have taken on-board the lessons we learned in the 1990s. It’s not as easy to learn the above lessons unless the reason why is abundantly clear.

[1] https://www.scottadamssays.com/

Certification

In the wake of the Boeing 737 MAX troubles the purpose of aircraft certification has come under fire. It was intense fire too, as the subject was taken into the political arena. Both informed, and not so informed public accusations had to be addressed in a comprehensive and systematic manner. The outcome is real change impacting the way organisations and administrations work.

A basic framework is set by international agreement. The standards and recommended practices of ICAO Annex 8 sets a framework within which aircraft certification work is undertaken. Across the globe Administrations/ Agencies/Authorities cooperate to set common minimum standards.

We can talk about process, procedures and standards until the cows come home. These are ever evolving to cope with technical challenges and the experience of operation. What’s more fundamental, and almost never mentioned is what practitioners do day-to-day. Ultimately, despite the subject being highly technical it is people that are at the core of the activity.

Practical necessity mean that an aircraft project has an ambition and a time scale. Although projects are often known to overrun there’s no infinite pot of resources to carry on regardless. Good project management can be the make or break in realising an ambition.

What that means is that there is a constraint on aircraft certification. There is a window of opportunity to undertake the work in a comprehensive and systematic manner.

The true art becomes asking the right question at the right time. Yes, there is an intricate structure within which questions are asked but it is the nature of those questions that makes the diffidence. Ask a bland and easily answered question and the value added is negligible. Ask a probing and pertinent question and it can lead to a better and safer product.

The importance of the act of asking questions is underestimated. It’s not well taught. For the most part technical experts learn to do this on the job. From one project to the next they develop a set of approaches based on experience. Members of Administrations/ Agencies/Authorities have a great privilege in that they can expect their questions to be answered in full.

There’s a peer-to-peer relationship. To ask an effective question, technical experts on either side of the table don’t have to know everything the other knows. What is needed is a mutual respect and a sufficiency of command of a subject. Being able to pinpoint a gap or omission or inadequate coverage of a subject, or even waffle and evasion requires an intelligent and determined person.

Avionics

Segmenting, categorising, and naming technical subjects has a long history. However, it’s not often there’s a back story to say what’s in each name. Numerous definitions exist. These are quite often an afterthought. Naming that evolves rather than can be traced to a single author.

The subject on my mind is Avionics. It’s a ubiquitous term in aircraft engineering. In fact, it’s applied much more widely than that because administrators, pilots and air traffic controllers all use it. So, let’s look at the history, etymology and usage of the word.

The word seems obvious, as to not need a definition. Bring the world of aviation and electronics together and there it is – Avionics. However, Avionics often extends beyond the world of aviation and into space. So, it may be better to say, bring the world of aeronautics and astronautics and electronics together and there it is – Avionics.

Notice that it’s electronics and not electrics that forms the definition. A loose distinction between the two might be to say that, in terms of electric current, electronics is anything below an ampere[1] and electrics is that above an ampere.

Marconi was the first to experiment with airborne radio. It was even available to pilots in the First World War. However, spark-gap radio was unloved, heavy, and awkward.

The name Avionics started being used in the 1940s. VHF radio communication between aircraft and ground stations was vital to an aircrafts’ operation. The fabrication of radio valves in high volumes and at low costs led to the use of numerous radio technologies: communications, navigation, RADAR and Radio Altimeters to name a few.

The science and technology of electronics, and the development of electronic devices has advanced faster than that of aircraft design and manufacture. Avionics engineering has been divided into numerous sub-fields as a result.

Where once an aircraft could complete safe flight and landing with a complement of defective avionic equipment that is no longer the case. It’s quite the reverse, as the current generation of both military and civil aircraft are highly depended upon the correct functioning of their avionic systems.

Often the more complex an aircraft and its operation becomes, the more complicated the avionic systems become. Aircraft flight-control systems can be of great sophistication. By contrast a VHF radio hasn’t changed much, in its basic function, for decades.

Although avionics is a common term, it doesn’t often find its way into legislation or everyday usage. There’re certainly great swathes of the population for which the word means nothing. It’s an unusual day if the six-o’clock news has a reference to this technical word.

[1] https://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/ampere

Tea or Coffee

I’ll grab a newspaper and flick through the pages. I can almost guarantee in all the thousands of words use to describe the events of the week nowhere will you see the word “determinism”. Now, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Or at least anyone who doesn’t spend their days in the systems engineering world. Yet, the basic idea of determinism is ingrained in everyday thinking.

Yesterday, I bought a new kettle. It works well. I can take cold fresh water from my kitchen tap, fill it to the two-cup line and press the button with confidence that within a couple of minutes I’ll have boiling water. Cause-and-effect are truly well connected. I pay my electricity bill and expect current to flow when the switch is thrown. I’d be really annoyed if my new kettle didn’t do what it said it would do on the box it was packaged in. My cup of tea is assured.

Now, let’s step into an imaginary future. Well, a future that not as imaginary as might first be thought. I’ll set aside my morning tea drinking habit and brew a coffee instead. I haven’t got one, but they are certainly being advertised. That’s a coffee machine that’s connected to the INTERNET[1]. It can be given voice commands to brew my favourite brew. It has an app where I can set-up my preferences. It’s a whizzy way to get an espresso.

I don’t say this function exists, only that as soon as the connection is made to an external service what happens next becomes just a little less predictable. A coffee machine with an integrated voice activation system will do as it’s told. At least we assume it will do as it’s told. Thus, cause-and-effect remain connected. Stand back. The door has now been opened. Let’s say, after I acquired the coffee maker the anxious manufacture changes the algorithm that runs the machine. They want me to drink the maximum number of their wonderful coffees but without going to the dark side.

Next time, I go for a smart espresso the machine talks back: “Are you sure? You’ve had 5 coffees already this afternoon.” I have no knowledge of, or control over the algorithm that’s coming up with this talk back. The question might be fair, sensible, and looking after my health but, in that moment, I have no ability to predict what the machine will do next. Will it let me carry on regardless? Or will it say: “No, you’ve had enough. Come back and talk to me in an hour.” The simple cause-and-effect relationship I have with my new kettle is no more. Without being warned, I’ve strayed into the world of non-determinism.

I think you can now appreciate the purpose of this short article. It’s to point out that our quaint classical deterministic world is going to go through a shakeup. Think of the scenario above for a car or an aeroplane. It’s not inevitably bad. In fact, non-deterministic systems offer huge potential benefits. My message is that we’d better be ready for all aspects of this transition.

I’ve made the contrast between either one or the other. In realty, there will be a fuzzy zone between what’s deterministic and what’s non-deterministic. The tea or coffee drinker may have a choice in different places at different times for different reasons.

[1] https://www.lavazza.co.uk/en/landing/voicy.html

FR4978

The case of the forced diversion of Ryanair flight #FR4978, a commercial passenger aircraft over Belarus on Sunday, 23 May 2021, is a matter for grave concern.

So, what’s the problem? A civil aircraft with passengers on-board, on a scheduled flight, flying over a sovereign State was diverted because of an alleged terrorist threat. Aircraft lands safely and in the end most of the passengers continue to their intended destinations.

Well, the case of the forced diversion of Ryanair flight #FR4978, a commercial passenger aircraft over Belarus on Sunday, 23 May 2021, is a matter for grave concern. The aircraft was carrying European citizens and residents between two European Union (EU) capitals.

The track of the Ryanair flight FR4978 from Athens (ATH) to Vilnius (VNO) was posted on Twitter[1]. The Boeing 737-800 was diverted to Minsk in Belarus whilst it was about to start its approach to Vilnius airport in Lithuania. The Ryanair flight maintained 39,000 ft toward Lithuania before beginning a diversion about 73km from VNO and only 30 km from border. The Polish registered Boeing passenger aircraft (SP-RSM) was forced to land in Belarus.

More than 5 hours after the landing of flight FR4978, the aircraft remained on the ground in Minsk. Whilst the aircraft was on the ground the Belarusian authorities detained opposition activists, Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega.

Was the aircraft hijacked to go to Minsk? Well, there’s no report of force being used on-board the aircraft, so strictly speaking this may not be a hijacking. The mystery deepens when considering that if the alleged terrorist threat was credible, it would have been far safer to continuing into Lithuanian airspace and land at the intended destination.

Also, there’s the Belarusian military fast-jet aircraft (MIG 29) that accompanied flight FR4978. This could be considered aggressive intimidation of the Ryanair flight crew. It certainly limited their flight’s options in respect of the situation. The military interception of a civil aircraft for political reasons is a serious act and one that can put the safety of passengers in peril. So, whether it’s called a “forced diversion” or a “State Hijacking” it could be in contravention of the Chicago Convention. That’s the basis on which international civil aviation is normally conducted.

It’s now clear that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)[2] will carry out an independent investigation into this Ryanair flight[3]. Strong condemnation has come from the European Union (EU)[4]. The aircraft operator, the State of Registry, and many of the passengers were from EU Member States.

If the investigation concludes that officials in Belarus faked a bomb threat to divert this Ryanair flight for political purposes, then this is a gravely troubling act that has horrendous implications for international civil aviation. No other authorities had knowledge of a bomb threat to this Ryanair Athens-Vilnius flight. The Greek Civil Aviation Authority, as the aircraft took-off from Athens, has stated that it received no bomb warning.

This event is an attack on European democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and safety. The Belarus authorities need to immediately release Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega.

Update 1: EASA issues Safety Directive calling on Member States to mandate avoidance of Belarus airspace.

Update 2: Simillar thoughts: The interception of #Ryanair Flight #FR4978 – legal or not, carriers have been put on notice.

[1] https://www.flightradar24.com/

[2] https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Council-agrees-to-pursue-fact-finding-investigation-into-Belarus-incident.aspx

[3] https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1092812?123

[4] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/05/24/belarus-declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-on-the-forced-diversion-of-ryanair-flight-fr4978-to-minsk-on-23-may-2021/

Here’s where we are, I think.

May is a month of rebirth. Trees look greener than they do all year round. A fresh breeze and light rain fans this greenness as the natural world wakes up. It’s a good time for looking at life anew. Sunny spells and showers come and go as we take stock of the spring.

Worldwide COVID-19 pandemic deaths are up to just over 3.3 million[1]. Despite the successes of its suppression in the UK, the virus continues to rage around the world. Sadly, desperation continues to spread across India. On the positive side, vaccination plans are successfully being implemented. I’m more than ready for my second jab in just over a week’s time.

What hasn’t changed is that aviation chiefs continue to provide roadmaps to bring back some semblance of normal but often sit back mystified at Government reactions and peculiar decisions.

For international travel, to and from the UK, a curious traffic light system[2] is being put in place in the UK. Unfortunately, there’s a lack of transparency as to why countries are categorised as they are in this unique national system. Obviously, it’s better than a national lockdown with unending uncertainty but there’s little to be happy about.

On entry control, the practice of quarantine hotels is unpopular and of highly questionable effectiveness. They are a crude measure that is discriminating, expensive and unsustainable.

The European Union (EU) has been slow in reaction and is still testing COVID-19 vaccination, test, and recovery certificates. There are reports that this system is on-track to be rolled out next month.

It’s a miserable time to travel across borders. Plans are made and cancelled and re-made. Travellers are often left out of pocket and in limbo. Yes, these are extraordinary circumstances but as advanced nations our general performance in managing the situation is remarkably poor.

Although UK Government decisions are said to be guided by evidence and the science, there’s a fair amount of ideology driving decisions contrary common sense.

Surprisingly, if the recent round of elections is anything to go by, the UK Government is sitting pretty. Now, its political opponents who are the ones who are struggling. Commentators have speculated that this is a kind of national Stockholm syndrome[3]. I wonder.

Post Coronavirus recovery of UK air traffic may not be seen until the end of 2022.

The EU has developed a broad system of relationships with neighbouring states. Post Brexit there remains lots of loose ends in the relationship between EU and UK. In fact, it’s probably time to stop using the word Brexit altogether. It’s not a meaningful word looking forward.

Calls for a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) and a Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement (CATA) between the EU and UK are muted but their importance remains. Aviation and aerospace industry voices are being ignored.

[1] Worldwide (from Johns Hopkins): Deaths: 3,322,294.

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/traffic-light-system-safe-return-to-international-travel

[3] What is Stockholm syndrome? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22447726

Still work in progress

Has it really been 100 days since the final, final, final Brexit day?

The UK left the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020. A Withdrawal Agreement (WA) that the UK Government agreed with the EU, established a transition period that came to an end the day this year started. Now, a new EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) has been in force for 97 days. So, it’s not a bad time to have a go at writing a 100-day review. It’s often a period of reflection that is used to assess a newly elected politician. It gives an indication of the direction of travel.

Last year, although it was a top priority of UK industry to stay in, the UK has left the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) based in Cologne. So, there’s no official UK participation in the EASA activities by right and the UK is treated as any other 3^rd Country. EU law no longer applies to the UK. Much of what was previously applied has been swept up in new UK Legislation[1].

Regulation-wise, to figure out where we are now, it’s necessary to combine the officially published corresponding text of UK Legislation and EU Commission Regulations with the EASA Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material, including amendments. Some smart people have done this work, but the challenge will be keeping the whole paperwork construction up to date.

Informed commentators have often said that a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) and a Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement (CATA) are needed between the EU and UK. To some extent the TCA starts the ball rolling by calling for the establishment of a number of committees.

On the basis that there’s far to much still in flux to discuss, I’ll bite off one key aviation related subject.

Despite the massive impact of the COVID pandemic on international civil aviation there remains a demand for qualified engineers. In many ways their roles as Airworthiness Inspectors or Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers have become even more important than ever. Traditionally, there’s no doubt that the UK has been good at training aircraft engineering personnel. Students from all over the world have gained their licences in the UK. It’s one of the most demanding professions in the world but their dedication to the highest standards keeps flying safe.

Whilst the UK was a member of the EASA system a licence granted in the UK by an approved organisation was recognised throughout the EASA Member States and beyond. One of the powerful arguments for continued participation in EASA was the avoidance of the duplication of approvals, certification, and licencing. Each duplication comes with a fee and time consuming paperwork.

The political decisions having been made and that’s exactly what we now have in place. Duplication. In fact, it’s worse than that because there’s asymmetry in the current situation.

The UK CAA advises Part 66 licence holders to take action to minimise impact on their privileges. There are several combinations and permutations that can be considered. There’s a useful updated section of information for licensed engineers on the UK CAA website[2].

Engineers who continue to release EU-registered aircraft to service outside the UK will need to transfer their licence to the National Aviation Authority (NAA) of an EASA Member State. If an engineer works outside the EU and UK, on EU-registered aircraft, a UK Part-66 licence will no longer be valid.

If an engineer has a non-UK Part-66 licence they will be able to continue to work on UK-registered aircraft for up to two years after the end of the transition period, unless your licence changes or expires (whichever occurs soonest).

There’s also an exemption for engineers who hold a EU Member State issued EASA Part-66 licence who only received
or changed their EASA licence after the departure of the UK from the EU.

All of this is high politics because a Part 66 licence, UK or EU is granted on the same technical basis. Yes, there’s potential of regulatory divergence or new ways of doing business in future. However, it’s difficult to understand what the justification for any divergence might be but the possibility exists. And as avid Brexit supporters like to point out the UK is no longer subject to EU legislation. That has no impact of the UK’s need to meet its international obligations. Both UK and EU need to be complient with the ICAO Convention.

There’s much work in progress. Now, is a moment when it all looks like a kitten as been playing with a large ball of wool that has rolled down a staircase.

[1] https://info.caa.co.uk/uk-regulations/

[2]https://info.caa.co.uk/uk-eu-transition/licensed-engineers/

Mars flight

The first time the immense challenges of controlled flight on another planet are overcome we are in a new era of aviation.

I was wondering – is there air on planet Mars? It’s one thing to say is there life on Mars? We’ve been asking that big question of generations. But can we use the word “air”? There’s a thin atmosphere on Mars but can you call it air? The rover that’s there will be listening for sounds in what is 95% carbon dioxide. That kind of atmosphere on Earth would be our worst nightmare.

Let’s look at the definition of that everyday word – air. Air is the mixture of gases which forms the Earth’s atmosphere and which we breathe. No way could we breath on Mars. That gas we depend on, oxygen is down to about 0.1%. Taking that basic definition then Mars does not have “air” in the common sense.

I’m going down this rabbit hole because of the references to Ingenuity, the Mars Helicopter that is being prepared for flight. This innovative flying machine has been landed on Mars and is being referred to as a helicopter. Now, a Helicopter is a heavier-than-air aircraft supported in flight chiefly by the reactions of the air on one or more power-driven rotors on substantially vertical axes[1].

Oh dear, there’s that reference to the air as per planet Earth. I may be being an aviation pendant, but this could be the time to revisit the definition of helicopter and change the word “air” to “atmosphere”. Afterall, if there’s a gas of sufficent density then flight is possible with the right equipment.

Ingenuity could also be known as a Rotorcraft. It undeniably has two rotors, so it must be a craft supported in flight chiefly by the reactions of an atmosphere. Since we are entering a new era of aviation as a human built extra-terrestrial vehicle makes a controlled flight for the first time, revisiting definition could be appropriate.

Then Airworthiness is then better expressed as Flightworthiness. Maybe, Aircraft ought to be Flightcraft. There’s a history here given that a craft that hovers is called a Hovercraft. Which is more important? What it does or what it does it in?

Whatever the nuisances of these internationally used definitions in English, the wonder of this fantastic achievement is not lost on me. This moment only happens once. The first time the immense challenges of controlled flight on another planet are overcome we are in a new era of aviation.

Flying in a hostile cold, thin atmosphere will be amazing. Take-off and landing several times will be astonishing. What magnificent engineering design. Rotors spining at 2400 rpm. This robotic rotorcraft will test the feasility of flying on another world. Imagine what that will open up. From me, all the best good fortune to the team who made this possible. Lift-off and come down in one piece. Looking foward to seeing the pictures.

[1] Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

Flight, Risk & Reflections 17.

One of the harshest years in modern civil aviation history has ended. Looking for positive news in this New Year takes some effort. In fact, with the extra lock-down measures and travel banned the situation appears to be getting worse and not better. Worldwide COVID-19 fatalities have passed 2.1 million[1]. Here in the UK the winter situation is looking grim. In terms of cases of COVID-19 only US, Brazil, Russia and India have more than the UK. In terms of fatalities from COVID-19 only US, Brazil, India and Mexico have more than the UK.

Even in just 3-weeks a lot has been written about Aviation and the new BREXIT EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Having read many of the public pronouncements available, it’s evident that the complexity of the TCA means there’s a huge amount to be learned and will be learned in its application. The jury is out as to the level of support that exists for the TCA.

Here are some useful current references: