Category: Flying

What to Expect

What’s going to happen in 2026? Predictions are always more a matter for the ancient Greek Gods than mere mortals but here goes. For the world of civil aviation:

Global air traffic will continue to grow,

Large hub airports will continue to expand,

Commercial air travel safety improvement will stagnate,

Electric air taxis will become a reality,

Pontification about the next generation of single aisle aircraft will continue,

Impacts of climate change will increase,

Blows to climate action will be slowly reversed,

AI breakthroughs will continue but adoption will slow,

Drone technology will advance at pace,

More airspace will be subject to conflict warnings,

Volatility and instability will plague the commercial manufacturing sector,

Regulatory harmonisation will struggle to advance,

And for certain, the United States will formally mark its 250th birthday.

Some pluses and some minuses. It will not be a dull year.

Globally the future of civil aviation is a healthy one. Propensity to travel is deeply ingrained in our ideas of development and growth. The complexities of adopting innovations are not new to the aviation industry. What may be new is finding a workforce that is as captivated by aviation as past generations. To train, induct them and offer them the attractive careers paths that compete with other fields. Anticipation of potential technology transformations often lacks a vision for the people who will make them possible.

Visual Cues and Decision Making

Back to visual perception. Initially, it may not seem right to focus on one human sense and not discuss the others. We are multifaceted humans. The brain takes advantage of all its senses, when they are available. We’ve evolved with amazing capabilities.

The interesting notion that certain wines taste better when accompanies by certain music is a wonderful example of how interactive our systems can be. That’s without us having any conscious control over their immediate intimate workings. Parts maybe hardwired and others soft wired and adaptable.

Vision plays a dominant part in enabling us to move around. We haven’t yet evolved echo sounding, like bats and dolphins. This is not to say that those who loose vision can’t compensate to some extent, but they don’t fly aircraft or drive fast cars or become astronauts.

My thoughts arise from exposure to several aspects of our dependency on seeing the world around us. To begin, at the early part of my career, it was indeed the process of taking sound imaging and making it usable for recognising objects. Converting the information that come back from sending sound pluses through water into an image must deal with a dynamic environment. Interpretation of such electronic images can be the difference between hitting an object at sea and avoiding it.

Later, my design work concentrated on information presented to a pilot and what happens next. That whole arena of the aircraft cockpit is one big interface. The link between the senses and the decision maker. I’m not straying into the interminable debates about human factors.

Let’s stay with the trend that’s in front of us in every walk of life. That’s the dependence on recognising and acting on information that is presented to us on a nearby screen. In so far as I know, humans didn’t evolve with this need to relate acutely to closely presented information as much as reacting to distant stimulus. Afterall if a hostile animal or dangerously armed person was heading towards me at speed, I wouldn’t sit around debating the subject.

Aeronautics has experience in this shift of attention. At the start of my career aircraft cockpits where mostly knobs and dials. Mechanical indicators and filament bulbs. Sometime unreliable. Still the idea of flying by the “seat of the paints” prevailed. That centred around situation awareness, predominantly guided by looking out of the window. At the outside world. Distant vison equally, if not more, important as looking two feet ahead at a panel. Over the last five decades the above has changed radically. Instruments are large flat screens dotted with an array of colourful symbols offering every aspect of “situation awareness”.

Now, this is happening to cars. Most new cars have electronic screens. The expectation is that we humble humans have transitioned from simple mechanical dials to a fascinating world of colourful animated markers and whizzy logos. Despite the glorious technology the basic function remains the same. That is the link between the senses and the decision maker.

Adequate levels of visual perception being the number one attribute a pilot or driver is expected to maintain. This continues to be true as automation does more and more. What maybe a long-term trend in human evolution is that shift between the importance of what’s a couple of feet away and what’s in our surroundings. Will we become less sensitive to a personal experience of what’s more that two feet away? I wonder.

Navigating Aviation

Each profession has a way of speaking. This is not usual. Just try reading a long-winded contact on any subject. There are lots of references to a “third party” and more than one. Copious uses of the word “herein”. A good sprinkling of “hereby” and “foregoing”.

I don’t speak those words. If I used them in everyday conversation, I’d get locked-up. Nevertheless, these English words are universally applied to common legal documentation. The hundreds of End User License Agreement (EULA) that we all sign up to, whether we know it or not, apply legalese language liberally [love the alliteration].

Aeronautical people are no different. I could have said aviation people or professional flying people. There’s the rub. Even to say the same thing, there are a myriad ways of saying it.

One major problem that we all encounter, now and then, is having to work with a community that uses language in a different way from ourselves. I’m not talking about language as per dictionary definitions of words and standard English grammar. For good or ill, English opens the door to a numerous of ways of saying basically the same thing.

Professional English users, as I have alluded to above, choose their own pathway through the possibilities. English is not alone in facilitating this variability of expression.

I once worked in Bristol. A Filton. A large aircraft factory with an immense heritage. That included the Concorde project. Here both British and French engineers had to work closely together on a huge joint venture. It succeeded. Supersonic flight was commercialised.

One of the delightful little books I picked up from that time was a handy English/French dictionary of aeronautical terms. Those in common usage at an aircraft factory of the 1970s. To communicate effectively it was recognised that technical words needed to be explained.

What I’m noting now is this reality hasn’t gone away. For all the imaginative language Apps that might grace my mobile phone, there’s still a need to explain. This gets even more important when it’s a specific aviation community that is being discussed.

How do people from other communities get what regulatory people are saying when it’s perfectly obvious to them what they are saying? Take a banker or financier that wants to invest in electric aviation because they believe the future points that way. They come across bundles of jargon and precise terms that are not found in everyday conversations. Not to say that the world of money doesn’t have its own langauage.

In aviation there’s not only particular words with detailed meanings but a raft of acronyms. Combinations of words that are easily expressed as a package of letters. Then the short, sweet acronym surpasses the original text.

SMS, POA, DOA, ODA, OEM, TSO, TC, ICA, CofA, SUP, FDM, FAR, CS, NPRM, NPA, AC, AMJ, ACJ, GM and I can go on and on.

Maybe we need a Sub Part – better understanding.

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

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

Regulatory Insights

I can’t remember if my teacher was talking about maths or physics. His scholarly advice has stuck with me. When things get complex, they can seem overwhelming. Problems seem insolvable. So, it’s good to take a deep breath, step back and see if it’s possible to reduce the problem to its most basic elements. Do what could be called helicopter behaviour. Try to look at the problem top-down, in its simplest form. Break it into parts to see if each part is more easily comprehended.

Today’s international aviation regulatory structure, for design and production, follows the arrow of time. From birth to death. Every commercial aircraft that there ever was started as a set of ideas, progressed to a prototype and, if successful, entered service to have a life in the air.

This elementary aircraft life cycle is embedded in standards as well as aviation rules. Documents like, ARP4754(), Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems are constructed in this manner. There are as many graphs and curves that represent the aircraft life cycle as there are views on the subject, but they all have common themes.

That said, the end-of-life scenarios for aircraft of all kinds is often haphazard. Those like the Douglas DC-3 go on almost without end. Fascinatingly, this week, I read of an Airbus A321neo being scrapped after only 6-years of operations. Parts being more valuable than the aircraft.

Generally, flight-time lives in operational service are getting shorter. The pace of technology is such that advances offer commercial and environmental advantages that cannot be resisted. Operating conditions change, business models change and innovation speeds forward.

My earlier proposition was that our traditional aviation regulatory structure is out of date. Well, the detail is ever evolving – it’s true. Some of the fundamentals remain. The arrow of time, however fast the wheels spin, mixing my metaphors, remains an immobile reality.

In airworthiness terms an aircraft life cycle is divided into two halves. Initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness. This provides for a gate keeper. A design does not advance into operational service, along the aircraft life cycle, until specified standards have been demonstrated as met. An authority has deemed that acceptable standards are met.

I’m arguing, this part of the aviation regulatory structure is far from out of date. However much there’s talk of so called “self-regulation” by industry it has not come into being for commercial aviation. I think there’s good reason for retaining the role that a capable independent authority plays in the system. A gate keeper is there to ensure that the public interest is served. That means safety, security and environmental considerations are given appropriate priority.

To fulfil these basic objectives there’s a need for oversight. That is the transparency needed to ensure confidence is maintained not just for a day but for the whole aircraft life cycle. And so, the case for both design and production approvals remain solid. The devil being in the detail.

Why 12,500 Pounds?

Regulation is a strange business. It often means drawing lines between A and B. Bit like map making. Those lines on a map that mark out where you are and the features of the landscape. You could say that’s when all our troubles start but it’s been proven unavoidable. As soon as our vocabulary extends to words like “big” and “small” someone somewhere is going to ask for a definition. What do you mean? Explain.

For a while you may be able to get away with saying; well, it’s obvious. That works when it is obvious for all to see. An alpine mountain is bigger than a molehill. When you get to the region where it’s not clear if a large hill is a small mountain, or not then discussion gets interesting. Some say 1000 ft (about 300 m) others say much more. There’s no one universal definition.

[This week, I drove through the Brecon Beacons. Not big mountains but treeless mountains, nevertheless. Fine on a clear day but when it rains that’s a different story. This week Wales looked at its best].

Aviation progressed by both evolution and revolution. Undeniably because of the risks involved it’s a highly regulated sector of activity. Not only that but people are rightly sensitive about objects flying over their heads.

For reasons that I will not go into, I’ve been looking at one of these lines on a regulatory map. One that’s been around for a long time.

I cannot tell you how many discussions about what’s “minor” and what’s “major” that have taken place. That’s in terms of an aircraft modification. However, these terms are well documented. Digging out and crewing over the background material and rationale is not too difficult, if you are deeply interested in the subject.

The subject I’m thinking about is that difference between what is considered in the rules to be a “large” aeroplane and a “small” aeroplane. Or for any American readers – airplane. So, I set off to do some quick research about where the figure of weight limit: maximum take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or less originated for small airplanes (aeroplanes).

I expected someone to comment; that’s obvious. The figure came from this or that historic document and has stuck ever since. It seems to work, most of the time. A confirmation or dismissal that I wanted addressed the question, is the longstanding folklore story is true. That the airplane weight limit was chosen in the early 1950s because it’s half the weight of one of the most popular commercial transport aircraft of that time.

There is no doubt that the Douglas DC-3[1] is an astonishing airplane. It started flying in 1935 and there are versions of it still flying. Rugged and reliable, this elegant metal monoplane is the star of Hollywood movies as well as having been the mainstay of the early air transport system is the US. Celebrations are in order. This year is the 90th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3[2].

What I’ve discovered, so far, is that the simple story may be true. Interestingly the rational for the weight figure has more to do with economic regulation than it has with airplane airworthiness. The early commercial air transport system was highly regulated by the State in matters both economic and safety. Managing competition was a bureaucratic process.  Routes needed approval. Thus, a distinction established between what was commercial air transport and what was not.

POST 1: There is no mention of 12,500 pounds in the excellent reference on the early days of civil aviation in the US. Commercial Air Transportation. John H. Frederick PhD. 1947 Revised Edition. Published by Richard D. Irwin Inc. Chicago.

POST 2: The small aircraft definition of 12,500 pounds max certificated take-off weight first appears in US CAB SPECIAL CIVIL AIR REGULATION. Effective February 20, 1952. AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 42 OF THE CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS. This was a subject of economic regulation in the creation of the air taxi class of operations.

[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/douglas-dc-3/nasm_A19530075000

[2] https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2025-07-17_dc3_society_celebrate_90_years_douglas_dc3_airventure25

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

Causal Chains in Accidents

It becomes apparent to me that there’s much commonplace thinking about accidents. What I mean by this is that there’s simple mental models of how events happen that we all share. These simple models are often not all that helpful. Commonplace in that journalists and commentators use them as a default. It’s a way of communicating.

Don’t worry I’m not going on a tirade of how complex the world happens to be, with a dig in the ribs for anyone who tries to oversimplify it. We need simple mental models. Answering questions and explaining as if everything is an academic paper doesn’t help most of us.

I talk of no less than the causal chain. That’s a love of putting the details of events into a chronological sequence. For an aviation accident it might go like this – fuel gets contaminated, fuel is loaded onto aircraft, engine stops, pilot makes an emergency landing, aircraft ends up in a field and an investigation starts. The headline is dominated by the scariest part of the sequence of events. Key words like “emergency” are going to command the readers attention.

In my example above it’s reasonable to assume that there’s a relationship between each link in the chain. The sequence seems obvious. It’s easy to assume that’s the way the situation developed and thus made the accident or incident. However, it doesn’t have to be so. Let’s say there was contaminated fuel but not sufficient to stop an engine. Let’s say for entirely unrelated reasons (past events) the spluttering of the engine led the pilot to think that there was a fire on-board. Fuel was shut down. Thus, events took a different sequence.

Anyway, my point is an ancient maximum. Question what you first hear (or see). The recent tragic fatal accident in India is an example of much speculation often based on a proposed orderly sequence of events. Many commentators have lined them up as, this happened, and then that happened and then something else happened. QED.

What I’ve learned from reading and analysing accident reports over the years is that such major accidents are rarely, if ever, a simple sequence or only a couple of factors combined.

Yes, adding circumstantial factors to a causal chain adds realism. Even that is not so easy given that each factor has a different potential influence on the outcome. Atypical circumstantial factors are time of day or night, weather, atmosphere conditions and the human and organisational cultural ones.

To make sense of the need to put events in an order a more sophisticated model is the fishbone diagram[1]. The basic theme is the same. A core causal chain. What’s better is the injection of multiple factors to make a more authentic accident model.

Although, we do think in a cause-and-effect way about the world, if there are more than 4 or 5 factors combined in a random manner these models are far from authentic. My message is not so sophisticated, beware of simple sequences as being definitive.

[1] https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone