Regulation – Page 11 – John Vincent

H2 is difficult

I mentioned Hydrogen as an option for aviation. The use of Hydrogen to either power jet engines or to power fuel cells to provide electricity is a real technical option. Although the person I was talking to was engaged in environmental work, they shrugged their shoulders when I mentioned Hydrogen. They were certainly not impressed by these possibilities despite our agreement on the urgent need for de-carbonisation.

I can understand why there’s a level of cynicisms. On my part, it’s like the X-Files[1]. Fox Mulder was the believer and Dana Scully the sceptic. Broadly, I want to believe.

Today’s, liquid fuels can be explosive in certain conditions. However, it takes a considerable effort to create the conditions whereby a devastating explosion can occur. The Boeing 747-100 that was Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800)[2] exploded, broke up in the air and fell into the Atlantic Ocean in 1996. This was an example of a worst-case scenario. 230 people were lost in that fatal accident. Now, the ignition of a flammable fuel/air mixture in aircraft tanks is better prevented by design and operational procedures.

If Hydrogen is to be viable in civil aviation such hazardous conditions will be harder to prevent. A flammable hydrogen/air mixture can be ignited much more easily than conventional liquid fuels. Such dangerous situations can be prevented but the measure to do so will require robust design and stringent operational procedures.

Several development programmes are underway, making practical Hydrogen powered aircraft viable. A range of aircraft configurations are possible. From hybrid generator and electric motor set-ups to combustion-based propulsion. This work is moving from academic research into commercial possibilities.

There little read across between the behaviour of conventional hydrocarbon liquid fuels and liquid Hydrogen. This would be evident in any serious incident or accident scenario. Let us imagine the case of British Airways Flight 38, in 2006, a Boeing 777-236 that came down at the end of a runway at London Heathrow[3]. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft after it came to rest, but there was no fire. There were no fatalities.

The breakup of liquid Hydrogen tanks or plumbing in such a scenario would almost certainly result in a significant fire. The mitigating impact of that fire is the lightness of the gas. Instead of liquid fuel pooling on the ground, Hydrogen would burn upward. However, any explosion could be devastating.

So, for large aircraft design the provisions to protect liquid Hydrogen tanks and plumbing must be extensive and extremely robust. This would have to be maintained, as such throughout the whole operational life of the aircraft. These requirements would be onerous.

Keeping crew and passengers well away from Hydrogen infrastructure will be a must.

POST 1: Crashworthiness doesn’t get much of a look-in. Without it there’s going to be a problem over the horizon. https://www.ati.org.uk/flyzero-reports/

POST 2: At least for eVTOL aircraft some work is being done. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10011735

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/

[2] https://www.history.com/news/twa-flight-800-crash-investigation

[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ec32e5274a13170000ed/S1-2008_G-YMMM.pdf

No shock

It’s very easy to have the false belief that – I’d never do that. Such phases top the bill. Of course, the one that really tops the bill is – well, I haven’t had an accident yet.

Most accidents and incidents happen in the home. When I say that, I include the garden and places that are extremely familiar. I suppose it’s the habit of taking the status-quo for granted that lulls us into a false sense of security. I’ve known several tragedies where seemingly benign situations have turned out disastrous.

Cutting through a hedge trimmer cable can be dangerous. I didn’t do that. Besides, the makers of hedge trimmers have made it difficult to get electrical shocks from their products. The extensive use of plastics, double insulation, two-wire connections and Residual Current Device, or RCD have made us a lot safer, however foolish we might try to be. An RDC is one of the most important electrical safety devices in everyday [1]use. A mains electrical current of a few milliamps (mA), for a second can be enough to kill a healthy person. My own experience of electrical shocks puts me in the lucky bracket.

So, what did I do? It’s like this. I have a large wooden shed in the garden. It’s supplied with power by a bright orange electrical cable that is hung high in the air from my garage to the shed. I even created a wire catenary to ensure that there is no stress on the electrical cable. It’s not new. It’s been there for a couple of years.

My bright red budget hedge trimmer is battery powered. It’s light weight and easy to use. That’s good – isn’t it? No problems with cables that may become damaged or frayed. It needs two handles to be squeezed to make it work.

Trouble is the ease of use means that the trimmer can be picked-up quickly to do a 5-minute job. That’s what I did. I thought, I’ll quickly trim back the overgrown honeysuckle that’s covering a fence. Slap the battery in and bish, bash, the job is done. Very straightforward job.

From here the story tells itself. Yes, such haste is never wise. The sweeping movements of the trimmer did the job they were supposed to do. They did something more too. There’s lots of stories about cutting through an electrical cable with a hedge trimmer. Sadly, that’s what I did.

The emotions after the event must be common place. How could I do something so stupid? For heaven’s sake the cable is bight orange. It’s high up. Why was I so careless?

Then there’s the feeling that comes later, however stupid the act might be there’s no injury to anyone. The RDC tripped, as it should. Immediately, I turn the power off in the garage. Now, I have two dangling parts of what was once a complete overhead cable. My damaged cable is going to need a waterproof repair. That’s the next job.

If there’s a lesson, it may be that none of us are immune from error. Common problems are common problems for a reason. The human factor is real.

Local air

There are cases of synergy. That’s where aviation and local authorities have a mutual interest. This often centres around the economic prosperity of an area. Relationships can be complex, difficult, and fraught with volatility. There are plenty of housing and industrial estates that cover the ground of former airfields. Like the railways that closed under Beeching’s axe[1].

Public interest was dominant 50-years ago, but privatisation dramatically changed relationships. Sustaining profitability through good times and bad have proven to be more than some locations could support. There’s so many combinations and permutations but fewer and fewer active commercial airfields in the UK.

London Manston Airport is an airport that only just clings on to existence. In 2013, the Welsh Government acquired Cardiff Airport. So, some aviation facilities have returned to public ownership and run as an arm’s length business. A few airports are given support to ensure connections exists between remote parts of the UK. Highlands and Islands Airports is an example.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is coming. This is the extensive use of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs). AAM is an innovative concept that will require Vertiports and integration into busy airspace. To make the economics work a lot of routes will be in, and over urban areas.

My view is that AAM will only succeed in the UK if aviation and local authorities come together and embrace it. That is going to be a massive challenge whatever national government does.

In the case of local authorities with a mission of protecting the interests of residents this has often meant objecting to aviation developments. I go back to proposals of 30-years ago to make Redhill Aerodrome a feeder to London Gatwick Airport[2]. This was well and truly shot down by local interests. In fact, rightly so given the complex twists and turns it would have made in the airspace.

AAM needs the harmonisation of standards to ensure interoperability anywhere in the country. There are one or two UK local authorities that are already embracing the potential opportunities of this new form of flying. Coventry City Council is taking on the challenge[3]. It’s welcoming the development of the ground infrastructure for “air taxis” and delivery drones.

By the way, my view is that introducing the subject as “flying cars” or “air taxis” is not a good idea. This creates images from science fiction that may not resemble the reality of these new air services.

[1] https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/making-the-connection/dr-beechings-axe/

[2]https://john-w-vincent.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bf3ec-clear_for_take_off.pdf

[3] https://www.coventry.gov.uk/news/article/4232/world-first-hub-for-flying-taxis-air-one-opens-in-coventry-uk-heralding-a-new-age-of-zero-emission-transport

Over the Horizon

Reading Anne Corbett’s article on the Horizon Europe research programme[1], I’m struck by the one step forward and then one step backward walk that the UK is taking. The politics of the moment leaves a UK Prime Minister (PM) dancing on a knife edge. Afraid to fall to the right or to the left of his own party. Having been part of an extremely destructive period in British politics, Rishi Sunak is attempting to re-brand the Conservatives with a colour of nationalism that’s designed to be anything to everybody and as variable as the wind.

From the start of the year, Rishi Sunak has made five promises[2] on economy, health, and immigration. The one on the economy is steeped in blandness. This is presumably to claim success regardless of the situation in the run-up to the next UK General Election. If a PM, of any political party, didn’t want to grow the economy, create better paid jobs and opportunity across the country there would be something distinctly wrong. A wish is fine but what about actions?

I have to say that it’s good to see a UK PM that’s 20-years younger than I am. Particularly when the US is playing out a game of geriatric musical chairs. Russia being plagued with the politics of generations past. China’s building global influence. And to top it all the Earth feeling the impact of climate change like never before.

This why I have such difficulty in understanding Sunak’s attitude to working with our nearest neighbours and closest allies. We have more common interests now than we did in the 1970s when the UK first joined our local trading block. I’m sure the zealots can’t see this fact but undoing the last 40-years is not a good way to forge a future. We can do so much better.

Culham is known for its Centre for Fusion Energy[3]. Its work is collaborative. It needs to be, given the huge costs of working in the field of fusion energy. That’s the way the Sun generates its energy. Here’s an example of the UK being a focal point for European fusion research. Post Brexit, like the problems other research institutions have faced, some researchers returned to continental Europe.

The idiocy of de-Europeanisation serves no one. It’s a residual of discredited political thinking. A Government doesn’t need to advocate re-joining the European Union (EU) but they do need a whole new positive approach to working together with European countries and institutions. Research is at the core of our common interests.

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/07/28/will-the-uk-find-its-way-back-to-horizon/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64166469

[3] https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/

Short-sighted

None of that comes cheap.

OK. Why are mini-nuclear power stations such an irrational idea? The industry is selling these untried, untested power station as completely unlike that which has gone before. A Conservative Minister has been echoing their marketing brochures.

Let me say, with power generation there are some basic realities that remain the same.

Fuel must be transported to power stations and waste must be removed from them on a regular basis. For coal, that was the reason for the sitting of large power stations in the past. For gas, there was more flexibility in location, but the costs of transportation still needed to be minimised. For such innovations as waste-to-energy plants, proximity to the source of waste presented a major problem. Neighbourhoods rarely invited these plants to be built close by.

Spreading the distribution of nuclear fuel and waste around the country doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Cost of transportation are high. Safety is paramount. Security is always a grave concern.

Now, I understand the need for limited numbers large-scale nuclear power stations. They provide a reliable base load when the renewable sources of power are not available. The wind doesn’t blow.

Although, there are a variety of different international companies in the nuclear business the notion of a “free market” in the conventional sense is not a real prospect. The investments needed to be competent and meet regulatory requirements in the nuclear business are huge. Projects are there for the long-term. A whole working career of a nuclear engineer may be locked to one technology.

Experience has shown us that a goal of zero accidents rarely delivers a reality of zero accidents. These are complex engineered systems. It doesn’t matter if they are big or small the complexities remain. Yes, safety can be managed in a safety critical industry but there had better be preparedness for worst possible outcomes[1]. With these nuclear plants decommissioning and recovery from significant incidents of contamination must be accounted for in any design, implementation, and operation. None of that comes cheap.

Overall, in Britain there are much better paths to travel than the mini-nuclear one.

It absolutely astonishes me that, given the enormous tidal range of the Severn Estuary[2] we have never captured the energy of those waters. Equality in a nation, with a coast as large as ours, we have only ever dabbled in wave power[3]. Let’s have some genuine innovation. Let’s think like the Victorians and build for the long-term.

Why are we so incredibly short-sighted in Britain?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13047267

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck

Bad Smell

Where is the accountability?

My desk, that’s the one in the early 1990s, faced towards the London Gatwick airport approach. It was a good reminder of the business we were in at the time. Seeing aircraft land and take-off about 500 m from the sheet glass windows of our office block was the daily background. Being in a rugged hermetically sealed building aircraft noise wasn’t a great concern.

Little more than 300m from the building and looking in the same direction was, and still is, the Gatwick sewage works. Its structures were low rise, so it was often hidden behind the greenery. Every so often, a strong wind would blow from the northeast. When it did a distinct odor filled the air. Yes, you guessed it. The sweet smell of the sewerage works would permeate the air conditioning.

This odor was at its most notable in the metrological conditions called an inversion[1]. In fact, given the seasonal frequency of these weather conditions it could be said that Gatwick wasn’t the most sensible place to build a major airport. These occasional pongs were a bit of a joke. Along with the occasional smells of unburnt aviation fuel it was just life at the airport. Lingering odors didn’t stay for long. A day at most and the wind would change direction back to where it normally came from – the south west.

Airports and sewage works are not a good combination for the health of rivers and streams. Long ago, when Gatwick airport was built the tributaries of the River Mole[2] were diverted. The part of that river, the Gatwick stream going north to south, at the end of the runway, is an unattractive V-shaped gully. Not nice for nature at all. There was a track that ran parallel with the river. In the summer, I’d walk that track at a lunchtime as it was a way of getting to the airport’s south terminal.

In the news, Thames Water are being fined for dumping raw sewage in the River Mole[3]. The consequences of the UK’s water regulator[4] taking a relatively hands-off approach to managing water companies, since privatisation in the late 1980s, has come home to roost.

I must admit, I’m not the least bit surprised. So far, the dance of those who shrug their shoulders astonishing. Ministers, regulators, company chiefs are all pointing fingers at each other.

The sequence of events is mind blowing when looked at over several decades[5]. Chief executives attracting massive salaries. Companies being loaded up with debt. Generous payouts to shareholders. Investments in infrastructure not keeping pace.

Ofwat, the regulator talks with incredible complacency. Such weak regulators are no more than a piggy in the middle as the powerful forces of unethical commercial behaviour and disinterested government oversight combine. As millions of families struggle with the cost of living this kind of failure is intolerable. Where is the accountability?

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/temperature-inversion

[2] https://www.southeastriverstrust.org/river-mole/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thames-water-sewage-spill-gatwick-airport-b2368707.html

[4] https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66103356.amp

Titan’s fate

Firstly, condolences to the families and friends of those who perished in the deep ocean last week. This fatal tragedy took place in the full glare of the public spotlight. It’s time to give those affected time to grieve for their loss.

I will address the subject of vehicle safety in a technical manner. It’s immensely sad when what is known must be re-learnt in such a tragic way. By their nature, passenger vehicles that enter hostile environments will present high risks. There is always a likelihood of an event of significant severity as to cause injury. The imperative should be to reduce that probability as much as possible.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)[1] has launched an investigation into the events that led to the loss of the submersible called: Titan. That organisation will do a detailed investigation into the reasons behind the accident that led to the deaths of five people on-board.

There’s much conjecture about the factors involved in this catastrophe. News media and social media are awash with speculations. The facts are that contact was lost with the Titan’s support vessel and a catastrophic event took place[2].

What has come to light in the aftermath of this event is the public statements made by the driving force behind the Titan project. This has been contrasted with the those from the submersible community who spoke out on their concerns about the project.

My reflection on this information is to say that – safety starts at the top. If the entrepreneurs who promote these adventures are not literate, humble, and vigilant then outcomes are going to be negative. Those in leadership positions need to listen to those with expertise in their field of endeavour. Accepted, that it’s not the case that everyone will agree all the time about operational and technical risks but an open dialogue is vital.

I know that innovation often takes the path of trying, failing, trying again, failing, and trying again to eventually succeed. However, no vehicle should enter public service without sufficient proving. Independent oversight adds value too. The cultural framework within which this happens shapes success or failure. That’s why there’s good reason for design certification. That’s to apply time and energy to extensive testing, applying recognised standards and listening to reputable expertise. At its best it’s an opportunity to draw on widespread experiences from the past – good and bad.

Systems that prove to be safe most often come about from those who take on knowledge, experience, and learning. Yes, this work is not free. It can cost much to go from theory to practice. When the impact of failure, when the outcome is tragic for families, loved ones and colleagues these expenses are not so large.

We must take every opportunity to learn from such fatal accidents to make them extremely rare.

#Safey Management #SystemSafety #HumanFactors #SafetyCulture

[1] https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/deploiement-deployment/marine/2023/m23a0169-20230623.html

[2] https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/marine/2023/m23a0169/m23a0169.html

Weight

Projects aiming to electrify aviation are numerous. This is one strand to the vigorous effort to reduce the environmental impact of civil aviation. Clearly, feasible aircraft that do not use combustion are an attractive possibility. This step shows signs of being practical for the smaller sizes of aircraft.

Along the research road there are several hurdles that need to be overcome. One centres around the source of airborne power that is used. State-of-the-art battery technology is heavy. The combinations of materials used, and the modest power densities available result in the need for bulky batteries.

For any vehicle based on electric propulsion a chief challenge is not only to carry a useful load but to carry its own power source. These issues are evident in the introduction of electric road vehicles. They are by no means insurmountable, but they are quite different from conventional combustion engineered vehicles.

The density of conventional liquid fuels means that we get a big bang for your buck[1]. Not only that but as a flight progresses so the weight of fuel to be carried by an aircraft reduces. That’s two major pluses for kerosene. The major negative remains the environmental impact of its use.

Both electricity and conventional liquid fuels have a huge plus. The ground infrastructure needed to move them from A to B is well understood and not onerously expensive. It’s no good considering an aircraft design entirely in isolation. Any useful vehicle needs to be able to be re-powered easily, not too frequently and without breaking the bank[2].

Back to the subject of weight. It really is a number one concern. I recall a certain large helicopter design were the effort put into weight reduction was considerable. Design engineers were rushing around trying to shave-off even a tiny fraction of weight from every bit of kit. At one stage it was mooted that designers should remove all the handles from the avionics boxes in the e-bay of the aircraft. That was dismissed after further thought about how that idea would impact aircraft maintenance. However, suppliers were urged think again about equipment handling.

This extensive exercise happened because less aircraft weight equated to more aircraft payload. That simple equation was a massive commercial driver. It could be the difference between being competitive in the marketplace or being overtaken by others.

Aviation will always face this problem. Aircraft design is sensitive to weight. Not only does this mean maximum power at minimum weight, but this mean that what power that is available must be used in the most efficient manner possible.

So, is there a huge international investment in power electronics for aviation? Yes, it does come down to semiconductors. Now, there’s a lot of piggybacking[3] from the automotive industries. In my view that’s NOT good enough. [Sorry, about the idiom overload].

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bang-for-the-buck

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/break-the-bank

[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piggybacking

Safety is poltical

It’s a surprisingly controversial statement. It’s particularly difficult for those working in traditionally technical specialisations to come to openly acknowledge “politics” in their work. By raising the subject, it’s almost as if one had stepped in something unpleasant.

I recall the period when a new aviation agency was being established. That’s in the dawn of this new century. EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency came into operation in 2003, but the debate about its shape and form occupied many of the preceding years. Politicians, administrators, technocrats, and industry were vocal about the direction to take.

The impact of liberalising European civil aviation, that stated in the 1970s, was primarily a political drive. It envisaged both a commercial and social benefits. Separating the operation of aviation from the vagaries of political personalities seemed to offer a future that would be led by the customers needs.

The general acceptance that State control of businesses, like airlines and manufacturers, had a stifling effect, limiting innovation and opportunity was questioned but not so much by those with the power to make changes. Momentum pushing liberalisation was given a boost by the apparent successes of businesses, like Southwest airlines[1] in the US. Freddie Laker had a big influence in the UK[2].

In these decades of transformation aviation safety has always been heralded as a priority. Whoever is speaking, that’s the line that is taken. Safety is number one. What industry has experienced is a decades long transition from the ways and mean of trying to control safety to an approach more based on managing potential outcomes. This is characterised in a shift from mostly prescriptive rules and regulations to other more adaptive approaches.

Back to the proposition that safety is political. There are several ways to address this as an exercise of analysis. There’s a mammoth amount of historical evidence to draw upon. However, my thoughts are more to do with anecdote and lived experience.

Number one is that our institutions are shaped by political decision-making. This is to varying degrees, from year to year, but international bodies, national ministries, administration, authorities, agencies, committees, learned bodies, all depend upon political support. If they do not muster and sustain this support, they will wither and die.

Number two, change is a constant, failures happen but safety achievement depends on a consistency, dependability, and stability. Maintaining public confidence. There lies a dissonance that must be reconciled. Governments and politicians instinctively insulate themselves in such cases and so the notion of “independent” regulation is promoted.

Number three, arguments for liberalisation or intervention do not stop. The perpetual seesaw of cutting “red tape” and tightening rules and regulation may settle for a while even if these are always in movement. This can be driven by events. The proximity of fatal accidents is always a significant political driver. Domestic fatalities, where consequences are borne locally, will have much more impact than similar events 1000 miles away.

Does any of this matter? Afterall it’s a context that exists, de-facto. It’s no good saying: stop the world I want to get off.

Yes, it does matter. Accepting that safety is political helps dispel some of the myths that persist.

A prerequisite to safety success is provision of adequate resources. Constantly cutting a budget has consequences. A blind drive for efficiency that doesn’t effectively measure performance invites failure. Much as lack of planning invites failure. Reality bites.

It’s reasonable to question of investigatory or regulatory “independence” from time-to-time. The reasons for safety decision-making can be purely objective and technical. Questioning that “purity” need not be impugning politicians, administrators, or managers in their motivations. Shedding light on contextual factors can help learning and avoidance of future failures.

Accepting the perpetual political seesaw of debate can help a great deal in meeting safety goals. What this means is the importance of timing. Making a proposal to tighten a rule concerning a known deficiency can meet a stone wall. Making the same proposal after an accident, involving that deficiency, can go much better. Evidence that is compelling can change minds. This is reality.

[1] https://www.southwest.com/about-southwest/#aboutUs

[2] https://simpleflying.com/laker-airways-brief-history/

digital probing

It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

Advertising, marketing, promotion, selling, I expect some of those cave paintings of ancient men and women were showing-off to the rest of their society. They’d be saying, extra tasty bison if you head on down to this big watering hole. Throw your spear this way for the best results. The communication medium, a rock face isn’t so different from billboards, hoardings and signage that line busy roads. Catching your eye is the aim. Doing it on a busy throughfare is a proven method.

Too much of this can be annoying, distracting and ultimately defeating. Wall-to-wall advertising that’s pushy, gaudy and litters the highway is a nightmare no one wants to see. It’s not just the urban planners that get riled-up when they see streets plastered with garish advertising.

What of the digital worlds we inhabit? It’s clear they’re no exception. A great deal of the money to be made digitally comes from advertising. My beef here is with the saturation questioning that this industry uses to accumulate data. The bombarding of people with questionnaire after questionnaire is as annoying as any gaudy poster. Survey after survey pops-up as soon as you give away your e-mail address in any purchase. “We’d love to know more about the experience you recently had……………”

It’s one reason why I always refuse any request made at a till in a shop. Occasionally, shop assistants will look offended. It’s as if you have slighted them, is some incomprehensible way. It’s no good them saying they can reassure you that your data will be “protected”. Such reassurances are meaningless.

There are so many examples of data held securely and in line with data protection rules being hacked[1][2][3][4] and spread around like confetti. Compensation after the event is not compensation for the aggravation.

Making purchases it’s inevitable that we will give away data. Few of us read the terms and conditions under which we give away our data. There’s an expectation of “protection”. The conveniences of digital transactions are traded against the risks of losing vital personal data.

When it comes to advertising there’s no necessity. Unless there’s some form of inducement. One came into my in-box saying, “win a £10,000 holiday”. I did what I normally do – deleted it. I find such hooks like “This survey will only take a few minutes to complete” as annoying as improbable competitions and insincere thanks.

I don’t suppose I’m eccentric in disliking all this unrelenting digital probing. It’s clutter. It’s invasive. It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45446529

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52722626

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-57210118

[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/american-airlines-says-data-breach-affected-small-number-customers-employees-2022-09-20/