Category: Regulation

Mindset

Safety is a mindset. Having a sense of risks and which ones to accept and which to reject is something we all develop. It’s a big part of childhood. Most of us have had burns, cuts or bruises that have resulted in doing something we would now consider having been stupid.

Some are destined to be over-cautious, and others are more openly adventurous. In time, we settle around a frame of thinking that suites us best. That’s fine in so far as taking personal risk is concerned. Whether to cross the street every time you see a mean looking dog or to buy a powerful motorcycle later in life that’s a personal preference.

Where activities, positive or negative only impact the risk taker then that’s an area where society shouldn’t be too heavy handed. Naturally, there are boundaries. The classic one is motorcycle crash helmets. Mandating them led to a lot of heated debate. Yes, we are discussing a personal risk in respect of the rider but the risk to society is an unacceptable number of fatalities, brain injuries and publicly borne health care costs.

There I was, driving at less than the regulation speed (yes, I was) eastward on the M25 motorway. The details are stamped on a picture taken by my neat little Garmin dashcam. What’s in the picture? It’s a moveable building sitting on the back of a lorry. Nothing unusual about a lorry transporting stuff from A to B. What I saw was a large building on a relatively small lorry. When first seeing something like this on a busy road, my instinct is to give it a very wide margin.

The rectangular building was rocking gently. It was not a windless day. Not overly windy but a strong gusty breeze was blowing. Clear skies and dry tarmac. So, good driving conditions for a normal lorry with a normal load on a normal day. I’d estimate that this lorry was doing about 80km/hr. It wouldn’t be too difficult to do the sums in terms of the wind resistance of the building. It’s going to be significant. A large flat surface being pushed through the air at motorway speeds. As for sidewinds and gusts, this is a horrendous monster.

Back to safety being a mindset. My thought was – what on earth gave the carriers the idea that this arrangement for a wide load was a safe one for a motorway journey? No escort vehicle. No flashing lights. Just a couple of small red triangles. The straps and wooden blocks holding the load in place looked feeble. A powerful gust of wind on an exposed stretch of road and who knows what would have happen next. It wouldn’t have been pretty. I hope they got to their destination without incident.

Had this been done on private land then there would have been little public risk. Being done on a busy motorway – that’s a different matter. How do people convince themselves that such transport arrangements will be fine? I speculate:

  • Money. Maybe the haulage contractor undercut rivals to get the job. Maybe using a small lorry and ditching any escort vehicle saved money. Maybe there was time pressure and this was all that was available.
  • Bravado: A carrier imagines they have special skills and abilities so they can take risks that others would not take. Something uniquely puts them above others in the field. This cock-sure attitude is not uncommon.
  • Short Cuts. I’ve heard this argument used before – we did it last time and it worked, so we’ll do it again. That learned deviance is the source of many accidents. Past and present can have very different outcomes.
  • Shoulder shrugging: I’ve heard this argument used too – it’s legal, it’s within the rules so it can’t be wrong, can it? (The load maybe within the approved weight limits for the lorry. There may be no explicit rule on shape and size).

A good safety mindset means saying “no” when no is the right answer. All three of the above points can come into play and produce a toxic mix. Such is the way accidents happen. It doesn’t have to be this way but it often is. Before a critic says don’t be so high and mighty – yes, I’ve done foolish things too.

NOTE: The loading rules HGV maximum weights – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

AAM

This week, I watched an FAAs Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) webinar[1]. The subject was community engagement. AAM could be air taxies but it’s many uses of the new electric aircraft that are becoming a reality. The term eVTOL is used for those aircraft that have the capability of vertical flight. My reflection is that there are several aspects of AAM that need much more attention. Naturally, I’m taking the discussion of what’s going on in the US and thinking about it in relation to the UK.

  • Land Use Planning

Generally, National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) are consultees when it comes to land use planning. They do not determine planning applications. NAAs may well have set out policies and guidance on the subject but they will not be determining the site of vertiports.

It seems to me that there’s little chance that eVTOL aircraft routes will be established without sufficient community consent.  Community engagement has been appropriately recognised as essential. The aspects in play are like those for existing aerodromes. Often for AAM applications proposals are for the use of new locations, hence a concern. Anytime there’s a serious proposal for a new aerodrome the opposition is up and running long before the proposers have got their act together.

The subject is complicated by the mix of public and private ownership of infrastructure. If the intention is to interconnect AAM with other transport services (bus/train/boat/road), then complicated agreements are going to be inevitable. It’s not just about buildings and tarmac but having a trained workforce available is a location dependent issue too.

  • Business Models

I’m about to sound as if I’m securitising the plans of a contestant on The Apprentice[2]. There are plenty of way of losing money in commercial aviation. It’s been a well-practiced art over the years. Great ideas fall by the wayside after huge amounts of money have been expended. Customers are key. People must want to fly the routes available, time and time again. And like London Black Cabs be prepared to pay the fare. Given the relatively small cabin sizes that are on offer these people are likely to be moderately prosperous groups or individuals.

Regular schedules air services can produce a reliable income. Airport-to-airport connections seem like a good bet. Problem there is the conveyancing of weighty luggage. Busy airspace could be a challenge too. That said, with tens of thousands of people at both ends of a route, no doubt some people will choose a comfortable, speedy direct connection.

There are good possibilities for major event driven transport services. Getting to and from a motor race or horse race event or a concert or festival can be hell when tens of thousands of people are all trying to get to and from a location or venue. The numbers may well stack-up to make eVTOL a premium way of dodging the crowds in an environmentally sound way.

  • Batteries, Batteries, Batteries

Everything in respect of aircraft performance depends on power density. How much oomph can you get out of a small, light weigh physical space. Recharge and go. Do it, again and again. It’s as simple as that. Not only that but aircraft battery packs must be affordable and available. Whizzy technology that cost a mountain of cash and can only be use for a few hundred cycles is no use at all.

Power distribution infrastructure must be up to the job too. Who will pay for this is up for grabs. There’s a good case for public funding given that there are multiple uses of enhanced electrical supply. Given the monopolistic nature of power generation and distribution this will not be easy or quick.

That’s only three issues that require a great deal of attention. Not the attention of researchers. Not the attention of academics, Not the attention of political policy wonks. Connecting entrepreneurs and public bodies needs practical stimulus. The possibilities are exciting.

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

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-apprentice-2024-winner-pies-b2531331.html

Highways

The last time I visited the city of Baltimore was in 2012. It was the location of the annual seminar of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI)[1]. That was when I was representing the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) at such international events.

The relationship between aviation accident investigators and regulators are generally cordial. There’s a great deal of work that requires cooperation and good communication. That’s not to say that the relationships between these two vital parts of national and international aviation safety systems is easy. It’s not. My reflection on that fact is that a degree of constructive tension is inevitable and not always a bad thing.

One way of seeing that relationship is that the primary role of an investigator is to make findings to prevent the repeat of a given accident. For a regulator the primary role is to ensure the complete aviation system runs safely on a day-to-day basis. Both organisations have the public interest at their heart. However, their operational context and perspective are different.

Firstly, my condolence to the families and friends of those who perished because of the Francis Scott Key Bridge accident[2]. The collapse victims and survivors had no way of knowing what was to happen on the night of the accident. I use the word “accident”. This was not an act of God, as some commentators would have it. The safety risks involved in the operation of the port in Baltimore could be anticipated.

In the US there’s an independent federal agency that is tasked with such major investigations. Interestingly, it’s the same one as that investigates aviation accidents and incidents. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is a multi-modal organisation. That is something we don’t have in the UK. Also, we don’t have a divide between federal and state organisations. Since in the UK we have separate independent national Air, Marine and Rail investigation agencies that cover the country (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).

I will not comment on the accident sequence or causes. It’s the job of an independent investigation to arrive at the technical facts. Recommendations will flow from that investigation.

Where a comment may be in order is that there are many locations across the globe where a vital piece of infrastructure, like a bridge being struck by a large container ship is a possibility. I’d generalise that further. When infrastructure that was designed a built 50 years ago meets modern day operational stress there’s going to be vulnerabilities. Yes, the aviation system is not immune from this fact too. It wasn’t so long ago when I read of PDP-11 computer hardware used for air traffic control (now, historic artifacts[3]). I’m sure there are still Boeing 747s, and alike that need floppy disks to update their hardware.

So, the wider subject is operational legacy systems working with modern systems. This is the interface that requires particular care. The safety risk appetite and exposure in the 1970s/80s was quite different from that which we expect upheld today.

Unfortunately, society is often reluctant to revisit this subject. Additionally, there’s the incentive to go for quick fixes and sweating assets. The example I have in mind the so-called “smart motorways” in the UK[4]. I don’t know how many fatalities can be linked to “smart motorways” but I’m sure, sadly, it’s too many.

POST: In time-off I enjoyed a trip out to Fort McHenry and a walk around the places where The Wire was filmed. The Fort McHenry story is interesting given its role in times of war. The British burnt the White House but the navy didn’t get past Fort McHenry in 1812.

[1] https://www.isasi.org/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68661318

[3] https://www.tnmoc.org/air-traffic-control

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/plans-for-new-smart-motorways-cancelled

Dependency

It’s not unique. Charle Dickens wrote about it. We don’t like to admit it. We have a dependency on bureaucracy. Our complex society runs on it.

Whatever we do when it comes to the meeting of an individual with an organisation, it’s inevitable. Irrational people deny this fact or say it’s only true of public bodies, like government departments. It’s as if the generally high performance of modern computer systems renders them completely invisible.

One apt illustration of a dependency on systematic bureaucracy and digitisation combined can be read in a carefully constructed e-mail from the CEO of Sainsbury’s this weekend.

“I’m writing to update you on the technical issue that has affected our Groceries Online deliveries and some services in our stores this weekend.”

This could have come from any large complex organisation that exists in today’s digital world. When outages happen, we all sit patiently for affected systems to come back online with the full services that we normally take for granted. A sudden reversion to traditional cash transactions was a shock to the average post-COVID consumer.

This weekend my experience of one major hotel chain was that they would not accept cash at all in their restaurant. My “paper” money was useless. It sat in my pocket.

What we have is the power of utility. Systems become so good that we build ever more dependency into them doing the right thing, every time. The problem is that systems are often programmed to do certain tasks exceptionally well but as soon as there’s an unexpected deviation outside normal parameters the situation does not go well. 

An illustration of that experience can be read in the public version of the interim report on UK NATS[1]. After the event, and similar unfortunate events, there’s a cavalcade of calls for more contingency, more resilience, more planning, more training, more checking and so on.

That list is perfectly sensible. But wouldn’t it have been better if those actions had been taken up-front? I often saw this discovery in my time doing systems certification audits. Companies who spend a lot of money upfront to build software that was well characterised and tested were not guaranteed success, but their chances were greatly improved. Those who hit the road with over-confidence, marketing hype and rigorous cost cutting had a high probability of negative outcomes. It’s not a simple cause and effect but good system architecture, robust software and a management that understood the need to spend time and money judiciously do well.  

Just think. If a runner ran a marathon without a strategy, training, basic fitness, planning and sound motivation no one would expect them to be winning anything unless they were exceptionally lucky or unbelievably talented. Not many in the latter category.

There’s a lesson here. It’s been copied over and over. Saddy the almost completely invisibly of complex system that work well in everyday life means we soon take them for granted. And the result is?

[1] https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/21478

EVs

I do find the anti-EV campaigning on social media a bit peculiar. It’s a bit like the arguments for smoking that were made in the 1950s and 60s. Combustion engine vehicles are slowly but surely going to become history. The time for that change is the subject that should be discussed and not whether it’s a good idea or not[1].

One “argument” out there is that adding together all the elements that make-up an electric vehicle there’s a lot of environmental cost in their production. There’s no doubt that nothing is for free. For example, mining lithium and cobalt are not nice in every respect. There’s the concern that demand could quickly eat-up global supply too.

The “arguments” I’ve seen fall apart when considering not only the vehicle production environmental costs but the lifetime costs of an EV when compared with an internal combustion engine vehicle. 20-years of belching out toxic emissions stacks-up. 20-years of using renewable electricity is a far better solution. In theory the potential for recycling valuable materials is high with EVs too. However, we have yet to see if that works successfully in practice.

Other “arguments” look to demean the performance of EV’s when compared to conventional vehicles. Naturally, the time taken to recharge is one of the biggest gripes. For a conventional fuelling at a petrol station a tank can be filled with 500 miles worth of fuel in 15 minutes. For a current EV more preparation, planning and patience are needed to achieve a lesser range.

Some EV performance figures are far superior to conventional air breathing vehicles. Acceleration is one. Powerful electric motors unencumbered by complex mechanical transmission systems react immediately to demands[2]. EVs use power better.

There’s another gripe or moan and that’s about weight. Taking two comparable vehicles, in performance terms, the electric one will be heavier. That’s the technology we have now.

It’s a different kind of weight if that makes any sense. What I mean is that an EV is roughly the same weight whatever the state of the machine. Whereas a vehicle that uses liquid fuel varies in weight according the amount of fuel on-board. Of course, all vehicles vary in weight depending on the payload they carry (goods or passengers or both).

What’s a little difficult to take from the anti-EV lobby is that those who complain about EVs impacting roads, due to their weight, are rarely the same people who express concerns about heavy diesel delivery trucks or Chelsea tractors thundering down residential roads.

There’s one hazard that must be managed for all types of vehicles. A view of a serious fire involving either an EV or a conventional vehicle quickly shows what that threat can do. What we have now less experience dealing with EV fires. They can be severe and difficult to supress.

Regulation is often reactive. The fire threat is real. In this case maybe we do need fire suppression systems in integrated household garages. Multistorey car parks packed full of EVs are going to be a real challenge if a major fire sparks off. That said a fire started with a “diesel-powered vehicle” can be just as challenging[3].

[1] https://www.ft.com/video/95f86c5d-5a94-4e63-bbe8-6cc5ffb59a2b

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a38887851/why-are-evs-so-quick/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67077996

Housing

It was astonishing to listen to a Conservative Minister this morning. My diet of News and current affairs always starts with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Lee Rowley MP was everything you would expect from a former management consultant turned poltico.

Basically, the man is in denial. Everything is fine and all we need is one or two tweaks. Housing problems, only happen in Labour run areas. Everything is peaches and cream. Converting offices and shops into dwellings is perfectly fine. High prices for small cubes without windows – what’s the problem?

Then Mr Rowley wiggled around in his seat when asked outright: what’s the aim? How many houses will the latest proposal delivery? The answer was evasive. It’s not about numbers so the Minister said. Policies without a measure of success or failure are like sentences without meaning. This Minister couldn’t stand on the record of Ministers gone by, so he waffled.

The Minister for Housing is the person in the UK Government responsible for national housing policy. So, after 14 years in power we might expect us, the public, to be reaping the benefits of the seeds sown at the start of a term of Government. Nothing like that is remotely true. Initiative launched now are framed as if a unique and radical new approach is being taken to improve a dire record. Ignoring that the record is that of the current Government.

I don’t want to forgive the Minister, but he has only been in the job since November last. Chopping and changing Ministers is a habit of this Conservative Government. It’s almost like they hot desk, a few weeks here and then a few weeks there. Never enough to get much done.

UK housing, planning, and building is in a poor state. The demand far outstrips supply. Prices are ridiculous. Typically, the percentage of a young person’s income spent on accommodation is horrendous. Rents are high and first-time house buyers are finding it harder and harder. Tenancies are insecure and landlords are giving up.

Although, I remember having to endure high interest rates, at least housing was affordable in the mid-1980s. On a moderate income a mortgage could be secured for about 2 to 3 times annual income. My first brick built two up, two down, was a big step but it was affordable.

I believe this is going to be a General Election issue. Or it should be. It’s time for young people to come out and vote. It’s time for their voice to be heard. It’s time for a major shake-up in the way housing is provided in the UK. Policies enacted in recent years have punished those at the bottom of the ladder.

That’s my thought for the day. Change is vital.

POST: In his BBC radio programme, Tim Harford explains the statistics used in political debate and the News. The Minister above was comparing apples and pears, as is so often the case, when talking about the social housing that has been built[1]. Comparing the period before the Conservatives came to power with the period afterwards, using different metrics is a deception.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001w86h

Space

Eutelsat OneWeb is a growing global connected community. That’s what the publicity says. Once upon a time I wrote about OneWeb. I wrote about it in the context of Brexit.

One of the touted benefits of Brexit was autonomy, in other words, British innovation leading the way to benefit Britain above all others. It’s that aggressive assertion of sovereignty that was at the core of Brexit. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that this was part of Brexiters fantasies? 

In the Brexit turbulence the UK Government walked away from the EU’s Galileo programme. The UK no longer participates in the European Galileo or EGNOS programmes[1].

Then in 2020 the UK changed its original post-Brexit position and scraped building a national alternative to the Galileo satellite system[2]. At that time, Business Secretary Alok Sharma offered around $500 million of UK public money to acquire part of an organisation in trouble, called OneWeb.

OneWeb is a commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation now with an element of Government ownership. It’s network of satellites doesn’t have a global positioning capability, like Galileo.

To get its satellite network up and running, an expensive business, OneWeb merged with French company Eutelstat. Today, if we look at the 2020 investment made with public money the financial situation doesn’t look good. That doesn’t mean to say that things will not turn around in future years[3].

The Times newspaper has taken a nationalist view of the circumstance[4]. It’s a point that the intellectual property is not in the hands of the UK Government, but the investment could still turn out to be a useful long-term commercial bet. It’s gambling with public money.

As an aside, I’ve been looking at buying a new dishwasher for the kitchen. It’s made me aware of a capability that I had no idea had been developed. Namely, the connection of dishwashers via the web. I think this is what is called the Internet of Things (IoT). So, imagine that, British dishwashers connected by space as a Brexit potential benefit.

However, if there’s a change in the UK Government’s political direction after the next General Election there’s a strong possibility that the UK will return to the EU’s Galileo programme with some manner of partnership. When we get to 2026, we may look back on the decade behind as a vacuum, much like the vacuum of space. A time when an uncertain direction cost a great deal.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-involvement-in-the-eu-space-programme

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-scraps-plan-to-build-global-satellite-navigation-system-to-replace-galileo/

[3] https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/oneweb-uks-gamble-satellite-startup-pay-off

[4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/656bd77c-c106-47c3-840b-674e9efc4f0e

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk

Comment

Custom and practice are as important as the rules and regulations that are part of our lives. Now and then, someone is criticized for applying the letter of the law without care for the spirit of the law. The same is true for custom and practice. Whereby, acting outside past norms can trigger a backlash.

Because, in free countries we believe in a free press, the rules and regulations that imping on what should and should not be said about events are always hard fought over. The banner of the “public interest” is touted as overriding. It may or may not be, but there’s an argument to be had.

In the aviation safety profession, I’ve grown up with an instinctively “need to know” disposition. I’ve shaken it off, mostly but there are signs that the attitude persists. This instinct can run counter to the transparency and openness that most people expect to see.

Why talk about the way major events are talked about?

A case in point is the recent runway collision in Tokyo. There’s much already written about the newsworthy aspects of the event, so I’ll desist from adding much more. There’s a lot of speculation too.

Graphs can be drawn of the media attention given to such tragic events against time. It’s typical that from moments after a major aviation accident until a few days after most initial facts are known there’s a huge surge in activity. This used to be described as newspaper column inches.

Today, wide ranging speculation is inevitable. It can be highly literate, and, on the other side of the coin, it can be badly informed, and now and then damaging.

In over three decades, I’ve been dealing with aviation accidents and incidents there has been notable changes in media and communications. For one, the universality of the INTERNET is now unquestionable. For another, the deference offered to authorities has diminished markedly. For yet another, the speed of with which images can travel around the globe is astonishing.

Most aviation professionals are tempered by caution. Aware of the techical complexities that can arise in aviation accident scenarios. What can seem in the heat of the moment to be an obvious cause and effect, after detailed analysis turns out to be wrong, or only a partial picture.

So, should aviation professionals be scathing about the enormous growth in commentary and public speculation? Especially when some of it is wild and or even outrageous on social media. No. I don’t think so. Like it or not this is our digital world. The freedom it affords to throw-up any opinion or theory can only be tempered a bit. The hope is always that the pure dross fades away when a reputable authority challenges it.

That then puts a responsibility on someone, with professional knowledge to challenge ill-founded speculation. Or, at least, to ensure that the major media outlets have reliable sources of trustworthy information. I don’t think aviation professionals should remain silent concerning speculation. That may have been the strategy decades ago. It no longer works. The greatest degree of transparency and openness, based on verifiable facts, should be the aim.

Comment?

Democracy in Danger

Here’s a proposition. We are more adjusted to day-to-day fibs than we have been in the whole of history. The art of telling stories and telling lies has merged. Conflicts and tensions have fuelled a deluge of misinformation. It’s easy to put aside the clams of a flat Earth supporter but who’s to know about a major event that has just happened unless capable fact checking is immediately deployed? The liar’s advantage is an unfortunate reality. Bad New travels fast but corrections travel slowly.

Here’s some examples. Hardly a day goes by without a junk e-mail in my mailbox. These junk e-mails tell blatant lies as a means of deception. Either pulling heartstrings or threatening vicious measures. Absurd fake News is easy to spot but subtle – could be true or is that real – doubts can hang in the air.

We have got accustomed to bombardment of advertising that promises a glamourous perfume will enhance our lives immeasurably. Cars that will propel us into a technicolour future. Shop banners that proclaim being obviously better than other. Gambling opportunities that are only about winning.

An unspoken assumption exists. That is that our education, however elementary, provides each one of us with a sufficiency of cynicism to see through overblown promises. An ability to look a con artist in the eye and see through their smoke and mirrors. An in-built discriminating nature.

In fact, most people are quite insulted if it is suggested that they don’t have these superpowers. It’s an afront to say that someone has been led by the nose and scammed. Most of us are embarrassed if it happens, and we discover it. I mean extremely embarrassed. Then pure human pride can kick in and a period of denial is almost inevitable.

Has this atmosphere where truth and shams fight for attention put democracy in danger?

The origins of democracy weren’t about universal suffrage. Everybody being involved. Voting was reserved for citizens who held that status as a privilege. Today, we have come to think of democracy as every single person on a level playing field. This is idealism, but it’s a beautiful model.

Just as in ancient Rome, legislators exaggerate, manipulated information, build dubious alliances, and tell porkies to advance their positions. Some of this is the warp and weft of politics. It’s reasonable to say that we have evolved a discriminating nature. Only that discrimination is rather fragile.

The speed and volume of media communication grows with no seeming limit. Technology has enabled this advance. However, I’m wary of blaming technology for a proliferation of misinformation. That’s to deny that there’s an intent behind deception.

It’s going to be useless to have a highbrow intellectual discussion about Artificial Intelligence (AI) if the outcome is no change. We may as well blame the fibre optic cable that pump data around the world. Even with AI there is human intent behind the technology. These are behavioural matters.  

Yes, democracy is in danger, but the solutions are in our hands. We need not become victims.