Category: Research

The Will

We’ve entered the first days of a New Year. Traditionally, it’s a time for reflection and speculation.

Looking back at the path behind.  Looking forward at the unmade path ahead. Four and twenty years into the new millennium perhaps it’s not so enjoyable to look back. To be reminded of the travails of the last decade, in particular, isn’t that helpful. We can go back to feel good moments, like 2012 and the London Olympics[1]. Sadly, there hasn’t been enough of these moments of unity and common purpose. Unscrupulous politicians have become fixated on dividing people.

This year, the opportunities to change all that are staring us in the face. It’s an Olympic year[2]. Choices abound. Elections mark an opportunity to carve a new path ahead. Doomsayers are totalling up the conflicts in the world. Listing the threats. Calling our attention to our weaknesses. This is one side of the coin. I’d rather highlight the other side of the coin.

As much as humanity is well capable of breaking things it’s getting ever better at fixing things. We may be slow in recognising climate change, but it’s spurring innovation on a massive level.

Despite the aging demographic in this country, the world is more youthful. That worldwide youth is gaining better education, in numbers unimaginable in past millennia.

The Human vs. Machine narrative is a false one. The choice is ours as to what to do with technology. We need to take that responsibility. The means to do so are available to us if we choose to us them.

Health outcomes, at a global level are improving. Our understanding of the afflictions of humanity is advancing to meet the challenge. Our responsiveness to new threats is improving.

So, don’t look down at your feet. Look up, look forward and prepare for a better future.

There’s also a stubborn noise in our political debate. Every request is for more money. The thesis is that the problem, whatever it is, will be solved by more money. Sometimes that’s the way to go. Investing in science and research has been shown to work. It clearly helps to have a well-trained and well-motivated workforce. However, this sum isn’t digital. In other words: More Money = solution. Less Money = failure. In a lot of cases, it’s not money that is the missing component.

Much of what I’ve observed fits a different equation. Namely, sustained political will equals progress. Lack of political will equals stagnation. And political will deployed like a blunderbuss equals disappointment and waste. I’m talking of a version of “A House Divided Cannot Stand.” The issue is how to differentiate and not how to divide. They are different.

The British high-speed rail debate is a sad example. Sustained political will can deliver. Poor management, shilly-shallying and constantly shuffling the pack, which is what has happened, lays the tracks to failure and waste in the long term.

2024 can be a year when we take back control of our destiny. Commitment to building a better country. A generous and inclusive society that brings people together. We have the will.

[1] https://www.londonolympics2012.com/

[2] https://www.paris2024.org/en/

Two upfront

One of the fundamentals that remains a part of civil aviation is having two pilots in the cockpit. It’s an indication of the safety related activities of the crew of a civil aircraft. Today, we have a mixture of human control and management. Pilots still fly hands-on when the need arises. The expectation is that throughout their working lives pilots have the competence to do so, at any stage in a flight.

Progressively, since the establishment of aviation’s international order in the 1940s the required crewing of aircraft has changed. Back in September, I visited the de Havilland Aircraft Museum in Hertfordshire. There I walked through the fuselage of a de Havilland DH106 Comet[1]. This was the first turbojet-powered airliner to go into service and it changed the experience of flying forever and a day.

That passenger aircraft, like aircraft of the time, had four crew stations in the cockpit. Two pilots, a navigator and flight engineer. It was the era when electronics consisted of valves in large radio sets and such long since forgotten devices as magnetic amplifiers. The story from the 1940s of IBM saying, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” is often repeated.

For modern airliners the navigator and flight engineer have gone. Their functions have not gone. It’s that having a crew member dedicated to the tasks they performed is no longer required. As the world of vacuum-tube electronics gave way to transistors and then to integrated circuits so computing got more powerful, cheaper, and abundant.

With a few significant failures along the way, commercial flying got safer and safer. The wave of change in a human lifetime has affected every mode of transport. More people travel to more places, more safely than ever could have been imagined 80-years ago. Does that mean the path ahead will take a similar shape? Excitable futurologists may paint a colourful picture based on this history.

Let’s get away from the attractive notion of straight lines on graph paper. That idea that progress is assumed to be linear. Tomorrow will be progressively “better” by an incremental advance. That’s not happening now. What we have is differential advances. Some big and some small. 

The aviation safety curve is almost flat. The air traffic curve, with a big hole made by COVID, is climbing again. The technology curve is rapidly accelerating. The environmental impact curve is troubling. The air passenger experience curve may even be at a turning point.

Touchscreen tablets already help flight preparation and management[2]. Flight plan changes can be uploaded and changed with a button press[3]. The squeezing of massive computing power into small spaces is being taken for granted. What does this leave a crew to do?

Back to the start. Two pilots in the cockpit, with executive responsibilities, remains the model that maintains public confidence in civil aviation. The golden rules still apply. Fly, navigate and communicate in that order. Crews, however much technology surrounds them, still need to act when things do not go as expected. Does this mean two cockpit crew forever? I don’t know.

[1] https://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/aircraft/de-havilland-dh106-comet-1a/

[2] https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-02-electronic-flight-bag-the-new-standard

[3] https://simpleflying.com/datalink-communications-aviation-guide/

Flight Ahead

Although, I’m an advocate of having people in control of machines it isn’t people that are opening new opportunities in transport. Technology is racing ahead and making the past illustrations of popular science magazines become a reality. I can do without the hype in the headlines of flying cars. Building expectations of one in every garage remains a 1950s dream or nightmare, dependent upon your point of view. Aside from that hot air viable new electric vehicles are in the works.

Heavier-than-air machine that do more than buzz around our heads are going to proliferate. The inevitability of this is open to question but if I was to assign a probability to it, the number would be close to one. If we stretch our minds back to an unobserved small corner of the planet in late 1903, a couple of diligent brothers flew a machine that hopped a short distance into the air under its own power. Many newspapers of the time didn’t bother to print this breakthrough story because wise and eminent scientists had told them that it was impossible for people to fly.

It’s clear, getting into the prediction business should be done with humility.

We have a dilemma. It’s so rare of us to turn away from advancing technology when we know it can be made. It’s even more irresistible when the economics scream out buy me. So, a ticket to ride in the realm of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) will need to be no more than a typical taxi ride. Given that a taxi ride from my home to Gatwick Airport is about £20 then that’s the mark to hit. True that short journey may not be commonplace by air at that price until around 2033, a decade away, but it will be irresistible when it comes.

This chapter in air transport, that is being written is as significant as that in late 1903. I know that’s a mega statement, but the signs do point that way.

Eventually, UAM will become a network of piloted and autonomous electric air vehicles operating between cities and major destinations like airports.

Now, a couple of solvable challenges stand in the way. One is the endurance and portability of the energy storage devices. The other is complexity and mastering the science and art of functional safety. There’s plenty of confident hyperbole to suggest that these two are short-term barriers to progress. I say they are not.

Weight is one of aviation’s biggest enemies particularly on small vehicles. Batteries are expensive, heavy and require tailored control. Autonomy or the semi autonomy, needed to make the economics click is challenging systems engineering orthodoxy. Both tasks require the meticulous diligence of the Wright brothers to get past. No fanfare or flashy investor can push them aside.

Making the absolute most of energy storage technology is essential. Finding the optimal configuration of batteries, transmission and control electrics means iteration and the tolerance of a good handful of failures. The engineering of what’s becoming a system of systems, with the complexity of vehicles and the complexity of traffic management, interacting at great speed demands extensive analysis and testing.

These tasks can be accomplished. Rushing them would be foolish. That’s difficult to resist when everyone wants to be first.

D minus PM

In the second decade of the 21st century we should be surprised that a British Prime Minister should behave as if he lived in the 19th century. Common problems, future collaboration and an alliance of decades are too important to jeopardise. Relations between Britain and Greece are of great importance. Today’s spat is foolish.

There’s a joke going around the social media. It asks the question: Why are the pyramids in Egypt? The answer being: Because they were too heavy for the British to carry-off. In other words, if they were smaller, they would be in the British Museum. That light-hearted quip highlights an inherited problem. Although, the same line could have been written about many imperial European countries. It was the fashion. Here British country houses were not properly dressed unless they had a sprinkling of ancient Greek artefacts. Those artefacts were often taken by the powerful. That’s our history.

The Parthenon is not any old relic. Its image is as heavily identified with modern Greece as it was with ancient Greece. As a symbol of western civilisation, it’s unmatched. Its sculptures are high points of classical Greek art.

Once upon a time, the argument was made that the Parthenon Sculptures were better protected by British Museum than they would be elsewhere. During the turbulent periods before the birth of modern Greece that argument was probably a fair one. Greek indepenence, helped by a famous British poet, became the start of the modern European State.

Lord Byron’s early death, at 36, was grieved both in Britain and Greece. His remains were returned to Britain where he was laid to rest. It was respectful to return to the great man to the land of his origins.

In 2023, Britain and Greece are friendly nations. We benefit immensely from the excellent relationship between the peoples of both countries. Thus, I can fully understand the Greek Prime Minister “annoyance” at being snubbed while in the country. The British Prime Minister being to busy to see his counterpart.

Athena is an ancient Greek goddess connected with wisdom. The Parthenon is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis. Well, there doesn’t seem to be much wisdom in Number 10 Downing Street. If there was, then such disagreements as there are over the future of the Parthenon Sculptures, would never have created the situation, we have this morning. It’s sad.

Politicians have a duty to address problems and not to run away from them for minor reasons. It’s only through dialogue that a solution will be found to the conflicting claims made about the Parthenon Sculptures. The day they return to the city where they belong will be one of great joy.

Another -isation

Coming across a new word kicks off some mixed feelings. What should I think? Should I be a pedant? Should I start using it right away or write to the newspapers in disgust?

This morning, I put a new word to Sue at breakfast. Her reaction was “that’s obscene”. It’s true that only one of us might be eligible or think about joining the Apostrophe Protection Society[1]. I was ambivalent towards technical colleagues making-up a new word. In this case, there’s no ambiguity in meaning. No need to explain. Chunking two ideas together is creativity – isn’t it?

I can’t go as far as to sniff at a newfound English word. Modern language must evolve. It must branch off onto fresh exotic paths. I’ve always thought the idea that there should be legislation to protect a “true” version of a langauage is as useful as hammering the nails into its coffin.

Composite words can be a delight. For one Christmas, I got a wonderful book of some of the longest German words that know no English equivalent. Naming objects or expressing combinations of circumstances in one gigantic word can be a lot of fun and surprisingly practical.

Who doesn’t like: Streichholzschächtelchen. Yes, it’s a matchbox.

Today, we talk of streaming as if that word had been around since prehistoric times but there are limits as to how we use it. For example, I’d sound strange if I said I was all streamed-up or streamed-out. My meaning being the memory on my mobile device was full of endless streamed material.

The word software[2] started its life as the name suggests. Something, like wool that was soft to ware. Say; I like this well-made winter coat. It’s good quality software. A crate in a coat makers factory might have a label with that humble word attached.

Today, no one would normally make that association. Almost since the date of my birth. And I could say the era of my birth was the beginning of the Space Age. The 1960s. Since the date of my birth, and the major part computers take in our everyday lives the term software has grown and grown. If a child of 5-years-old doesn’t know the word, there education must be wanting.

Living a sheltered existence, it’s only this morning that the word softwarisation came to my notice. Even the spellchecker and text prediction want to turn it into something else. The word does follow that simple composting convention that seems so popular, particularly amongst technical society. Assuming everyone knows what software is then it adds an ending that suggest a transformation from something into software. I’m not talking about turning a lump of cheese into software, so context is all important.

Software’s forefather, or mother was hardware. That’s the physical electronics that you can touch and hold. Loads of semiconductors and tiny circuits in our devices that are constantly taken for granted. Softwarisation is a way of saying that more and more digital device functionality is dependent on software and not physical hardware. More and more device hardware is becoming general purpose and it’s the software does the thinking. I’ll go with that. It’s happening.

PS: I didn’t use Microsoft Bing (software) to help create the above but after I’d written it I did have a look to see what it said about the subject. Help, there’s no going back.

[1] https://www.apostrophe.org.uk/

[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/software

Half empty tool box

When new technologies come along there’s often a catch-up phase. Then we are either frightening ourselves crazy with a moral panic or switch to a – so what? – mode. The last week’s fury of articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI) probed all sorts of possibilities. What’s the enduring legacy of all that talk? Apart from stimulating our imaginations and coming up with some fascinating speculation, what’s going to happen next?

I’m struck by how conventional the response has been, at least from a governmental and regulatory point of view. A little bit more coordination here, a little bit more research there and maybe a new institution to keep an eye on whatever’s going on. Softly, softly as she goes. And I don’t mean the long-gone black and white British TV series of that name[1]. Although the pedestrian nature of the response would fit the series well.

Researchers and innovators are always several steps ahead of legislators and regulators. In addition, there’s the perception that the merest mention of regulation will slow progress and blunt competitiveness. Time and money spent satisfying regulators is considered a drain. However much some politicians think, the scales don’t always have public interest on one side and economic growth on the other.

Regarding AI more than most other rapidly advancing technical topics, we don’t know what we don’t know. That means more coordination turns into to more talk and more possibly groupthink about what’s happening. Believe you me, I’ve been there in the past with technical subjects. There’s a fearful reluctance to step outside contemporary comfort zones. This is often embedded in the terms of reference of working groups and the remit of regulators.

The result of the above is a persistent gap between what’s regulated in the public interest and what’s going on in the real world. A process of catch-up become permanently embedded.

One view of regulation is that there’s three equally important parts, at least in a temporal sense.

Reactive – investigate and fix problems, after the event. Pro-active – Using intelligence to act now. Prognostic – looking ahead in anticipation. Past, present, and future.

I may get predicable in what I say next. The first on the list is necessary, inevitable, and often a core activity. The second is becoming more commonplace. It’s facilitated by seeking data, preforming analysis and being enabled to act. The third is difficult. Having done the first two, it’s to use the best available expertise and knowledge to make forecasts, identify future risks and put in place measures ahead of time.

So, rather than getting a sense that all the available methods and techniques are going to be thrown at the challenge of AI, I see a vacuum emerging. Weak cooperation forums and the fragmentation inherent when each established regulator goes their own way, is almost a hands-off approach. There’s a tendency to follow events rather than shaping what happens next. Innovation friendly regulation can support emerging digital technologies, but it needs to take their risk seriously.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129717/

What do you think?

A bill poster looked down at me. In big bold letters the word “Good” was the main message. It was the fact that a local college had been graded as good. They clearly wanted everyone to know that an inspection had gone well. Afterall, the rent of street posters is not cheap.

So, for all the efforts of all the staff, and the whole educational institution their work was summed up in one simple word. Four colourful letters displayed to passers-by. To be categorised as “Good” is read as having crossed a line. It’s a positive statement and a long way from – fail. Equally, it’s a mile off – excellent. The trouble is that “Good” is such a bland word. We have such a wide spectrum of use for that word that it’s difficult to know what it means.

One wonderful comedy sketch is that of Statler and Waldorf in the Muppets[1]. The two argumentative elderly men master the art of heckling. They start by saying: “that was wonderful” and then “it really wasn’t that good”, then keep on going until they get to “that was terrible” before they sign off.

It’s a nice reminder of a range of opinions being like shifting sand. In the range of one to ten the word “Good” is smack bang in the middle. Probably the most inoffensive classification.

If you are like me, you will have experienced a stream of e-mails asking for an opinion. Surveys are the number one marketing tool. To lure us they often have prize draws or the prospect of a giveaway.

“As a valued customer we welcome your feedback”. “We wondered if you could spare 5 – 6 minutes?” In theory, the fact that a business is interested in feedback is a positive. I like to know that a restaurant or airline is taking customer feedback. The hope is that feedback assists businesses in improving and developing their services.

However, an invitation to “share your thoughts” is reduced to box ticking. It’s almost as if we are still in the world of computers run on punched cards. These electronic surveys are constructed for the processor rather than that of the user.

They are quite checky too. Tick a particular box on a survey and another one comes up to ask – why do you feel that way? It’s almost as if you are required to justify a freely given opinion and threatened with being ignored if you don’t.

For all the above customer surveys have been a part of the landscape for since the early days of the internet. Categorisations put a stamp on what we think. It’s crude. Sometimes it’s merely a set of five stars with a request to choose one. Cantankerous opinions are mixed with indifferent answers. The aggregation of a pile of data can make the results as bland as tasteless soup. This can then be pasted into company reports. Thus becoming more of a security blanket rather than real feedback.

Let’s end on a positive note. This is a subject where Artificial Intelligence (AI) can contribute. Instead of box ticking why not have a dialogue with customers. Ask them what they really think. Imagine an animated AI version of Statler and Waldorf. Now, that would be fun.

[1] https://youtu.be/NpYEJx7PkWE

Adaptation

There was a time when AI was an esoteric subject that filled the minds of high-minded professors. They had real trouble trying to translate what they were doing into langauage that most of us would understand. Research in the subject area was the purview of national institutes and military facilities. Results flowed into academic journals and little read folders in the corners of university libraries.

That has changed. What was expensive to build and test because everything was unique or bespoke is no longer. Enough is known about algorithms that work, and the ones that don’t, to make practical experimentation much more viable. AI tools are turning up on our desktops, tablets, and phones without us even asking. Opting-in is often assumed.

A massive number of applications are nothing more than fizz. They can be useful, but they are not game changers, and our lives carry on much as before. What is new, or at least pushing at the door, is applications that control things in our everyday environment.

If traffic lights start guessing what my age is before allocating a maximum time to cross the road, we are going to start to see a good amount of pavement rage when they get it wrong. When AI algorithms drive my car for me it’s going to be a bad day when accidents start to accumulate[1] (even if the total system of systems is far safer than us mere humans). Anyway, it’s easy to write scary stuff about AI. In this case I’d like to highlight some positive gains that might be realised.

A lot of what is designed, produced, and sold is pretty much fixed the day it leaves the shop or showroom. Yes, for example, cars are recalled for fixing known deficiencies but the threshold for taking such action is extremely high. Even in a safe industry like civil aviation dealing with an unsafe condition that has been discovered takes time and a great deal of resources.

AI has the potential to be adaptive[2]. So, that thing that you buy, car, washing machine, or whatever, will have the inbuild ability to learn. To adapt to its situation. To be like others of its type but, over time, to customise itself to the needs of its user.

Just image a domestic appliance that can adapt to its pattern of use. Always staying with safe boundaries, producing maximum energy efficiency, and doing its job to the best of its specification. Let’s imagine a car that gets to know common routes and all the hazards on those routes and even takes the weather and time of day into account when driving those routes.

In all that adaptive potential there’s great benefit. Unlike buying gloves that are made to specific standard sizes and don’t quite fit you, the adaptive glove would be that malleable leather that slowly gets a better and better fit with use. AI will be able to do that if it gathers the right kind of data.

Now naturally, this gets complicated if the adaptive element is also safety related. The control system in a car, truck, tram, train, or aircraft must get it right day after day in a wide range of conditions. Nevertheless, if systems are constrained within known safe boundaries there’s much to be gained by adaptation. This is not taking control away from the human in the loop but making it easier to do what humans do best. Just a thought.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/28/tesla-trial-autopilot-crash/

[2] https://luffy.ai/pages/IS-DR.html

Society & Innovation

Yesterday, I drove up the main A303[1] in the stifling last summer heat. It was a windless sticky 30C. I drove past the road sign that says Micheldever Station[2]. By the way, “up” meaning heading towards London. Going “up” to London isn’t an unusual West County way of expressing that trip.

On that busy highway there are few, if any noticeable road signs that point towards a railway station. I’ve often wondered why that one was deemed so necessary. It’s not a tourist attraction, like the Watercress line[3] is in that part of the world. It’s an ordinary everyday railway station.

The small English hamlet known as Micheldever Station is a bit of an oddity. It’s the sort of place that could have been the location for The Avengers or The Saint, the popular British TV series of the 1960s. It’s in the green and pleasant countryside of Hampshire and about 10 miles north of Winchester city. An area that’s as conservative as can be.

Micheldever Station has a curious technological history. In 1895, it was the starting point for the first automobile journey in Britain. At that time a British Act of Parliament required that all self-propelled vehicles on public roads must travel at no more than 4 miles per hour and to be preceded by a man waving a red flag. In 1805, highly sensible. There’s no way that those infernal new machines should be allowed to scare the horses.

Not everyone thinks such thoughts while thundering along the A303 at 70 miles per hour. However, to me, ever since I got my first driving license at the age of 16, it’s been my most familiar of arterial roads. So, much traffic passes that way there’s never a time when it can’t be heard.

Well, we have come a long way in 138 years. Now, we are getting nervous about the safety of driverless cars, and no one even questions having a self-propelled vehicle on public owned roads. If they do, the likelihood of transforming that formula into something else is astronomically small. I can’t think of a bad time to write on the subject of: “Innovation and Its Enemies[4].” In fact, what may have graced a Victorian bookshelf can have some resonance today.

Next year, we will see commercial flights taken in electrically powered air-taxies. Without a shadow of a doubt these flights will arouse some vocal public resistance. We can take that from the history of technology. The airborne version of the man waving a red flag could raise its ugly head. I don’t say throw caution to the wind, but we need to be mindful of the natural propensity to object.

Striking a societal balance will not be easy. It would be a fool who says it will be. Slowly but surely, we will need to become accustomed to advanced new forms of mobility. Sticking a fair balance between the utility of these new machines and any burden they may place upon us will be a mighty tricky job.

I wake-up to the noise of the residential road outside. People commuting to work. The local trains send a rumble through the air. I don’t want to wake-up to the sound of an air-taxi hovering outside my window. Given the research[5] and technology under development, none of us should have to tolerate an increase in noise. Mobility and quality of life shouldn’t always be in conflict.

[1] https://youtu.be/C0sL3_NKPao

[2] https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/at-the-station/micheldever

[3] https://watercressline.co.uk/

[4] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/innovation-and-its-enemies-9780190467036?cc=us&lang=en&

[5] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210014173

Horizon

There’s been a couple of false dawns. Now, the morning’s News is that the UK will rejoin the European Horizon programme. The EU’s Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) provides grant funding for research priority topics for the years 2021-2027.

The recognition that there’s a common interest in research across Europe is welcome. There are important areas of investigation that go well beyond the resources available to any one country. Benefiting from collaboration is a win-win.

Access to Horizon Europe will be a great opportunity for UK aerospace[1]. It has been in the past and surly will be in the future. Of the billions available there’s a good chunk for funding opportunities for aerospace research and technology. This funding is particularly focused on greening aviation.

Such subjects as the competitiveness and digital transformation in aviation are addressed too. Advancing the regions capabilities in a digital approach to aerospace design, development and manufacturing will be invaluable to UK industry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) used for Machine Learning (ML) and complex modelling are the tools that will be deployed throughout the global industrial environment.

Europe can pioneer the first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft. The major role the UK can play in advancing this aim is self-evident. Ambition, capabilities, and expertise reside here. The magnification of this to tackle what are enormous challenges can only be a good move.

Projects like ENABLEH2[2] provide a pathway to the introduction of liquid H2 for civil aviation. These projects are not easy, but they do provide a long-term environmental and sustainability advantages. Access to these projects can minimise duplication and the dangers of spending valuable resources on pursuing blind alleys.

Research is not just a matter of hard technology. Without the new skills that are required to meet the targets for a green transition it will fail. Investments in upskilling and reskilling opportunities are equally important to enabling change.

The principles of propulsion of hydrogen and electric systems need to be taught at every level. It’s not academics in lab coats that will keep civil aviation flying on a day-by-day basis. Training programmes for a new generation of manufacturing and maintenance engineers will need to be put in place. Research will underpin that work. 

[1] https://www.ati.org.uk/news/access-to-horizon-europe/

[2] https://www.enableh2.eu/