Research – Page 5 – John Vincent

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 21^st century we should be surprised that a British Prime Minister should behave as if he lived in the 19^th 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/

Learn by testing

Back in the mid-1980s, aircraft system integration was part of my stock-in-trade. Project managing the integration of a safety critical system into a large new helicopter. It was a challenging but rewarding job. Rewarding in that there was a successful new aircraft at the end of the day.

For big and expensive development projects there are a great number of risks. The technical ones focus on functionality, performance, and safety. The commercial ones focus on getting the job done on-time and at a reasonable price. Project managers are in the middle of that sandwich.

Naturally, the expectations of corporate managers in the companies that take on these big challenges is that systems and equipment integration can be done to the book. Quickly and without unexpected outcomes. The practical reality is that people must be well prepared and extremely lucky not to encounter setbacks and resets. It’s not just test failures and anomalies that must be investigated and addressed. Systems integrators are working on shifting sand. The more that is known about overall aircraft flight test performance and customers preferences so technical specifications change.

With cockpit display systems, in the early days, that was often feedback from customer pilots who called for changes to the colour, size or shape of the symbology that was displayed on their screens. What can seem a simple post-flight debriefing remark could then turn into a huge change programme.

That was particularly true of safety critical software-based systems. Equipment suppliers may have advanced their design to a state where much of the expensive design validation and verification was complete. Then a system integrator comes up with a whole set of change that need to be done without additional costs and delivered super-fast. Once a flight test programme gets going it can’t be stopped without serious implications. It’s a highly dynamic situation[1].

I’m writing this blog in reaction to the news coming from Vertical Aerospace. Their VX4 prototype aircraft was involved in an flight test incident that did a lot of damage[2]. There’s no doubt this incident can provide data to feedback into the design, performance, and safety of future versions of their aircraft[3]. Integrating complex hardware and software is hard but the rewards are great.

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution.” – Aristotle

[1] https://youtu.be/Gb_eta4mZkc

[2] https://evtolinsights.com/2023/08/vertical-aerospace-identifies-propeller-as-root-cause-of-august-9-vx4-incident/

[3] https://investor.vertical-aerospace.com/news/news-details/2023/Vertical-Aerospaces-VX4-Programme-Moves-to-the-Next-Phase/default.aspx

New Walk

It’s a step to the left and then a step to the right. It’s not quite the “Time Warp” that featured in the 1970s rock musical: The Rocky Horror Show.

It’s a little mini dance that people do every day in the streets of Britain. I found myself doing it over the weekend. It’s that moment when you realise that you have lost a sense of what’s around you. A tiny drift away from where you intended to go. Then a step to correct, and look-up and set-off again towards your destination. A wiggle on the pavement.

Maybe this walk didn’t exist before 2006. Well, that is all but in the most exceptional situations. Hand-held devices are not entirely new. What’s much more frequent now is the compulsion to look at the small screen.

The colours, the constant demand for attention, the tickling of our curiosity, the mobile phone has it all. In fact, its dam silly to continue to call our devices “phones.” The primary purpose of these handy devices has long since passed from being able to make telephone calls from any location.

We call them a “mobile”, but the Germans call them a “handy”. An American will call them a cell phone. Given the way we use these ubiquitous hand-held devices, I think the Germans have got it right. The whole essence of the thing is its utility.

Now, if we are fixated with heads down there’s a lot that can go wrong. This has been the source of numerous aviation accidents. Looking up and checking visual references remains a fundamental part of flying. The basics of “see and avoid” are drummed into every new flyer.

On the pavement us poor humans are evolving in a world of every more connected technology. In our heads we have a perception of the world around us as we walk the urban streets. That’s made up of sights, sounds, and even smells. Our brains gather information and then do some spatial and temporal filtering before making sense of where we are and what we need to do to get where we want to go. The eyes, and image processing in the brain are on the top of the list of our normal priorities.

Heads-down attention is drawn to the small screen and away from our surroundings. Staring at the small screen draws us into the content of an e-mail, or a text message, or a cuddly cat picture running around social media. Luckily our other senses are keeping track of the world around us.

The textbook case is where we start to drift in our three-dimensional environment. Not much. It’s a step to the left and not a step to the right. Suddenly there’s a need to correct. Our ever-active brains pick up on the misstep. That’s where our tiny dance comes in and nobody but us may notice.

I’m talking about something that’s almost trivial. Hardly noticeable. However, there are far too many cases where fatalities have resulted from missteps[1]. There’s some evidence that bumping into people and objects is most likely. Slips and falls follow those incidents.

I’ll bet not much is known about the vast number of micro-events like my tiny mobile phone dance. Now, there’s a topic of study for a student of visual perception.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034962/