Category: Safety

Fuel Control Switches

I’ll not go any further than the investigation report that’s in the public domain. The Air India AI171 Boeing 787-800 Preliminary Report is published for all to read. The aircraft’s Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) has been replayed. Sadly, this report raised questions as much as it closes down erroneous theories.

It warrants saying again, and again. My thoughts are with the friends and families of those affected. They deserve to know exactly what happened and as far as is possible, why. Not only that but the global travelling public need to be confident that any necessary corrective action is being taken to prevent a recurrence of such a rare fatal accident.

What requires a one or two words is one of the commonest ways we interact with electrical and electronic systems. The humble switch. In fact, they are far from humble and come in lots of shapes and sizes. The general idea is that a mechanical device, that can be manipulated with a purpose in mind, is used to control the flow of electrical current. There are non-mechanical switches, but I’ll not go there for the moment.

I remember conversations with my aircraft electrical engineering colleagues. It goes like this – you deal with the small currents (avionic systems), and we will deal with the big ones (power systems). Also, a mantra was that all electrical systems are, in part, mechanical systems. Switches, cables, generators, control valves, relays, bonding, you name it, they are in part, mechanical systems. In the past traditional electrical engineers got a but jittery when faced with “solid state” controls (semiconductors).

Switches. I’ve seen the words “cognitive engagement” used. In simpler terms, by design, pilots interact with switches with a purpose in mind. Equally, as in the world of human factors, unprotected switches can be operated in error, unintentionally or by physical force.

So, what are the chances of two protected Fuel Control Switches moving, within seconds of each other, at the most critical phase of an aircraft’s flight?

[There is a discussion to be had in respect of timing. Remember the record from the flight recorders is a sampling of events. The sampling rate maybe as low as one per second. Note: EASA AMC2 CAT.IDE.A.190.]

These cockpit switches are designed and certificated to perform as intended under specified operating and environmental conditions. That’s a wide range of vibration and temperature (shake and bake).

Switch operation is indicated by their physical position[1]. In addition, operation of these switches will be evident by cockpit indications. The concept being that a flight crew can confirm that the Fuel Control Switches have moved by their effect on the engines. If a crew need to take corrective action it is in relation to the information presented to them by the engine instrument system.

The report makes it clear that both mechanical switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUT-OFF’ almost immediately as the aircraft became airborne. That is a worst-case scenario. The time available to recognise and understand the situation, for training to kick-in, and then to take appropriate corrective action was insufficient.

This leads me to think that there may be a case for disabling the Fuel Control Switch function up until at least an altitude where aircraft recovery is possible. Now, these switches need to be available up until the V1 speed is achieved (Example: aborting a take-off with an engine fire). After that an aircraft is committed to becoming airborne.

I suspect the reason there is no inhibit function is the possibility of adding another potential failure condition. Inadvertent and unrecoverable disabling of ‘CUT-OFF’ are scenarios that would need to be considered. No doubt a reasonableness argument was used. No crew would shut-down both engines down immediately an aircraft became airborne, would they?

POST: I hope I haven’t given the impression that this is a case of simple switches and wires. The Boeing 787 is a digital aircraft.  Mechanical fuel technology plays its part but control functions are digital.

[1] Designs that offer switch illumination are not used in this case.

Causal Chains in Accidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Risk After Aircraft Accidents

Let me clarify. I can no more predict the future than is illustrated in the humour of this news report. “Psychic’s Gloucester show cancelled due to ‘unforeseen circumstances[1]‘”

Predicting the outcome of an aircraft accident investigation is just as fraught with unforeseen circumstances. For a start, the evidence base is shallow in the first weeks of an investigation. As the clock ticks so increasingly, new information either confuses or clarifies the situation.

Despite the uncertainty, aviation professionals do need to try to anticipate the findings of a formal investigation before they are published or communicated in confidence. It’s not acceptable to sit back and wait to be told what has been found.

In aviation, post-accident there is an elevation of operational risk. The trouble is that assessing that elevation is hindered by the paucity of reliable information. Equally, a proliferation of speculation can escalate risk assessments beyond what is needed. The reverse is true too.

Let’s look at the difference between commentary and speculation. One is based on evidence and the other may not be. One takes the best professional assessment and the other may be more to do with beliefs, prejudices or the latest fashionable thinking.

In reality, it’s not quite as binary. Since speculation in the financial sense may be based on a lot of calculation and risk assessment. Generally, though there is an element of a leap of faith. Opinions based upon past experiences commonly shape thinking.

Commentary on the other hand, like sports commentary is describing what’s happening based upon what’s known. Sometimes that includes one or two – what ifs. In football, that match deciding penalty that was only missed but for a small error.

Commentary includes analysis and study of past accidents and incidents. Trying to pick-up on any apparent trends or patterns is of paramount importance.

Those responsible for aircraft operations, whether they be airlines or safety regulators, need to have an immediate response. That maybe done in private. Their decision-makers need to have a theory or conjecture based on as much analysis and evidence as is available. Like it or not, the proliferation of commentary and speculation does have an impact.

In a past life, one of the actions that my team and I took was to compile a “red book” as quickly as possible post-accident. That document would contain as much reliable information as was available. Facts like aircraft registration details, a type description, people, places and organisation details that were verifiable. This was not a full explanation. It was an analysis, compilation and commentary on what had happened. The idea being that decision-makers had the best possible chance of acting in a consistent manner to reduce risk in the here and now.

[1] https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/psychics-gloucester-show-cancelled-due-7250094

Impact of Speculation

The sadness of the loss of live and the suffering of air crash victims’ families, must be respected. On 12th June, Air India’s London Gatwick bound flight AI171 crashed after take-off from Ahmedabad airport. Only one passenger walked away from this catastrophe. Additionally, there were fatalities on the ground as the Boeing 787 aircraft came down in a built-up area.

My heartfelt condolences to those connected with this tragic fatal accident.

The technical accident investigation is well underway. In time, a probable cause for this accident will be determined. This will be published and available to all. As per the international arrangements of ICAO Annex 13 a report will be published. Organisations, with appropriate expertise, will carefully sift through the evidence to establish a sequence of events. This is not a matter of establishing blame. It’s a process of determining what happened with the aim of preventing it from happening again.

Meanwhile, the widespread reporting of the accident can only offer speculation as to the details of who, what, where, when and how and why. There are facts. The time, place and the people involved. Media interviews, with whatever pictures and video recording there are dominate the public domain. However, this is far from the volume of information the accident investigators will handle. They will have access to every nut and bolt, every document, every recording.

After another aircraft accident, back in August last year I wrote: Speculation is a natural human response. When faced with a paucity of information we often put together what we know and then make a best guess as to what happened or what might happen. However, wise or unwise it’s not possible to stop speculation.

In the case of flight AI171 the global media speculation has been, and is, of a new order of magnitude. Normally, the authorities caution against giving too much weight to early conjecture. This is prudent in that the obvious is often not as obvious as it might first seem. Accident investigation can be like putting the pieces of a complex jigsaw together. Deliberately and with great care.

What has been surprising in this case is the intensity of the speculation related to this accident both through traditional and social media. The proliferation of experts offering opinions has reached a new high. Until conflict and war grabbed the headlines everyday a novel theory, or a variation of a theory has been offered. Each one chasing credibility and expanding on limited sources.

Let’s not be pious. I’m not immune from this need to fill a void. My own reasonably well-informed theories float around in my head, but I question my senses in sharing them with others. It’s not a fear of being wrong, as I might be, no, more a fear of cluttering up a confusing mass of information to an even greater extent. Piling theories on top of theories.

Can we have too much of “experts” offering their opinions? Some will be trustworthy and considered, and others will not. How far is it reasonable to stretch what little is known into detailed stories of possible cause and effect?

How is the average person going to tell the difference between sound reasoning and imaginative nonsense? This problem was brought home to me in a recent conversation. When a newspaper revelation is told to me as a “fact” when I know it isn’t, then I see the dangers in excessive speculation.

This may not matter so much to me. In so far as it affects me. However, to an air crash victims’ family this not considerate. To be led to thinking that the cause of an accident is generally known, when it isn’t, that’s disrespectful. It’s the downside of speculation. Not something that is ever going to stop, it’s true. What some keyboard warriors need to think about is the impact of their wild guesses or prejudices.

POST 1: Even reputable publishers latch on to theories that are at best well intentioned and at worse just flying a kite. Air India crash: Early speculation points to possible dual-engine failure | Engineering and Technology Magazine

POST 2: To be fair this YouTube commentator does a good job at making it clear what is fact and what is not https://youtu.be/dIgnR0zw3FU

Enhancing Transport Safety

There’re claims that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will make transport safer. It’s to put a positive spin on the introduction of AI. Implying that existing safety deficiencies can be addressed with the power of AI.

It’s difficult to disagree with this simple assertion. There’s a list of risks that continue to be troubling. With directed design effort there are functions that AI can perform that mean it can have an advantage over conventional systems. With good design, no doubt high performing systems can be constructed.

In aviation, for example, if I consider the top five fatality risks, there’s a persistence of specific categories. We never seem to get away from loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) being high on that grim list. Runway related issues persist, and the hardy perennial of mid-air collision remains. Over the years progress has been made addressing controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), but that category of destructive events never disappears.

It’s fascinating to see that the industry thinks that AI itself is a risk[1]. High probability but low impact. This is considering a broad description of risk rather than a safety focus. Here the concern is related to the difficulties of practical implementation of this new technology.

Marketing people will big up the possibilities brought about by AI. This is what’s going on in relation to the most recent mid-air collision fatal accident. With sound justification given how crude elements of air traffic management are in specific locations.

We will never entirely displace “see and avoid” as a means of collision avoidance. Scanning the horizon looking for other air users. In my opinion, relying on this technique in relatively busy traffic areas is unwise, to say the least. This is where airborne AI assistants have much operational safety potential. Sucking up multiple information sources and processing masses of information to give accurate and instant advice. Such systems can be designed to give real-time updates not only to improve situation awareness but give avoiding action guidance, or even automated responses.

Let’s get back to the general assertion that AI will make aviation safer. On this one I’d be more cautious. For example, looking at LOC-I incidents and accidents there’s a complex mix of causal factors, and circumstantial factors. In addition, there’s the complexity of potential recovery actions too. Solving problems in 4-dimentions whatever the weather, whatever any damage incurred and however pilots react. This is where the probability numbers start to stack up.

That catch all disciplines “human factors” makes outcomes particularly difficult to calculate. Accidents are known where pilots and automation fight each other to produce bad outcomes.

AI is a machine. It will speedily crunch numbers in a mechanical manner. An extremely advanced manner but without emotion or, yet, not matching the imaginative capabilities of the human brain. Or for that matter the sophistication of human senses.

Would exceptional capable AI have saved Swissair Flight 111[2], for example? Sadly, I think not. On the day, likely an automated airborne system would have made the same decisions as the pilots. Decision making without the sense of precisely how the aircraft fire was developing would still have been hamstrung. I could raise other cases too.

Will AI make transport safer. In part. Not as a universal cure all.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/reports/risks-2025-brief/

[2] https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/a98h0003.html

Technology and Probability

Everyday numbers don’t scare me. The day, the date, the time are important and simply communicated. I can throw a couple of round numbers at anyone, and they should know what’s happening. Yes, convention does matter. Standards matter. I don’t know how, but I know some people struggle with the 24-hour clock notation.

When we get to small scales and tiny numbers, less familiarity means that it’s not so easy to communicate. To make those numbers meaningful media people like to use analogies. A common one is saying that a thing is: less than the width of a human hair. If you still have it, and I do, hair is an everyday item.

Let’s say a human hair is typically 100,000 nanometres wide. Sounds big in nanometres. That’s a tenth of a millimetre. Now, I can get a plastic ruler and visualise that size. My perception of scale depends on where I put the decimal point. Remember in SI Units a “nano” is 1 x 10-9[1]. Something to think about when seeing newspaper headlines about nanotechnology.

Visual depictions do help. Even if they can be slightly misleading when comparing dissimilar objects. Our planet, Earth is about 12,756 kilometres in diameter. So, for a bit of fun I could say the Earth is about 128 x 109 times wider than a hair on my head. Nice but not so useful. Tiny probability numbers like the range from 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-9 require some imagination.

It’s not such a big leap. Let’s say that I make mistakes. That said, I’m well trained at a specific simple task. Flicking a switch at the right time. My measured error rate is about 1 in 100. However hard I try, I make mistakes, not necessarily the same one, but with a reasonably quantifiable average frequency when nothing changes.

A well-designed machine, doing the same mechanical task, can do better than me. It’s measured error (or failure) rate is about 1 in 10,000. That might be considered good if it’s merely to switch on a toaster at precisely 6 am. It might not be so good if the result of a single mistake is instant death. In other words, I’ve become highly dependent on this mythical machine.

To do better, I could devise a means of checking the results of this machine. If I did this checking perfectly, entirely independently and without distraction, then experiencing a negative result might get up to a rate of one in a million. With this arrangement, I’m still not happy enough to place my life, or the lives of my colleagues in the hands of such a system.

Instead, I’ll construct two entirely independent well-designed machines, each doing the same simple task and each constantly checking the other one. Now, I’m cooking on gas, as the expression goes. Will this result in a negative outcome rate of around 1 in 1 x 108? One in a ten million. At least it’s an analysis worth doing. However, calculations may not give the result as one in a ten million. That result can hinge on the notion of what is entirely “independent”.

To make my general point here I have grossly oversimplified a problem. What I hope I have conveyed is that tiny probability numbers can be grasped without entertaining rocket science or nuclear physics. In the world of computational systems, we can make machines that are exceptionally good at performing consistently, persistently and error free. Not perfect. Not at all. Not prefect in so much as making life and death decisions.

[1] https://www.nano.gov/about-nanotechnology/just-how-small-is-nano

Probabilistic Predictions

Uncertainty is the only certainty. Not a radical statement. As long as I live, dealing with uncertainty is inevitable. Unavoidable everywhere. I wouldn’t have it any other way, even if it can be uncomfortable.

Prominent Ancient Greeks may have travelled to Delphi for advice as to what the future may hold. There’re those three enigmatic witches who warn Macbeth of his fate. History and fiction are littered with references.

For me, I can pick-up a newspaper and look for a daily astrological prediction. One I like. I can flick around social media and see more prophecies than ever. Mostly gibberish. There are those convinced of their foresight.

Despite a cynical disposition towards the above, science can be applied to the world of uncertainty. Generally, the proposition is that an element of the past and present will be reproduced in the future. This is not absolute. However, human engineered systems tend to behave with a degree of predictability.

Empirical methods, where society collects data from the past and present, can be useful in trying to forecast what may happen next. The more deterministic the systems under study, the more useful acquired data can be. For these, forecasting challenges mount for the new, novel, or radically altered.

I’m writing this given the interest there is in probabilistic safety. There are figures that hit the headlines that are almost incompressible. If the rationale behind the numbers is not clear then incorrect assumptions result. Tiny numbers from 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-9 are quoted in the News (SI Units). What do they mean? Let’s start with simple probability.

If an occurrence is certain then a numerical value of “1” can be given to it.

Absolute certainty is a rare thing. I can say that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and most people will take that as a statement of certainty. Intriguingly there’s the most incredibly improbable case where the solar system is thrown into instability and the Sunrise isn’t as expected.

If an occurrence never happens then a numerical value of “0” can be given to it.

Absolute impossibility is only possible with absolute knowledge. So, again it’s rare. I can say that human time-travel, to and from the distant past, is only fiction to next discover that a way has been found.

Let’s say we live in a world where the probability of occurrences ranges from the 0.99999, with ever more “9s”, to a number as small as 1 x 10-30[1]. A quecto.

These extreme numbers are nice for physicists and astronomers to play with, but they are outside normal engineering practices. As yet, we do not have the means to operate at the level of these limits. Time will tell. Or I maybe wrong.

By the way, I used the word “occurrence” above to denote anything that can happen in an instant. When talking about undesirable happenings, that can mean an incident, accident, mishap, slip, failure, or error. Each of these has a definition. Often more than one.

Next. I’ll go back to the tiny numbers more commonly quoted.

POST: For extraordinary numbers we need look no further than the nimble electron. So far, the best measurement for the life of an electron suggests that one now will still be around in 66,000 yottayears (6.6 × 1028 yrs). That’s about 5-quintillion times the current age of our universe. 

[1] https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si-prefixes

Avoiding Contrails and Enhancing Operations

Here I’m expanding on my earlier words on aircraft Contrails.

Airspace is a busy place. It’s most busy over Europe and the US. Over the oceans there’s more room, although on certain routes, like the North Atlantic, there’s plenty of daily air traffic.

Those who manage the airspace are primarily concerned with ensuring that aircraft collisions do not occur. The impact of mid-air collisions is devastating. There’re few people in aviation who can forget the events of an evening in July 2002. Over Überlingen, Germany[1], 71 people lost their lives at a time when the sky was not busy at all.

Managing the use of airspace is more than collision avoidance. Flying is perpetually concerned with the weather. What’s it doing, how is it changing and is it a hazard? It’s not just the safety of flying that demands up-to-date meteorological information. Knowing about the winds can enable more efficient operations, and that’s less fuel use for a given route.

Large thunderstorms need to be avoided. Regions of the world (example: intertropical convergence zone) make this a dynamic challenge. Manoeuvres may be planned but flight crews must be ready to act based on the information they have, like weather radar.

Turbulence is another phenomenon to be avoided, if possible. This can occur in clear air. It can be difficult to detect. Which explains the unpleasant examples that hit the News now and then[2].

Back in 2010, aviation had a reminder that avoidance encompassed any hazardous airspace. That was when an unpronounceable volcano in Iceland was spewing out ash at high altitudes. Plumes of volcanic ash, if ingested into aircraft engines, can cause major difficulties.

I’ve written these words to emphasise that the avoidance of contrail formation cannot be done as a stand-along consideration. It becomes one factor in a whole mix of factors.

Avoidance of contrail formation is about considering the mechanism that cause them to form. Clearly, the warmer the air is the harder it is for a contrail to form. The more humidity there is in the air, the easier it is for a contrail to form. Outside Air Temperature (OAT) and atmospheric humidity vary at each altitude. That relationship interacts with the aircraft inflight, and the outcome may be different for each aircraft type.

At least one academic study[3] says that adjustments of aircraft altitude of around 2000 ft could have a useful effect on contrail formation. That’s good to know but let’s not forget that Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) [4] means a vertical spacing of 1000 ft in busy airspace.

My take on this fascinating subject is that there both a tactical and operational approach that can be practically taken by aviation.

At the tactical level, airlines can factor contrail avoidance into flight planning. Creating an algorithm that will weigh all the relevant flight factors. Improved sources of accurate and timely meteorological data and predictions will be needed.

At the operational level, it’s down to the flight crews to take advantage of environmental conditions as the opportunity arises. Much as dealing with turbulence, that is when safety and operational rules permit. To change altitude when its beneficial, computational help is likely to be needed. Over the ocean, air-ground communications systems may need to be further improved. An altitude change that avoids contrail formation but increases fuel consumption would not be a sustainable solution.

These computational tasks may well be well suited to machine learning. A useful application of artificial intelligence. I can imagine a cockpit weather radar display with a new set of symbology that indicates a low probability contrail formation zone ahead.

[Back in the 1990s, I worked on RVSM when the ARINC organisation was creating international standards. Safely increasing traffic in the North Atlantic region. Additionally, I participated in the certification of Future Air Navigation System (FANS) 1/A for use over the ocean. FANS led to more efficient aircraft operation due to shorter flying times and decreased fuel burn.]

POST: Looks like data crunching is underway Flight plans, but greener: The ICCT and Google’s mission to refine the Travel Impact Model – International Council on Clean Transportation

[1] https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/FinalReports/2002/Report_02_AX001-1-2_Ueberlingen_Report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

[2] https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/turkish-777-rapidly-descended-during-crews-aggressive-response-to-turbulence-encounter/162937.article

[3] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195294/small-altitude-changes-could-contrail-impact/

[4] https://skybrary.aero/articles/reduced-vertical-separation-minima-rvsm

Sustainable Aviation: Innovations and Challenges

Gas guzzling continues to be one of aviation’s problems. Combustion remains that the heart of most aircraft power plants. Taking large amounts of fossil fuel. Squeezing energy out of every drop of gasoline. Gobbling up more day after day. Pushing out emissions.

As I look out across the garden, I see gliding effortlessly as the warm air rises, a Red Kite[1] gracefully circling. Wings outstretched they hardly move them as they climb. They’re a distinctive small bird of prey, easily spotted because of their forked tail. Now, that’s what I call efficient flying. Using all that nature provides and wasting little energy.

Human attempts at flying are a million miles behind these magnificent birds. There’s still so much to learn about aerial navigation. It’s a matter of control. The sensing of ambient conditions and the precision movements needed to ascend and dive at will.

The search is on for effective change. There’s no pretence that the way commercial aviation operates is unsustainable. It’s true that the gas guzzlers of the air guzzle less gas now than they ever have but the physical facts remain.

None of this is new. I’m about to send a book called “Towards Sustainable Aviation” to a charity shop. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with it. The book is full of pertinent analysis and observations. Trouble is that it’s dated 2003.

I’m led to ask – what’s changed in over 20-years? In answering my own question – quite a lot but not enough. Discourse has moved on from academic quarters to the political sphere. Aircraft have become more fuel efficient. Driven by economic imperatives as much as any concern for the climate. Research initiatives are generously funded to come up with answers. Solutions like hydrogen, electric propulsion, and SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) are slowly moving from theory to practice. A few prototypes are flying. Limited supplies of SAF are flowing.

Unmistakable that’s where the problem lies. For all the hype, policy and government funding the pathway to genuinely sustainable aviation disappears way off into the horizon. There are setbacks too. Gas guzzling is back in fashion. Certainly, in Trump’s America.

We could make a much more of the technology that’s currently available. Yes, there are costs involved. Change is not a free ride. That said, sticking with the status-quo isn’t free either. Legacy costs mount up. One reason why older jets disappeared from fleets so quickly.

The next generation of commercial aircraft must make major steps forward. Since the life of a typical aircraft type can easily extend to 30-years, then change must happen in design now.

Typically, commercial aviation moves with graduated change. There’s an inherent conservatism in the system, as might be expected when safety and security are paramount. Facing this global challenge, there’s a need for a degree more radicalism.

Since high impact disruption is also in fashion, it’s time for airlines and manufacturers to adopt a pioneering spirt. It’s been done before. In the 1960s, that pioneering spirt gave us the Boeing 747, the Jumbo jet. That opened flying to a whole generation.

[1] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/red-kite

Europe Day Highlights the Need for Unity

Keeping the peace is never easy. There’s an irrational propensity to conflict in human nature. Keeping the peace is not a passive task. First, it requires communication and engagement. When those two go, trouble is not far behind. It’s by expressing concerns that each side knows where the other stands. Escalation can come when ignorance and propaganda take over.

After the second world war, institutions were established to ensure that communication and engagement became a non-stop affair. With only a small number of exceptions, the countries of the regions of the world engaged in these institutions. Those measure have contributed to making a more prosperous world.

“Never again” are two words that refer to the atrocities of war. The moto is to remind everyone that the worst can and does happen, and that perpetual effort is needed to ensure that history does not repeat itself. The concept of “lessons learned” is essential for safety and security. This is as much true for micro day to day activities as it is for the macro events that shape the path global ahead. Taking teaching not from narcissistic demigods and snake oil salesman but from the pages of history. Appeasing tyranny is not an option.

This week has been a reminder of the lessons learned from the world wars. For most people it’s been a continuing commitment to ensure such events never happen again in Europe. Sadly, let’s not be coy. Despite an overwhelming desire for peace, conflict in still Europe is a reality. But the lesson is there in black and white, appeasing tyranny never works.

Today, Friday 9th May is Europe Day. That’s because a speech by Robert Schuman[1] changed the course of European history on this day. Five years after the war in Europe had come to an end, he put forward a proposal that would make a future similar conflict impossible. The idea was to create an interdependence that would secure peace, unity and solidarity.

It worked. His proposal led to the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community. That measure lay solid foundation for what would later become the European Union (EU). Behind this is move is the echo of “Never again”. Europe has seen centuries of war. This was a moment in time to bring that to an end.

For now, 75-years on, this has been a success. It’s not a regional project with a defined end, even if it has a defined beginning. Where the EU chooses to go next is in the hands of its Member States and its citizens. Changing the course of European history doesn’t stop because the EU exists. Without the cooperation and dialogue, it provides there’s always a chance that ancient rivalries will be reignited. In fact, unscrupulous right-wing politicians[2] are trying to do that just now.

Sadly, in the UK, we stand on the sidelines, looking across the water at continental Europe. Brexit has done a great deal of damage. But as I have said, nothing is static, the world is entering an ever-uncertain phase. The opportunity for the UK to restore EU relations is open. I see the wisdom in the words of the Governor of the Bank of England. He has said the UK now needs to “rebuild” Britain’s relationship with the EU. Amen to that.

[1] www.europa.eu/!9JbCd9

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-spy-agency-walk-back-extremist-label-afd/