Category: Systems

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Allure of Geodesic Domes

Buildings and structure do leave an impression. That impression can sit at the back of the mind for decades. Certainly, it could be more than 20-years since I visited the Montreal Biosphère. This large open structure was created for the 1967 World Fair in Montreal[1]. It’s kept alive as a science museum.

Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome is an icon. This is an impressive structure that is almost timeless in its virtues. Visually distinctive, strong, and applying the minimum of lightweight materials. I say timeless. That said, geodesic domes and similar structures can be pigeonholed in the late sixties and early seventies. There was a period when this was a fashionable view of the future. What we consider “modern” is shifting sand.

When the “oil crisis[2]” hit in the seventies, such domes were seen as an environmentally efficient means of putting up structures quickly and simply. Even the building methods needed didn’t require immense resources or highly trained technicians.

One other image that I have that sticks in the mind is a quite different application of the technology Fuller promoted. Again, the basic idea was copied again because of its utility. In the UK, on the North York Moors, were, at one time, a line of huge “golf balls.” The military radomes at Fylingdale were an impressive sight on the landscape for about 30-years. In fact, a tourist attraction.

So, why did Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes fall out of fashion? It could be that we are so addicted to pouring concrete that smart structures took a back seat. Much as the “oil crisis” was forgotten and the incentives to drill for more oil has spanned the last five decades.

It’s true that domes have never gone away. If I wanted to buy a geodesic dome greenhouse[3] or a tent for camping, I’d have no trouble. These easy to build, affordable structures offer stability and durability. However, these elemental structures are viewed as novelties or the obsession of environmentally concerned activists. Which, when I think about it, is entirely silly.

There’s an argument to be made about aesthetic appeal. It’s familiarity that sometimes blinds us. We may not be blind to anything other than conventional vertical walls and rectangular rooms, but there’s a conservatism inherent in architectural fashion.

Afterall, the Greeks and the Romans didn’t build geodesic domes. Yet, I think they would have if they had the strong lightweight materials to do so. Classical practically wouldn’t have been inhibited. Domes and their component parts became a post-war artifact because of advances in materials, as much as anything. The imperative to build military aircraft in large numbers, as strong and fast as could be done drove an innovative use of materials.

In the current 21st century “oil crisis” will we see a new love for geodesic domes? Even new applications. It’s an interesting thought.

[1] https://www.mtl.org/en/experience/expo-67-legacy

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lj4976lvo

[3] https://www.snowdondomes.com/portfolio/shirleys-domes-35m-diameter-polycarbonate-dome

Future Aircraft Systems

I read that there’s lesson to learn from the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) experience that plagued Boeing. And led to fatalities. There’s a lot that has been written about the tragic saga. Much of great value.

It’s true. Aviation advances as the community learns lessons from incidents and accidents. Yes, there’s variability in the effectivity of this learning process. Occasions when oceans are written about one case and dozens of others are given an inappropriate light touch[1]. A trustworthy centralised repository of safety recommendations from published aviation accident reports is a useful tool. A point of reference. In the first months of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in Cologne, back in 2005, my team established such a database. It’s only possible to track the follow-up of key safety recommendation if there’s a well-maintained administrative system. Safety is often about the intelligent use of data.

Cockpit design, and the human factors issues involved, are without doubt one of the most critical parts of an aircraft. Society is not ready for fully autonomous passenger carrying aircraft. I believe it will happen, in decades to come but the horizon is way off. For certain types of vehicles, autonomy must be the solution given that flight control is beyond human capacities. Here’s I’m thinking mostly of hypersonic and space flight.

For a pilot to exercise responsibility for a flight there’s a need to have, at least, a basic understanding of what a machine is doing. In past times of strings and wires and clockwork instruments that understanding was ingrained knowledge gained from training and experience.

Future aircraft systems will not be easily described as functional blocks that perform well understood and dedicated functions. An autopilot, an autothrottle, autobraking, a flight management system, even an engine. Hybridisation is coming.

That does not mean a pilot must understand the inner working for a multicore microprocessor or complex software algorithm. Flight test pilots being the exception, in this case.

The design goal should always be to make safer systems. Engineering these aircraft systems is not a case of purely fitting together a set of Lego like components. The error made with the MCAS is one that ignored this fact. Interdependencies are manyfold.

Ideally, future aircraft systems, however capable and complex, should be describable, predicable, and ultimately trustworthy. These words sound so simple. One reason this is not simple is that very word – complex. The minute that there’s a massive number of possible combinations and permutations of conditions at may exit boundaries must be set. What’s a little more reassuring is that complexity if far from new in human experience[2].

Just to make the airspace of the future even more complex it’s no longer correct to think of an aircraft as alone and free to make any appropriate manoeuvre. Increasing connectivity, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (AI) all come into the mix.

To stay safe, pilots will have to appreciate how constraints and boundaries are managed. This information must be provided transparently and preferable with options.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/opinions/the-safety-paradox-fewer-accidents-greater-responsibility/

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

Local Elections: Challenges and Opportunities

Listening to the leader of the opposition in the UK is like listening to a paddle boat[1] rider whose getting swept out to sea. Paddling ever faster, piling on the rhetoric, with no idea how to get back to the shore. It’s probably a big plastic duck with flaky paint and no safety certificate.

Equating talking tough with talking faster doesn’t cut it. Using the word “plan” without having one is aiming for deep trouble. Doubling down on past errors of judgement isn’t the least bit convincing. Drawing intendable distinctions, as if in front of a judge, impresses few listeners.

May’s elections coming around the corner. These are predominantly local elections. So, when Party leaders bypass the hardy perennials, like the state of the potholes in the roads, and veer off into international politics it’s clear they haven’t much to say. Local authorities provide a substantial number of vital services and so there’s plenty of subjects to address, if they would be minded to do so.

Here we are in a state of play that has a real air of novelly about it. The two tribes that have dominated politics in this country are struggling in the doldrums. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are floundering. Tarnished by a lengthy list of past mistakes. Their current leaders unable to project a vision for the future.

Here we have no council elections this year. Either elections are held once every four-years or a proportion of a local authority are up for election every year. There’s merit in both schemes.

In the first case there can be a more dramatic change of leadership as a whole council changes in one go. That can give the winners a clear mandate to meet a particular promise. On the downside, one emotive campaign issue can dominate, even if it’s small relative to the impact of a new four-year administration.

In the second case there’s a more gradual change of political complexion of a local council. More chance of continuity of actions and polices. Also, the local electorate get in the habit of expressing a view and an election every year at the same time. On the downside this can put more power in the hands of the council officers than the elected councillors.

Overall, I prefer annual local elections in May, despite the cost associated with their running. It’s a better way of engaging the community rather than a build-up to a bigger event. It’s also easier to find candidates who are willing and able to stand for election and likely to see through a full-term in office.

This week is a week for political scientist to chew over something other than opinion polls. Real ballots, in real ballot boxes are so much more real. Professor John Curtice will be on every media outlet. We will see if the predication of the steady decline of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party come about.

I expect that result will be the one that people are talking about at the end of the week. In my view there will be a distribution of votes across the choices that are on the ballot. This will not mean greater clarity or definition of where we are heading as a country. As a liberal, I can’t complin if there’s a great diversity of views expressed.

What I can say it that we will need a better electoral system that copes with a multiple Party array of choices. Electoral reform[2] is likely to become a necessity.

[1] https://swanpedalboats.com/ducks/

[2] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/

Email Overload

So called snail-mail is in an inevitable decline. One day it will be necessary to explain the concept of an envelope, and what it’s for, to younger people. To write, with a handheld pen, place a piece of paper inside an adequately formed folded paper enclosure and sealing it. This may involve moistening a surface or removing a strip of paper. To take account of the costs associated with this procedure a small, preprinted paper stamp is attached to one corner of the enclosure. The enclosure must meet regulations to then be accepted by a carrier who will take it from a bright red box. This artifact, called a “letter” is then piled up with lots of others to eventually be sorted and directed towards a specified destination. If the process is successful, a recipient may then destroy the envelope and read the letter.

When spelt out like so, it’s no wonder that e-mail has taken over the world. After centuries of operation the popular paper-based means of communication is now a novelty. Classical mail hangs on mostly as a means of getting birthday cards, and other celebratory cards, from A to B.

Even ardent official users, like the taxman, a trying to entice us all to become paperless. Major banks are also exhibiting this aversion to paper. Often more for their convenience rather than ours as their administrative systems become exclusively digital.

There’s a universal aspect that’s shared by the old world and the new world. It’s one that’s almost impossible to shake off. Filter it as we may, the piling up of junk mail is as bad on the doorstep as it is in the in-box. Junk splits into a whole series of categories. Putting aside the malicious and criminal variety, there’s a mass of mail that’s devoted to sales and marketing. I’ve ranted about this bombardment before, even if it makes no difference. The likes of:

“We are always looking to improve your experience with us, and we invite you to give your feedback in this short survey.”

Breaking this e-mail request down, it proports to be to my advantage to spend time answering the sender’s questions. Obviously, it’s to the questioner’s advantage and not mine. To sweeten the pill there’s a chance to win a small prize. Probably with odds set at a billion to one.

If this experience was occasional and advantageous to me, complaining might not be the right way to go. Sadly, the reality is the stream of e-mails, from multiple services, gets so annoying that I wish these tedious e-mails were paper. Then at least my recycling bin would benefit.

My approach is to instantly delete these e-mails. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this one. Customer feedback can go and take a hike. Naturally, I want the coffee shop I regularly use and my main bank to improve their services. But if these organisations think this is the way to do it, I think they have a big hole in their thinking.

Yes, if quick enough, it’s possible to opt in or out of marketing communications but endless feedback surveys seem to be exempt. They are the confetti of the marketing world.

“How did we do?” Is ticking a box really going to provide an answer to that question? “Thanks for your time” Nice, but as insincere as an algorithm can be.

Some forward-thinking organisations may eventually eliminate junk mail. In time there must be a better way of interacting. It’s about time they hurried up.

Human Space Travel

It’s right to point out that space exploration is not solely a scientific endeavour. It’s odd to have to point that out. I do so because there are some purists who think that money should only be spent of space exploration if there’s a tangible scientific gain to be had. This thinking goes back to the agreement that public funds should only be spent of Earthy concerns. A glance at the extensive list of trouble that persist around the globe is one reason to focus on Terra firma rather than up at the heavens. That said, the choice is rarely simple.

Then there’s the accusation that exploration, of any kind, is intrinsically imperial. Powerful entities looking for sources of future dominance and wealth. This is not entirely wrong given humanity’s history of plundering resources from wherever they come. Minerals and trade routes being a couple of the primary sources of interest. A strong political will can be amassed to compete to be first to get a foothold on new territory. Despite all the above there’s something more complex going on.

The recent Artemis II space mission may not have been a great boost to humanity’s scientific knowledge. This adventurous lunar fly-by mission was more about proving technology than gathering an abundance of discoveries. Afterall, the far-side of the Moon can quite adequately be surveyed by automated spacecraft. Much as is being done by robotic machines on Mars.

I think there’s little doubt that 1st to 11th April 2026 will be recorded in the history books. If for no other reason that the gap between the Apollo space missions and Artemis. Like so many schoolboys in the 1960s, I watched those black and white TV images of men on the Moon, as they happened. I became an engineer. Would that have happened anyway? Probably, but I’m not discounting the inspirational impact of the Apollo missions.

[What would we ever do without the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Certainly, naming new space missions would be a lot harder.]

Do we need crewed missions in future? Given the advances in automation and autonomy that have taken place in the last 50-years, so much can be achieved without the need for humans on-board a spacecraft. However, this is not a binary argument. There are, and always will be, the need to take human experience to the absolute limits. President Kennedy cited George Mallory for a reason to explores space, “Because it’s there,” he said.

The simple notion that humans should be constrained and confined to Terra firma runs contrary to our intrinsic nature. Although societies do become more risk adverse as they acquire the comforts of economic success, there’s still an appetite for exploration even if it entails great safety risks. The allure of being the first does not diminish.

Ideally, the combination of adventure and discovery go hand in hand. Space exploration is not just indulging the most adventurous amongst us. Thus, I go back to my proposition that there something more complex going on.

The ancient Greeks and Romans could help. For what is humanity’s destiny? Ad Astra has a meaning. Far more than the movie of that name. Not one of my favourite movies either.

There’s an inevitability that humanity will go to the stars. That is, if in the meantime wars or environmental degradation do not consume us. Exploration is part of a natural progression of intelligent life. It maybe (likely to be) happened elsewhere in the universe too.

Myth or Productivity Booster?

A four-day week. It’s true that there’s nothing magical about the conventional five-day week. It’s an invention of modern times. There are plenty of self-employed people who’d say there were working a seven-day week. So, is the claim made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) advocates merely a sales pitch or does it have any substance?

Much depends on how seriously we take this mythical word called “productivity”. I’ve put it like this because there’s a million and one ways of determining what needs to be done as opposed to what people want to do and, when things go wrong, are forced to do.

A beaver is extremely productive. There’s an ingrained motivation to use what nature has provided to build a dam and a home. It’s non-stop. Come setbacks or successes this innovative creature keeps on going. It doesn’t watch the clock. Rarely discouraged.

I’m going to bring up a small paperback that cost 3 shillings and 6 pence when it was published. It’s one of those books that is both comedy and seriousness wrapped up in one. Parkinson’s law or the pursuit of progress is older than I am. It was first published in 1957.

The plot is simple but there are several messages. One for example, relates to the provision of resources. It goes something like this – if only we had a couple more staff and a state or the art information system we could double our efficiency. That’s contrasted by a view of past statistics that often shows a growth in staffing (or computing power) and roughly the same or even less being achieved. Why it’s suggested that AI will circumvent this nicety, I’m not sure. Speed and multiplication don’t always add up to building better projects or being more “productive”.

What a wonderful world it was going to be. The future now. I remember that clunky personal computer on my desk, in about 1996. The sounds of the dial-up modem connecting to the information superhighway of the day. The world wide web was so new we had to keep reminding ourselves of what the www stood for. Boxes of floppy disks replaced filing cabinets.

Here we are 30-years later and what do I find, or not find as the case may be? Tens of thousands of files generated by Apps on my smart phone, tablet and desktop. Whereas once I’d mastered constructing folders with logical names and placing documents exactly where I could find them in their latest version, now I’ve got an unfathomable messy clutter.

Have I become more “productive”? That entirely depends upon what is meant by that word. Decluttering digital information isn’t that much different from decluttering piles of paper on an over weighted office desk. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Where does a four-day week sit in that equation? Parkinson would likely say that whatever the length of the working week we’d fill it with activity. It’s almost transparent to the tools used whether they be paper based or applying the latest powerful computing capabilities.

Remember decades ago, we said; public services were going to be dramatically improved because we could be contacted by e-mail. Scrapping the paper in-tray was a day many people longed for. Files wouldn’t be delayed as they passed from office to office. Desk to desk. Or so it seemed. I don’t think we’ve stopped complaining about public services – have we?

There is one possible new element. If AI use means that humans abdicate from decision-making, then a new situation comes about. This needs to be a choice. Forcing humans out of the loop to chase the God of productivity is a dangerous pathway.

Humanity’s Next Frontier Awaits

This April the first was marked by a moment that will go down in the history books. Tens of thousands of people who directed their efforts to building a new generation of spacecraft will see their labours rewarded. People with a vision that looks beyond the horizon have set in train a mission that will demonstrate that we are not confined to this rocky planet. Space – the final frontier. A vast frontier that’s there to be explored. Discoveries await.

By venturing beyond any humans in history, four brave astronauts represent us all. They started their journey in America, but when they look back all they will see is Earth. The dark of space with this lush globe brightly illuminated by our Sun. Ahead is a bright rocky sphere.

Not for one moment should we look upon this Moon-bound space mission as straightforward. There’s one thing that is absolute about the void of space. It’s a hostile environment for humans. Every system that is built into a spacecraft must work as intended. Contingencies need to be planned for every possibility.

This space mission is made possible because of partnerships. Europe[1] , US[2] and Canada working together for a common goal. What is known as the Artemis program aims to make the Moon accessible. To effectively shorten the distance between the Earth and its satellite.

There is a whole world benefit in moving from the Moon as a scientific curiosity to a place where humans can live and work. This is not a binary argument. We must solve our problems on Earth as well as exporting our environment.

Space exploration does help us see our fragile Earth in context. Everything beyond Earth shows no concern for our fate. In fact, it’s imperative that we gain as much knowledge as is possible about the near-Earth environment. A Moon base is a viable place to do just that.

My hope is that this remains a fundamentally civil enterprise. Such that the findings derived from the Moon’s exploration are for all humanity. It’s not a place to continue the conflicts that scare our home planet. I maybe idealistic. However, it’s for humanity to frame the rules that will apply on the Moon’s surface. Rules will be needed.

My hope is that this Moon mission goes smoothly and that everyone is returned safely back to Earth. That a new generation looks up at the Moon and sees it less distant. With the experience gained the next Moon mission should be able to go further.

[1] https://www.esa.int/

[2] https://www.nasa.gov/

Runway Incursions and Airline Safety

Firstly, condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the recent aviation accident at LaGuardia airport in New York. It’s incredibly sad that this destructive runway incident took place in the way that it did. At this stage there is a jumble of international News reports. As is often the case while attention is focused on what happened at a time when the facts have not been verified or data collected.

What is known is that Air Canada Express flight 8646 was where it was supposed to be on a runway and an airport-based fire truck was not. The resulting high-speed collision had disastrous consequences for both the aircraft and the fire truck.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has quickly engaged to start a detailed technical investigation. Their role is to independently piece together all the information that is available and determine a probable cause of the accident. With that to make formal safety recommendations aimed at preventing accidents and incidents.

What I can say is that the subject of Runway Incursion (RI)[1] is a long-standing aviation safety concern. So much so that it has its own accident category when it comes to aviation safety data analysis. Such tragic events are not isolated or extremely improbable.

Air Traffic Control (ATC) is tasked with separating aircraft from each other and any other vehicles. Accidents in this category have been the catalyst for advances in equipment and procedures. That said, there’s no getting away from the substantial number of human and operational factors that pervade this domain.

Unlike the design and construction of aircraft system whereby an onerous safety objective can be stamped on a technical specification. Managing air traffic on the ground is done with a high dependency on the actions of professionally trained staff.

In an internationally accepted code, a RI is defined as:

Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

I don’t hesitate to say that’s what happened at LaGuardia. This says nothing about – why?

So, we have an indication of what happened. What’s a little unsettling is how quickly there is News reports speculation on why it happened. Initial references to someone having made a mistake or error are no helpful. This signalling tends to encourage a simplification of the circumstances of the accident into a matter of blame. That unfortunately leads to an impression that this is a rare event that can be attributed to one factor. All to often this is not the case.

The actions of professionally trained staff can be put under such work pressure as it comes to a situation where no normal person can perform adequately. It was the introduction of Safety Management Systems (SMS) that was intended to identify these scenarios and ensure that they were mitigated or eliminated.

The actions of everyone involved with this fatal aviation accident are now under investigation. Aviation is not a “a dangerous business”. However, it is a business that requires more care and attention than most. That includes the provision of adequate resources at all times.

[1] https://www.intlaviationstandards.org/Documents/OccurrenceCategoryDefinitions.pdf

Transitioning to Green Aviation

Put your hands over your ears if your mantra is – drill baby drill. If climate change is a myth, in your mind, or you take a devil may care attitude, then the mere mention of the word “green” may give you the jitters. This is not for you. Move out of the way.

For the rest of us, who live in the real world, on planet Earth, there’s a problem. A prickly, tricky, sticky, long-term global problem. One that has commanded a great deal of attention but sometimes almost to the point of boring the pants off. Transport is one of those sectors that needs attention. Progress toward the adoption of Electric Vehicles (EV) is underway. Now and then, there’s a push back, but the direction of travel is clear. An immediate reminder of the need to change is the volatility of fuel prices at the pump. An inability to control or foresee global events that push oil and gas prices one way and then the next.

Sustainable aviation is turning out to be a hard nut to crack. For ground-based vehicles the issue of power density is not as constraining as it is in aviation. Weight is one of the fundamental parameters in flight. So, current high energy batteries present a particular technical challenge.

Exploring new forms of flight propulsion is a god send for futurologists, researchers and adventurous innovators. None of the technical challenges are a quick win. The avenues for study are infinite. Well almost. Antigravity doesn’t seem to be on the cards – yet.

I guess one of the barriers is that we have a sophisticated global aviation system that we, almost entirely, take for granted. The technology involved in transporting 200 people from a cold, grey, dull, wet Britain to a sunny warm inviting holiday destination has matured to such a point that few look at it with astonishment. That so much is provided for so little outlay.

It wasn’t that the problems of providing such air transport services were easy to solve. It’s an inheritance that has stretched over many decades. Testament to the work of a vast number of smart entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, officials and alike.

Hydrogen fuel, or some form of hybrid propulsion does seem to be a long-term prospect.

What I see now is the excitement created by past projections is being tempered by practical reality. Wonderful strategic plans, with outlandish charts, pointed the way to a fossil fuel free utopia. Those colourful documents did good in driving forward a level of thinking. Where they offered a lesser contribution is in predicting and enabling a practical transition.

This is the time when everyone does a double take. Where the aim is a workable business cases that provides a transition in a believable, sound and rational sense. Flirting with bankruptcy has been a habit of past adventurous aviation developments. Read the turbulent story of the jumbo jet. Most agree this is not a desirable state to wish for or be in. Maybe this is the tale of the tortoise and the hare. Methodical plodding through the difficulties, incremental change, ingenuity and sheer hard headedness are needed. A couple of points to round off.

One – don’t get stuck on the repetitive nonsense that new developments can’t takes place until the regulatory structure is in place.

Two – don’t build houses on all the small airfields and lesser-known airports that may, one day, become part of a new transport system[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_City_Airport