Category: Systems

Turbulence

Turbulence is the result of atmospheric or environmental effects. Afterall, aircraft are craft that fly in the air. This is a hazard that is inherent in flying. Clear air turbulence (CAT) is common. However, extreme examples experienced in commercial aviation are rare. For one, aircraft operators and their crews do their best to avoid known potential atmospheric or environmental upsets, namely bad weather.

En-route turbulence accounts for a substantial number of cabin crew members injuries, and can occur at any time and at any altitude[1]. As far as I know, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) does not hold detailed data on turbulence injuries occurring on foreign registered aircraft. Numbers of injuries to passengers and flight crew on UK registered aircraft resulting from turbulence are recorded. However, it is not always known whether those injured in turbulence encounters were wearing seat belts.

Nevertheless, I can confidently say that the more passengers that are wearing seat belts during turbulence encounters the less the number of injuries. Deaths in these circumstances are rare. As might be expected fatalities are more likely to results from a combination of multiple causes and factors.

This subject is not immune from airline economics and competition. International flight routes can often be highly competitive. Fought over. So, the route taken, and associated fuel costs, can have an impact on the likelihood of a hazardous weather encounter. In fact, choosing to take routes for the benefit of picking-up specific winds is a common practice.

A high percentage of cases of turbulence events come about by flying too close to active storms[2]. Here there is often visual cues, reports, forecasts and feedback from turbulence encountered by other flights. This all helps crews avoid the worst weather encounters.

With very few exceptions, flight turbulence does not result in fatalities, permanent injure, or structurally damage commercial aircraft. However, turbulence is recognised as both an aviation safety and an economic issue, and it has been steadily increasing. Speculation and some research cites climate change as a reason for this increase. Also, there is the international growth in air traffic and development of new long-range routes.

One thing to say is that until recently, with INTERNET connections now in both in the cockpit and cabin, it could be the case that a passenger could access better real-time weather information than a flight crew. Now, SATCOM connections providing up-to-date weather information are more common on modern civil aircraft types.

There is still more that can be done to reduce crew and passenger injuries during turbulence encounters. There will inevitably happen despite any policy to avoid hazardous weather. The greatest threat to life exists to cabin crew. The cabin is their place of work.

There is potential to develop and employ better airborne detection systems to assist crews. That maybe by enhancing existing weather radar systems. It maybe by new means of turbulence detection using LIDAR, and possibly AI/ML. There is research and innovation that could be done to develop algorithms to better predict turbulence hazards.

Avoidance remains the best strategy.

[1] NASDAC Turbulence Study, August 2004

[2] US CAST briefing in 2004.

Challenger

It’s another phrase from HHGTTG. “Mostly harmless”. However, there are things that may seem mostly harmless that subsequently turn out to be far from harmless. It’s that law of unintended consequences playing out in real life.

In the UK, we are stuck with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. There is no good in pretending otherwise. Pretending that its perverse effects don’t exist is pure folly. Voting systems inevitably impact the results of elections.

What FPTP means is that the more parties, and their candidates that there are standing in an election, in each constituency, the more the votes cast can be spread. This reality often gives a big advantage to the incumbent. The one who came top of the poll last time votes were cast.

Thinking can go like this. The past winner always wins around here. So, my vote doesn’t count. If a past winner reinforces the impression that nothing has changed, then nothing will change. Because of this feeling of acquiescence, opposition voters may be more inclined to vote for a wide range of fringe candidates. Again, the thinking is that this doesn’t matter because the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion.

In a lot of places up and down Britain this is how both Conservative and Labour politicians have stayed in power. It’s not because people think they are doing a good job. It’s more because their most immediate opposition struggles to marshal a concentration of votes for an alternative.

The conclusion from these facts is simple. If you are a voter who wants to see change then go for the opposition candidate likely to get the greatest number of votes. This is sometimes called tactical voting. It’s not so much tactical as realistic pragmatism aimed at bringing about real change. Look at the numbers. Unless the individuals concerned are one in a million, those formerly in 3rd place, or further adrift are there to do their best but not to bring about change. A vote for a mostly harmless candidate, way down the order, just helps to keep the current Member of Parliament in place.

2024 is a year of great potential. If change were ever needed it ‘s now. I’m confident that the British electorate is savvy enough to choose the path to change. This may mean choosing differently. This may mean taking a close look at the local situation.

No doubt a succession of bar charts will highlight who’s up and who’s down. Take a close look at them. Make sure the challenger really is the challenger. If the numbers say so, and you want change – go for it.

Electrics & Mechanics

Yesterday, I wrote on LH2. The potential fuel for electric aircraft of any size. Yes, I’m not just talking about smaller commuter class transport aircraft.

Let me take some anecdotal evidence from the transition that is going on in road transport. Repairer turns up to fix an electric car that will not start. It’s a simple matter given that the car has been standing unused for a long time. The battery had discharged. A quick charge from another battery pack and all is well. Meantime in conversation it’s clear that the repairer hates working on electric cars. I could say, no surprise, they were trained on combustion engines and have been forced to make a transition in technology.

What’s evident here is the apprehension of a person who likely has a mechanical bias towards their work and the necessity to take on fixing powerful electrics. Mechanics, those who love working with moving parts, often have a dislike of electrics and electronics. It’s an engineer’s “feeling” expressed to me casually over the last 40-years.

In fact, it can be the reason that a design or maintenance engineer took the career path that they did. There is a dividing line between mechanical engineers and electrical engineers that is embedded in our institutional, educational, and training systems.

So, there’s two practical human issues to grapple with in a transition:

  1. Propensity of one branch of technically capable people to find mechanical work less fearsome and more satisfying than electrics or electronics, and
  2. Streaming that is embedded in our institutional, educational, and training systems. Qualifications and recognition are often not so multi-disciplinary focused.

I’m not for one single moment making a luddite argument that mechanical engineers[1] and electrical engineers[2] are two tribes that must be kept apart. Far from it. What’s more important is to recognise that transitions are hard.

New electric aircraft are going to demand technical people with a multiplicity of both mechanical and electrical knowledge. The way the engineering world has been divided up in the past doesn’t cut it. Some of our most cherished niches will need to be challenged.

Transitions of this nature always take much longer than is originally anticipated. In a way, that should be such a surprise. It’s a generational change for a community that can be conservative with a small “c”.

This is NOT business as usual. For example, handling powerful 1000-volt electric technology is not for everyone. Removing and replacing cryogenic plumbing is, again, not for everyone. The hazards are clear. The skills needed are clear.

Reorienting the aircraft maintenance engineering world is going to need new plans and programmes. Better start by enthusing people about the change rather than just forcing it.

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

[2] https://www.theiet.org/

Hydrogen in Aviation

The potential for LH2 (liquid hydrogen) is enormous. That’s matched by the logistical and technical difficulties in exploiting this gas’s great potential. It offers energy for a means of propulsion that is nowhere near as environmentally damaging as existing means.

Society already integrates hazardous liquids and gases into everyday life. Each one has been through several iterations. It has been a rollercoaster. Each one has been at the root of disasters, at one time or another.

  • We use gas for cooking and heating in domestic settings. Periodically explosions demolish buildings. Leaks cannot be ignored. Harm can be done.
  • We use light and heavy oils widely in transport systems. Periodically intense fires burn vehicles. Care in handling is essential. Harm can be done.

Without having to say it, both above harm the environment. The search for non-CO2 emitting ways of flying is urgent. Here, I’m writing about harm to people. Physical harm. The business of aviation safety.

Often the physical harm is not associated with the design of the systems used but to the maintenance of those systems. Naturally, there was a learning curve. If we look at early versions of those systems, fatal accidents and incidents were far more regular. So, here’s the challenge for aviation. How do we skip the dangers of the early learning phase? How do we embed rigorous maintenance practices from day one? Big questions.

On the first one of these, lots of fine minds are engaged in putting together standards and practices that will address good design. If this works, and it will be tested extensively, the chance opens for introduction to service with a great deal of confidence that the main risks will be managed.

On the second of these, there’s not much happening. You might say there’s an element of chicken and egg. The shape and form of future LH2 systems needs much more work before we can think deeply about how they will be maintained.

I think that’s wrong. It’s old-fashioned thinking. As the industry has often practiced, making the systems first and then devising ways of maintaining them while in-service. That’s yesterday’s reasoning.

Making aviation system maintenance the Cinderella in the LH2 world is to invite failure. This is a situation where advancing the consideration of how the in-service realm could work, day by day, is necessary. It’s advantageous.

Here’s my reasons.

  1. There are generic approaches that can be tested without knowing the detailed design. That can take existing learning from other industries, like chemical and space industries, and consider their application in aviation.
  2. Emerging technologies, like machine learning, coupled with large scale modelling can provide ways of simulating the operational environment before it exists. Thereby rapidly testing maintenance practices in a safe way.
  3. It’s imperative to start early given the mountain that needs to be climbed. This is particularly true when it comes to education and training of engineers, flight crew, airport and logistics staff and even administrators.

Everyone wants to accelerate environmentally sustainable solutions. When they do get to be in-service, they will be there for decades. Thus, an investment, now, in study of maintenance systems will pay dividends in the longer term. Remember, early fatal accidents and incidents can kill otherwise sound projects or at least put them back on the drawing board for a long time.

NOTE 1: I didn’t mention Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). It’s in the mix. Another CO2 contributor. LPG containers have pressure relief valves. LH2 containers will likely have pressure relief valves too. That said, venting LPG is a lot more environmentally damaging than LH2. From a safety perspective they can both create explosive conditions in confined spaces. Maintenance staff may not need to carry a canary in a cage, but they will certainly need to carry gas detectors when working on LH2 powered aircraft. Our noses will not do the job.

NOTE 2: Events on the subject: https://www.iata.org/en/events/all/iata-aviation-energy-forum/

https://events.farnboroughinternational.org/aerospace/sustainable-skies-world-summit-2024

2024 ICAO Symposium on Non-CO₂ Aviation Emissions

ID

Photo ID is essential, or your ballot will be denied to you in the UK. You can’t vote in elections. That was the case for service veterans, last Thursday. The armed forces veteran card was not deemed acceptable ID[1]. This card was heralded as a great step forward by Conservative Ministers. It seems they had not thought through the implications of the new ID card.

The Electoral Reform Society pointed out that the arbitrary nature of voter ID rules is a problem.

No doubt to get milk the publicity, Boris Johnson, former PM, praised the officials who turned him away from the polling station where he attempted to vote in the South Oxfordshire police commissioner vote[2]. That inspired one or two cartoons. As you would expect featuring clowns. The legacy of Boris Johnson’s chaotic time in the premiership continues to echo.

News is not all negative on the voting front. The 15-year time limit on the eligibility of British people living overseas has been lifted. They will now be permitted to vote in UK elections[3]. Most interestingly, around 3.5 million additional people will have the right to vote in the forthcoming UK General Election. I wonder how those living in the European Union (EU) will vote.

Anyway, if we look at the results from last Thursday, the Conservative attempt at what could be called voter suppression seem to have backfired. Big time. My view is that we should be making it easier for citizens to vote and not harder to vote. As one joker pointed out, in this Parliament, there have been more cases of MP’s misdemeanours than there have been of voter fraud.

I agree that many of the heartfelt arguments of 25-years ago about ID cards are now somewhat moot. The way we use mobile phones has put paid to those arguments. Big Brother is here to stay. It’s astonishing how much personal information we give away freely, not to the Government, but to commercial entities committed to extracting profits from our data.

Formally proving ID is an anarchic process in the UK. There are multiple means, and they are all confusing or mixtures of one another. What is becoming a fixed point is one’s mobile phone number. So many computer systems send a text message that requires acknowledgement to prove who you are who you say you are. The assumption being that the person with the mobile phone is the person who owns the phone, and its number.

Maybe it is time for one unified and recognised official UK ID system.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/02/minister-apologises-veteran-turned-away-refused-voter-id/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/boris-johnson-pays-tribute-to-polling-staff-who-refused-to-let-him-vote-without-id

[3] https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad

Culture

Yet again, Boeing is in the news. The events of recent times, I feel are immensely sad. Now, it is reported that the FAA has opened an investigation into a possible manufacturing quality lapse on the Boeing 787 aircraft[1]. Concern is that inspection records may have been falsified.

A company that once had a massive professional engineering reputation has sunk to a place where expectations are low. It’s not so much that the company is having a Gerald Ratner moment. Unfortunately, the constant stream of bad news indicates something deeper.

It’s interesting to note that Frank Shrontz[2] passed away last Friday at the grand age of 92. He was the CEO and Chairman of Boeing, who led the company during development of the Boeing 737NG and Boeing 777 aircraft. In the 1990s, I worked on both large aircraft types.

A commonly held view is that, after his time and the merger with McDonnell Douglas the culture of the organisation changed. There’s a view that business schools graduates took over and the mighty engineering ethos that Boeing was known for then went into decline. Some of this maybe anecdotal. Afterall, the whole world has changed in the last 30-years. However, it’s undoubtably true that a lot of people lament the passing of an engineering culture that aimed to be the best.

A famous quote comes to mind: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Those sharp 5 words get discussed time and time again. Having been involved in a lot of strategic planning in my time it’s not nice to read. How wonderful intent, and well described policies can be diluted or ignored is often an indicator of decline. It’s that cartoon of two cavemen pushing a cart with a square wheel. One says to the other: “I’ve been so busy. Working my socks off”. Ignored, on the ground is an unused round wheel. If an organisation’s culture is aggressively centred on short-term gain, then many of the opportunities to fix stuff gets blown out of the window.

We keep talking about “performance” as if it’s a magic pill. Performance based rules, performance-based oversight, and a long list of performance indicators. That, in of itself is not a bad thing. Let’s face it we all want to get better at something. The problem lies with performance only being tagged to commercial performance. Or where commercial performance trumps every other value an engineering company affirms.

To make it clear that all the above is not just a one company problem, it’s useful to look at what confidential reporting schemes have to say. UK CHIRP is a long standing one. Many recent CHIRP reports cite management as a predominant issue[3]. Leadership skills are an issue.

[1] https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/some-787-production-test-records-were-falsified-boeing-says

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/frank-shrontz-former-ceo-and-chairman-of-boeing-dies-at-92/

[3] https://chirp.co.uk/newsletter/trust-in-management-and-cultures-is-the-key-to-promoting-confidence-in-safety-reporting/

Mindset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAM

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

  • Land Use Planning

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

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

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

  • Business Models

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

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

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

  • Batteries, Batteries, Batteries

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibility

What do I have in common with former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, not much, I hope. Only I will stop myself from jumping on the band waggon and rubbishing the entirety of what she has to say. It’s astonishing to think that she was once a fully paid-up Liberal Democrat member. Her exit to the dark side is the stuff of decades past pulp fiction.

Truss’s published plans are clearly as mad a bag of frogs. Damming and disbanding anything and everything that you personally don’t like is a page out of the Trump playbook. Oh yes, there’s a community of enraged folks who will not read the detail and pied piper like follow the music. That will sell a tiny number of books before they pile-up in the high street charity shops of the country. Even they might flinch at stocking her castoffs in print. 10p would be too much.

Now, comes the; ah but. If I go back to the mid-1990s, I was writing about the proliferation of QANGOS[1]. Being a local Councillor at the time I felt a great deal of irritation in finding that so much government policy was focused on taking power away from elected local government and giving it to appointed bodies with no local accountability.

The Liberal Democrat approach has long been that power should be decentralised from central to regional and local government. A great deal of what we have seen in the last three decades has been exactly the opposite. Devolution in Scotland and Wales being the exception. Although, that didn’t make much difference when Brexit came along.

Giving specific powers to executive agencies is not the problem. You might think I’d say it was. No, the problem is the relationships between elected bodies and those who act as its agents. Once a democratically elected body has determined a course of action there’s benefit in having expert agencies, given clear terms of reference and a job to implement specific policies.

Politicians, generally make lossy managers. This is where the Truss / Trump doctrine, that politicians should control or manage everything as being extremely foolish. Centralisation does help when unified action is needed but for the most part keeping all decision making in-house degrades administration and enables it to become detached from reality.

Politicians are great critics. Their skills are best used to scrutinises activities at a high level. To exercise oversight and provide feedback derived from real life experiences (The Post Office scandal being an exception to this general assertion).

The former Prime Minister who holds the record for being the shortest in office had to take responsibility for her actions. In that most peculiar way, UK democracy worked. No well, but at least corrective action was taken in reaction to a calamitous situation.

Take back control in my mind means returning powers to regional and local government. Where QANGOS are necessarily then make sure they are kept under effective scrutiny. A lot of what I have said here is better said in a policy paper from 2007[2]. We know what to do but rarely do we do it.

[1] In the UK, the term QUANGO addresses “arm’s-length” government bodies, including “non-departmental public bodies” (NDPBs), non-ministerial government departments, and some executive agencies.

[2] https://www.libdemnewswire.com/files/2016/02/77.-Green-and-Prosperous-Communities-Local-Regeneration-for-the-21st-Century.pdf

Highways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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