Category: Systems

Design

Forewarned is, fore armed.

Getting it right by design matters. If a designer gets it right, then everyone who follows gets what they expect. Why am I writing these words? Well, a dumb message has come up on my computer. What I call dumb is a message that tells me something has happened but gives me no clue as to what to do next. It’s about as useful as a chocolate fire guard as they say.

Messages like: “Operation failed with unexpected error” in the top right of the screen are not helpful. Pop-ups like this are an indication that this is not a good design. It’s a kind of catch all statement that means we haven’t got a clue.

The usual response to such a message is to start over again in the hope that this is a one-off occurrence. So, that’s what I did. Guess what the same situation occurred. Not having a better strategy available, I did the same again. Same result. Thank you, Microsoft Teams.

While I’m on about that company another small but annoying bugbear comes to mind. Microsoft Mail works well enough. However, a forced error happens every so often. I find that I’ve deleted a message that I’d intended to flag to remind me to do something. A hunt for the message usually finds it mixed up with the pile to be deleted. When the delete button and the flag button are next to each other this error is almost inevitable. Why did the designers do this foolish thing?

I’ll not beat up on Microsoft too much, given that just about every software company has one of two of these annoyances to ruin your day. Good job my personal safety doesn’t depend on this stuff, I say. So much for commercial off the shelf software in 2023.

A video scrolled up on my iPad. It was that man who likes to take machines apart: James May. A couple of million people have viewed his video titled: “James May’s Tesla Model S has failed![1]”

It’s a good reminder that designers need to think about situations that go badly as much as they need to think about them going well. Vehicles do sit around in garages. Not everyone is used every day. It’s not the fault of the owner if they do not run the vehicle for a while.

Electrification is great when everything works. However, a simple manual reversion should be available when the electrics are not there to do their thing. Afterall, we don’t yet have a reliable battery that lasts forever. The door won’t open because the battery’s flat is as useful as the message highlighted at the start of these words.

Oversights during the engineering design process happens when the pressure is to get a product to the marketplace as quickly as possible. Maybe this is one of them to look out for in future. I will not be smug. This sort of obvious when you know it flaw is as likely to happen in aviation as it is in other industries. Forewarned is, fore armed.

There are also the wonders of feedback. Having made a design error, it’s mechanics who often uncover it, figure it out and then find a fix. This is a shout out for easy and open reporting.

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

Titan’s fate

Firstly, condolences to the families and friends of those who perished in the deep ocean last week. This fatal tragedy took place in the full glare of the public spotlight. It’s time to give those affected time to grieve for their loss.

I will address the subject of vehicle safety in a technical manner. It’s immensely sad when what is known must be re-learnt in such a tragic way. By their nature, passenger vehicles that enter hostile environments will present high risks. There is always a likelihood of an event of significant severity as to cause injury. The imperative should be to reduce that probability as much as possible.  

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)[1] has launched an investigation into the events that led to the loss of the submersible called: Titan. That organisation will do a detailed investigation into the reasons behind the accident that led to the deaths of five people on-board. 

There’s much conjecture about the factors involved in this catastrophe. News media and social media are awash with speculations. The facts are that contact was lost with the Titan’s support vessel and a catastrophic event took place[2].

What has come to light in the aftermath of this event is the public statements made by the driving force behind the Titan project. This has been contrasted with the those from the submersible community who spoke out on their concerns about the project.

My reflection on this information is to say that – safety starts at the top. If the entrepreneurs who promote these adventures are not literate, humble, and vigilant then outcomes are going to be negative. Those in leadership positions need to listen to those with expertise in their field of endeavour. Accepted, that it’s not the case that everyone will agree all the time about operational and technical risks but an open dialogue is vital.

I know that innovation often takes the path of trying, failing, trying again, failing, and trying again to eventually succeed. However, no vehicle should enter public service without sufficient proving.  Independent oversight adds value too. The cultural framework within which this happens shapes success or failure. That’s why there’s good reason for design certification. That’s to apply time and energy to extensive testing, applying recognised standards and listening to reputable expertise. At its best it’s an opportunity to draw on widespread experiences from the past – good and bad.

Systems that prove to be safe most often come about from those who take on knowledge, experience, and learning. Yes, this work is not free. It can cost much to go from theory to practice. When the impact of failure, when the outcome is tragic for families, loved ones and colleagues these expenses are not so large.

We must take every opportunity to learn from such fatal accidents to make them extremely rare. 

#Safey Management #SystemSafety #HumanFactors #SafetyCulture

[1] https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/deploiement-deployment/marine/2023/m23a0169-20230623.html

[2] https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/marine/2023/m23a0169/m23a0169.html

Sound in Water

We are all used to what light does around us. For the most part light travels in straight lines. I see you because of the light reflected off you. With our stereoscopic vision, I can estimate how far away you are from me. So, humans are equipped to detect range and direction. That’s incredibly useful in everyday life. We’ve evolved with a good ability to sense of our local environment.

We have two ears. So, to a degree we can judge the direction a sound is coming from in the air. That does get more complicated as the wind blows, with reflections and other noises clutter up our environment. How far away something is presents us with guess work. In the dark, a loud person close to us isn’t too difficult to guess. A quest person, far away is much more difficult to guess.

Sound in water behaves with some of these characteristics but temperature has a significant impact.

Our human experience of sound in water isn’t all that good. That’s down to the interface between air and water. For us water is not our natural environment. Our ears are attuned to sounds in the air.

There’s a device called an expendable bathythermograph (XBT). A nice title that makes this device sound high-tech and whizzy. The truth is that it’s remarkably simple. It’s a thermocouple, for measuring temperature at the end of a long wire that uncoils as it descends in water.

Thrown overboard at sea, the XBT sinks. At the surface a chart is drawn of the temperature profile of that point in the sea. Knowing the temperature profile, it’s possible to calculate what the sounds will do in that seawater. There are variations in the speed of sound in water with temperature.

Key factors to consider with the propagation of sound in water is pressure and temperature. Depth and pressure are simply related. Salinity has an impact too but that’s not the major factor at greater depths. At the deepest point in the sea the temperature is relatively constant.

A student project of mine was to design a sound velocity meter for use in the sea. The idea was to directly measure the speed of sound in water. It was what’s called a “sing‐around velocimeter.[1]”

What all this amounts to is that sound may not travel in a straight line in sea water. So, if a sensor on a surface boat picks-up a sound it may not be so easy to say where it’s coming from without a lot of additional information.

Those searching for the missing submersible in the North Atlantic are aware of the tricks that sound can play in seawater. Let’s hope that the sounds that have been reported as being detected prove to be useful in finding those in peril.

[1] https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/85/S1/S112/649512/Measurement-of-the-sound-speed-in-air-by-sing

Build-A-Car

How many people do you know who have taken a sharp axe to a Morris 1000[1] van? It’s a surprisingly effective tool. It was a hot day. The task took a fair degree of persistence. Nothing for an energetic 16-year-old.

What I was doing was to cut out the front sub-frame complete with the suspension complete. The van differed from the construction of the car by having a separate chassis. The Morris Minor had a straightforward torsion bar front suspension. Corrosion can be a real problem with these cars, but this old grey van was structurally sound.

The reason? For popular cars of its era, it had a ruggedness and simplicity that made it easy to work with and, I suppose, we got hold of an MOT failure with ease and probably little money. Besides a working BMC “A” series engine always had a value.

After the careful attention of my axe the remaining parts were to become the rear part of a car that we were building at school. That Morris 1000 front end would be welded to a Triumph Herald[2] front end. We didn’t do that. Our friend, mentor and teacher did the welding of the two chassis components. It was another year before I picked up that useful skill.

Why a Triumph Herald? That small car had a tight turning circle. I think it was about 28 feet. Funny, what gets remembered. That, and its availability in 1976 were the reasons it was valuable to my school friends and me. Putting all that together formed the basic frame of a car. Four wheels, brakes, steering and suspension. It was an ungainly looking crude construction, but it did the job. It was a good start. 

What came next was an engine. This really was a version of that story from Johnny Cash’s[3] “One Piece At A Time.” No, the engine didn’t come from a Morris or a Triumph. It came from a Reliant[4].

That question of why comes up again? Well, the Reliant engine we had got out hands on was made of aluminium. It was considerably lighter than the engines of a Morris or a Triumph. The baby Reliant engine we had was bathed in oil. It took a good kicking to get it to spark into life. I recall trying to fix brackets for engine mountings. It was an exercise done by eye. Getting the engine to run smoothly and without too much vibration was fun.

What was entity novel for a small car was our transmission system. I don’t know how this came about but we wrote to Volvo asking for them to sponsor our school’s project. They did. They provided our school with a hydrostatic drive system. That’s the pumps/motors and the assorted hydraulic plumbing. The removal of a mechanical transmission with fixed gears was the benefit we were promoting. Hydrostatic transmissions were used in boats and construction machinery but not in a small car.

All of this was stored in a tin shed at our school. Without the stubbornness of our teacher this project may have fallen into the wilderness, but we kept the faith. As I left school the project was handed on to the next generation. It was mobile. It worked, after a fashion.

The basic car became an entry in the BP Build-a-Car competition in October 1976[5]. This was a national competition where schools around the country designed and built a “practical” 2-seater car. The prize was a new school minibus. So, the competition attracted some capable, smart, and well-resourced schools.

I’d started an apprenticeship by then so didn’t get to go on the trip to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). This was the site for the contest to show off what the cars could do.

It was reported back to me that some of my designs for an electronic dashboard using LEDs attracted the interest of the judges. At the time Lagonda were ready to take on the world with a bold new design and a car with electronic instrumentation[6].

Later in my career, aircraft cockpit instrumentation design and integration were a big feature.

NOTE: I suddenly have more respect for Rick Astley. Just watch She Makes Me (Official Music Video)

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

[2] https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/classic-cars/104977/triumph-herald-buying-guide-and-review-1959-1971

[3] https://youtu.be/Pv8yTqjYCGM

[4] https://www.reliant.website/history.shtml

[5] https://youtu.be/evDWFB58Vo0

[6] https://www.auto-data.net/en/aston-martin-lagonda-ii-5.3-310hp-3052#image3

Bad Moon

Despite climate change, economic downturns, war, and recovery from a pandemic no one was prepared for, this is a good time to be alive. We are a long way from the end of days. Or at least I hope we are.

The past is another country. Only that can be said of the future too. The difference is a record book. Behind us we have the chronicles, from the first written words to this next key I’m about to tap. In front of us spreads a great deal of uncertainty.

What’s with the gloom and doom? Media of all kinds seems to bathe in a pool of pessimism. I can hear Creedence Clearwater Revival singing Bad Moon Rising[1] in the background. Despite climate change, economic downturns, war, and recovery from a pandemic no one was prepared for, this is a good time to be alive. We are a long way from the end of days. Or at least I hope we are.

In so far as fiction is concerned, I love a good dystopia. Unfortunately, some of the movies on this theme are quite ridiculous or dammed right annoying. The Day After Tomorrow[2] is a bucket load of piety and the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still[3] has me throwing things at the TV.

Last night, I tried to get through the first half of a more recent movie called Reminiscence. It does amaze me that what must have seemed like such good ideas on paper can be transformed, at great expense, into a relatively average film. Yes, we are going to have to cope with rising sea levels and it will change the way people live.

What I’m addressing is the assertion made by a journalist who covers the cultural effect of science and technology[4]. It’s basically, that all this focus on the end of the world stuff stops us from planning a positive future. I can quite understand the basis for such a proposition.

Dare I make a HHGTTG reference? Well, I’m going to anyway[5]. It’s that society collapses if we spend all day looking at our feet, or to be more precise our shoes. Looking down all the time is equated with being depressed about the future. That leads to people buying more colourful shoes to cheer themselves up. Eventually, that process gets out of control and civilization collapses.

For someone like me who has spent a lot of time looking at accidents and incidents in the aviation world, I’m not on-side with the notion that bad news leads to gloominess and then immobility. I guess it does for some people. For me, it’s almost the reverse.

What we learn from disasters and calamities is of great benefit. It stops us from making the same mistakes time and time again. Now, I know that doesn’t last forever. Human memory is not like a machine recording. We are incredibly selective (hence films like Reminiscence).

In my mind, none of this persistent immersion in stories with bad outcomes stops us from planning. To be positive, it stops us taking our plans for what we can do into the realms of pure fantasy. Or at least it should.

[1] https://youtu.be/zUQiUFZ5RDw

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

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_(2008_film)

[4] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834380-100-why-we-shouldnt-fill-our-minds-with-endless-tales-of-dystopia

[5] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Shoe_Event_Horizon

Chips

Semiconductor superpower. Where have I heard that before? Let’s go back to the moment when the silicon revolution was a topic of popular conversations. Today, as much as people are speaking of AI. It has been difficult to accept that Moore’s Law is real. Early on, the notion that the number of transistors on a microchip would double every two years seemed far fetched.

I remember the 1980s, and the privatisation drive that effectively gave away the country’s technology crown jewels. UK semiconductor manufacturers of the 1980s such as GEC, Plessey, Ferranti and Inmos waned or sold-up[1]. Policy makers of that time saw globalisation as risk free. Now, that looks like selling off the family silver.

At the time, silicon chips were predicted to kill off a substantial percentage of white colour jobs. Only a few people saw the potential for massive new industries to spring-up and employ large numbers of new workers. It’s true that the jobs created were, on the whole, quite different from the ones they displaced. Admin work in a giant insurance office is miles from that of a being an on-line games developer, tester, or marketer.

My point is that Government intervention in technology hasn’t got a good record. That’s not an argument for a hands-off approach. That too has proven to have negative outcomes. I’m often tempted to go back to the story of videotape and VHS against Betamax[2] The better technology is not always the one that wins in the global marketplace. Boring reality and dull pragmatic considerations can tip the balance.

The record shows Government Ministers get swayed by the whizzy, super advanced, “superpower” labels that get stuck on the latest promotion. Let’s face it, a photo opportunity next to an exciting futuristic image gets the media’s heart beating. Marketing hype is not new. It has a role in druming-up investments in risky ventures.

Unquestionable is the intense level of competition in the global semiconductor marketplace. If the UK is to be taken seriously when billions of dollars are placed on the table by others there really must be a matching offer. One billion over a decade will end up getting spread as thin as oil on water. A strong collaboration with other, who have common interests would help. Let’s not forget that doing the “dull stuff” can be highly profitable too.

The open market, in deals of the past, has seen a concentration of power. This is not good for a medium sized country on the edge of a continent. Inward investment is to be welcomed. At the same time strategic domestic protections should have a place. Investments in domestic technology capabilities secures a future.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/470bf7d8-cd32-472d-b75f-6019eb4b100a

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

Engineering

I know this is not a new issue to raise but it is enduring. Years go by and nothing much changes. One of the reasons that “engineering” is poorly represented in the UK is that its voice is fragmented.

I could do a simple vox pop. Knock on a random door and ask – who speaks for engineers in the UK. The likelihood is that few would give an answer, let alone name an organisation. If I asked who speaks for doctors, those in the know would say the BMA[1]. If I asked who speaks for lawyers, most would answer the law society[2]. I dare not ask who represents accountants.

Professional engineering institution have an important role. That’s nice and easy to say, in-fact all the ones that are extant do say so. Supporting professional development is key to increasing access to engineering jobs. It’s spokespersons, specialist groups and networking opportunities can provide visibility of the opportunities in the profession.

So, why are there so many different voices? There’s a great deal of legacy. An inheritance from bygone eras. I see lots of overlap in the aviation and aerospace industries. There’re invitations in my in-box to events driven by IET[3], IMECHE, Royal Aero Society and various manufacturing, software, safety, and reliability organisations.

The variety of activities may serve specialist niches, but the overall effect is to dilute the impact the engineering community has on our society. Ever present change means that new specialist activities are arising all the time. It’s better to adapt and include these within existing technical institutions rather than invent new ones.

What’s the solution? There have been amalgamations in the past. Certainly, where there are significant overlaps between organisations then amalgamation maybe the best way forward.

There’s the case for sharing facilities. Having separate multiple technical libraries seems strange in the age of the connected device. Even sharing buildings needs to be explored.

Joint activities do happen but not to the extent that could fully exploit the opportunities that exits.

If the UK wishes to increase the number of competent engineers, it’s got to re-think the proliferation of different institutions, societies, associations, groupings, and licencing bodies.  

To elevate the professional status of engineering in our society we need organisations that have the scale and range to communicate and represent at all levels. Having said the above, I’m not hopeful of change. Too many vested interests are wedded to the status-quo. We have both the benefits of our Victorian past and the milestone of that grand legacy. 

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

[2] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en

[3] http://www.theiet.org/

Experts

The rate of increase in the power of artificial intelligence (AI) is matched by the rate of increase in the number of “experts” in the field. I’ve heard that jokingly said. 5-minutes on Twitter and it’s immediately apparent that off-the-shelf opinions run from – what’s all the fuss about? to Armageddon is just around the corner.

Being a bit of a stoic[1], I take the view that opinions are fine, but the question is what’s the reality? That doesn’t mean ignoring honest speculation, but that speculation should have some foundation in what’s known to be true. There’s plenty of emotive opinions that are wonderfully imaginative. Problem is that it doesn’t help us take the best steps forward when faced with monumental changes.

Today’s report is of the retirement of Dr Geoffrey Hinton from Google. Now, there’s a body of experience in working with AI. He warns that the technology is heading towards a state where it’s far more “intelligent” than humans. He’s raised the issue of “bad actors” using AI to the detriment of us all. These seem to me valid concerns from an experienced practitioner.

For decades, the prospect of a hive mind has peppered science fiction stories with tales of catastrophe. With good reason given that mind-to-mind interconnection is something that humans haven’t mastered. This is likely to be the highest risk and potential benefit. If machine learning can gain knowledge at phenomenal speeds from a vast diversity of sources, it becomes difficult to challenge. It’s not that AI will exhibit wisdom. It’s that its acquired information will give it the capability to develop, promote and sustain almost any opinion.

Let’s say the “bad actor” is a colourful politician of limited competence with a massive ego and ambition beyond reason. Sitting alongside, AI that can conjure-up brilliant speeches and strategies for beating opponents and that character can become dangerous.

So, to talk about AI as the most important inflection point in generations is not hype. In that respect the rapid progress of AI is like the invention of the explosive dynamite[2]. It changed the world in both positive and negative ways. Around the world countries have explosives laws and require licenses to manufacture, distribute, store, use, and possess explosives or its ingredients.

So far, mention of the regulation of AI makes people in power shudder. Some lawmakers are bigging-up a “light-touch” approach. Others are hunched over a table trying to put together threads of a regulatory regime[3] that will accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative[4].

[1] https://dailystoic.com/what-is-stoicism-a-definition-3-stoic-exercises-to-get-you-started/

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

[3] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence

[4] https://youtu.be/JS_QoRdRD7k

AI awakens

Artificial Intelligence (AI)[1] is with us. Give it a question and it will answer you. Do it many times, with access to many information sources and it will improve its answer to you. That seems like a computer that can act like a human. In everyday reality, AI mimics a small number of the tasks that “intelligent” humans can do and do with little effort.

AI has a future. It could be immensely useful to humanity. As with other revolutions, it could take the drudgery out of administrative tasks, simple research, and well characterised human activities. One reaction to this is to joke that – I like the drudgery. Certainly, there’s work that could be classified as better done by machine but there’s pleasure to be had in doing that work.

AI will transform many industries but will it ever wake-up[2].  Will it ever become conscious.

A machine acting human is not the same as it becoming conscious. AI mimicking humans can give the appearance of being self-aware but it’s not. Digging deep inside the mechanism it remains a computational machine that knows nothing of its own existence.

We don’t know what it is that can give rise to consciousness. It’s a mystery how it happens within our own brains. It’s not a simple matter. It’s not magic either but it is a product of millions of years of evolution.

Humans learn from our senses. A vast quantity of experiences over millennia have shaped us. Not by our own choosing but by chance and circumstances. Fortunately, a degree of planetary stability has aided this growth from simple life to the complex creatures we are now.

One proposition is that complexity and conscious are linked. That is that conscious in a machine may arise from billions and billions of connections and experiences. It’s an emergent behaviour that arises at some unknown threshold. As such this proposition leaves us with a major dilemma. What if we inadvertently create conscious AI? What do we do at that moment?

Will it be an accidental event? There are far more questions than answers. No wonder there’s a call for more research[3].

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49274918

[2] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consulting/articles/the-future-of-ai.html

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65401783.amp

Who’s in control?

The subject of artificial intelligence (AI) in an aircraft cockpit stirs-up reactions that are both passionate and pragmatic. Maybe, it’s a Marmite issue[1]. Mention of the subject triggers an instant judgement. 

Large passenger transport civil aircraft are flown by two human operators. Decisions are made by those two human operators. They are trained and acquire experience doing the job of flying. A word that has its origins in the marine world is used to describe their role – pilot.

One of my roles, early on in my career, was to lead the integration of a cockpit display system into a large new helicopter[2]. New, at the time. The design team, I was part of comprised of people with two different professional backgrounds. One had an engineering background, like me, and the other had qualification associated with psychology. The recognition that an aircraft cockpit is where the human and machine meet is not new. A lot of work was done in simulation with flight crews. 

The first generation of jet aircraft put the pilot in full-time command. It’s as we moved from purely mechanical interactions with aircraft, the balance of flight control has been shared between pilot and aircraft systems. There’s no doubt, in the numbers, that this has improved aviation safety.

Nobody is calling for the removal of aircraft autopilot systems. Much of the role of the formerly required flight engineer has been integrated into the aircraft systems. Information is compressed and summarised on flat screen displays in the aircraft cockpit.

Today, AI is not just one thing. There’s a myriad of different types and configurations, some of which are frozen and some of which are constantly changing as they learn and grow. That said, a flawless machine is a myth. Now, that’s a brave statement. We are generations away from a world where sentient machines produce ever better machines. It’s the stuff of SiFi.

As we have tried to make ever more capable machines, failures are a normal part of evolution. Those cycles of attempts and failures will need to lead into the billions and billions before human capabilities are fully matched. Yes, I know that’s an assertion, but it has taken humans more than a million years to get to have this discussion. That’s with our incredible brains.

What AI can do well is to enhance human capabilities[3]. Let’s say, of all the billions of combinations and permutations, an aircraft in flight can experience, a failure that is not expected, not trained, and not easily understood occurs. This is where the benefits and speed of AI can add a lot. Aircraft system using AI should be able to consider a massive number of potential scenarios and provide a selection of viable options to a flight crew. In time critical events AI can help.

The road where AI replaces a pilot in the cockpit is a dead end. The road where AI helps a pilot in managing a flight is well worth pursuing. Don’t set the goal at replacing humans. Set the goal at maximising the unique qualities of human capabilities.

[1] https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/marmite_2

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

[3] https://hbr.org/2021/03/ai-should-augment-human-intelligence-not-replace-it