Category: Systems

Pulp

Eyes wide open in astonishment. I saw a supermarket newsstand. That’s not new. From time to time, I find it better to scan the daily headlines rather than buying a newspaper. Frankly, in the world of social media and search engines the sane and sober daily national newspapers are too expensive. They only make sense on a Sunday when there’s time to take in what they have to say.

It’s a moribund marketplace. British daily newspapers are in slow decline. Nevertheless, each title has a readership that remains loyal even if it’s declining in numbers. Before the mobile phone took so much of our attention time it was important to consider who reads the papers. As a sketch from the BBC comedy “Yes, Prime Minister” nicely put it[1].

I have an admiration for those who can transform difficult technical material into everyday language. That kind of communication skill is much needed and often undervalued. Taking simple words and sentences and telling a story that makes knowledge accessible, well that’s rare.

The newspaper headline that caught my eye was “It’s a space burp, Jim, but not as we know it.” Topped by “Earth facing solar blast as powerful as a billion nukes”.

This is wonderful example of how to turn real science into pulp and mush. I might be the only one who picked up the Daily Star, some irony there I think, and thought this thought. What a way to highlight a story about the sun. No, not The Sun but the sun that’s 93 million miles away.

There are some great people in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US who run a space weather prediction centre[2]. Their website is a place to go if you want to know where to see the northern lights at a particular time and place. On Monday 9 January, there was a solar flare that may have affected radio transmissions in South America. That’s useful to know if you are on a ship using High Frequency (HF) radio communications in that part of the world.

“Earth could soon be in the firing line of a massive solar storm with the power of billion hydrogen bombs” is certainly an interesting and rather scary way of putting it. What the readership of The Star should do about this suggested calamity is not explained.

The Sun is restless, powerful, and essential to life on Earth. It’s prudent to keep a watchful eye on what it does. There’s no doubt that it can cause havoc on extremely rare occasions. We are now more vulnerable than past generations given our dependence on extensive electronic communications.

The Sun runs on an 11-year cycle. I don’t think anyone knows why that happens, but it does. We are coming out of the quiet part of the cycle so there’s likely to be more reports on this subject. Solar flares, like massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are difficult to predict. Our ability to warn of a once in a 5000-year event is fragile.

Perhaps this story is a hopeful wish of a newspaper editor. We will put down our broken mobile phones and pick-up newsprint once again. I wonder?

[1] https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M

[2] https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

Poor law making

If you thought the Truss era was an aberration, and that the UK’s Conservative Party had learned a lesson, then please think again. Wheels set in motion by the ideologue Jacob Rees-Mogg MP are still spinning.

The Retained European Union Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is trundling its way through the UK Parliament. The Government Bill will next be prepared for its 3rd reading in the House of Commons[1]. The Conservative Government has brought forward this Bill to revoke, reform or revise all the remaining law in the UK that was formerly derived from the UK’s membership of the EU. This turns on its head the normal approach to changing UK legislation. Revocation is automatic unless there’s an intervention by a Minister.

UK civil aviation depends on several thousand pages of legislation derived from EU law[2]. Much of this law was created with considerable contributions from the UK. There’s hardly any if any advocates for automatic revocation of current aviation legislation. Even the thought of this action sends a shiver down the spin of aviation professionals. Generations of them have worked to harmonise rules and regulations to ensure that this most international of industries works efficiently.

Unless amended, the Government’s EU Retained Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill[3] could turn out to be an absolute disaster. Even those who have an irrational wish to eliminate any and every past, present, or future link to Europe must come up with a practical alternative and do this in an incredibly short time. Without a consistent, stable, and effective framework civil aviation in the UK will grind to a halt. Again, even those who have an unsound need to change for change’s sake will be hitting a vital industry hard, as it is only just getting back on its feet after the COVID pandemic and now setting out to meet tough environmental standards.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when this poor Bill reaches the House of Lords. Once again, the country will be relying on the upper house to add some common sense to this draft law.  

POST 1: The 3rd reading debate makes it clear that the Government is unsure which laws are covered by the Bill. If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can anyone expect civil servants working on this legislation to know the full extent of change? A most strange state of affairs Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third si – Hansard – UK Parliament

POST 2: Retained EU law lays down rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations in the UK Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (legislation.gov.uk)

POST 3: Retained EU Law Bill is being debated in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February.

[1] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3340

[2] https://www.eiag.org.uk/paper/future-retained-eu-law/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill-2022

Crisis in Health

It’s difficult to think of a more inappropriate person to be Secretary of State for Health and Social Care[1]. He has all the bedside manner of Dracula. Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak re-installed him in that vital Government post. So far, he’s achieved nothing but distress and mismanagement[2].

I shouldn’t joke. The seriousness of the situation in the National Health Service (NHS) isn’t a joking matter. Winter is testing the service to breaking point. Both the statistics and the experience of patients are not acceptable by any reasonable measure.

What’s intolerable is the general Ministerial response. Hard-line rhetoric about not budging on negotiations is callous. Dismissing every call for support by rattling-off lists of figures about Government spending is no help at all. Trying to redirect attention away from the things that need fixing. The shabby politics of avoidance is not what’s needed.

As a personal note, I find the situation indicative of broader failures too. My one term as a Surrey Country Councillor, between 1993 and 1997 is more history than anything else. The problem is that it’s not. I remember papers coming to full council meetings with a title that is pertinent and recognisable today. The subject being “bed blocking[3]”.

That’s 30-years ago, our institutions struggled with making the transition between hospital care and social care. It was clear that there was going to be a growing problem. The demographics pointed to a rising aging population. There was no ambiguity about the facts.

Ministers have come and gone. Quite rapidly over the last year. Each with the responsibility for NHS service delivery, performance, and social care policy. Some like incoherent gad flies, some who span like windmills in a storm, some like patrician overseers but none with the managerial skills needed to address the challenge that stares them in the face.

Most local authorities are dealing with cuts to their budgets, financial constraints and the cost of living demands we all confront. In some cases, they are tittering on the brink of bankruptcy[4]. Many local authorities have been forced to reduce their funding of social care at a time of rising demand. 

It’s mad that, after all this time, we have still not come up with an integrated health service. Pitching the NHS and local authorities against each other for funding is absolutely ludicrous. It’s costing lives.

Today, we must recover from a crisis. Tomorrow, real change must be implemented to prevent a future crisis. It isn’t as if we don’t know what to do!  

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-barclay

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-strikes-barclay-cooper-libdems-b2244466.html

[3] https://fullfact.org/health/bed-blocking-what-it-and-it-paralysing-nhs/

[4] https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/what-it-means-for-kent-residents-if-kcc-goes-bust-277075/

Digital Hazards

I agree[1]. The INTERNET information super highway isn’t so different from the highways we use to get around. Both have traffic. One presents hazards that are not always obvious and the other is riddled with hazards, many of which we can see. They are similar hazards, in that someone raiding your personal data can have just as devastating an impact as your car running off the road.

Giving people mandatory training before they venture out into the world of INTERNET banking, and the mad whirl of social media has merit. This will not reduce serious problems to zero, but it can mean fewer people suffer financial misfortunes and reputational nightmares.

I know this thinking is hard for anyone with an inbuilt downer on the notion that Governments should intervene to protect citizens from every threat. This is fine. There should be a reasonable threshold set before rules and regulations are grasped as a weapon against potential harms. Everyone has a responsibility to look after their own health and safety to the greatest extent that they can. That’s where there’s marked limitations in the case of the digital landscape.

Even for those aware of live digital threats the means to address them are not well known or easily accessible. The human factor plays a part too. Many people are reluctant to admit that they may have been dupped or take for a ride in the wild west of the INTERNET.

On another subject, but not unrelated, is that we live in a world of gurus and commentators. This predates social media but that has heightened the trend. It’s as if well-informed person A says, “don’t stick your finger in the fire” and nobody listens. However, when well-known person B says the same everybody listens. All the time the facts remain the same.

Sadly, this works with disinformation as well as the truth. There’s a propensity to wish to agree with people that we imagine others agree with at the same time. It’s a cosy security blanked. There was once a saying that; nobody ever got the sack for hiring IBM. This phrase captures the belief that those others can’t all be wrong and even if a choice is wrong for me, I’m not alone.

Such blame avoidance is pessimistic thinking. It elevates the fear of failure and places it at the heart of decision making. A balance is better. Awareness of hazards is the first step in managing risk.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

Time & Tech

It was a Financial Times newspaper poster that warned of UK job losses on a mass scale. It captured the pervasive idea that, as in the industrial revolution, huge changes in working conditions and types of jobs were come down the line. Technology would radically reshape employment. Those in comfortable jobs would not be imune from change.

One whole broadsheet page carried a message. Center of a picture was a large, polished metal dustbin. Contrasting and overspilling it were white shirt collars. The background was blank. The stark message was – the silicon revolution will mean an end to white collar jobs. I think the advertisement was placed by the trade union: Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs (ASTMS)[1].

This was the 1970s. A time when speculation about the impact of computers in the workplace was rife. It was before the Personal Computer burst onto the scene. Names like IBM and the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) were dominant. I wonder what it would be like if I could step into a time machine and return to that era. To let them know what really happened as technology advanced unrelenting for the next four decades.

In many ways white collar jobs, or office jobs, have not disappeared. If anything, the numbers employed, where a computer is an essential part of the everyday work has increased dramatically. Yes, there’s not so many white collars as digital communications allow people to work at any location. The workplace dress code, if there is one, has left the standard suite and tie behind.

Taking a broad view, the “silicon revolution” has improved life for many. Gone are huge typing pools, mechanical calculators, and Orwellian workplaces. Card file indexes, drawing boards, and toxic chemical copying machines look prehistoric in black and white pictures from the 1970s.

In that conversation with an office worker of that time, what they may be shocked to hear is that the diversity of companies shaping their workplace will narrow down to a small number of vast American names. The expected liberalising impact of technology, that makes information available to everyone, anywhere and at speed will have the perverse effect of narrowing minds.

What do I take from this journey to the past? It’s that the impact of technology is shaped by the choices we make. However, we choose with little idea of the longer-term influence technology has on our lives.

POST: Timeline | The Silicon Engine | Computer History Museum

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Scientific,_Technical_and_Managerial_Staffs

SPO 3

Now, there’s an activity with two humans in the loop. Given the physics involved the goalkeeper should be beaten every time. Well, I’m saying that assuming a high level of expected performance on the part of the footballer taking the penalty. I guess that’s why we are often critical when they miss. In the last few weeks there have been more than a few examples to watch.

What we know is that football penalties are much more than mechanical actions and reactions. However, there’s a degree of mythology about the inevitability of human factors taking control of the outcome: goal or no goal. I’d like to think that there’s an ever-shifting blend of what physics does to the ball and what the human does. Is it always possible to predict the slipperiness of a spinning ball traveling at speed that is then touched by the fingertip of a goalkeeper?

What if the footballer taking the penalty, was an “intelligent” machine. That is a machine with a sensor array and computational capability that far exceeded normal human performance. Such advance automation could calculate the most probable reaction of a goalkeeper based on history and the immediate movements they make right up to the last millisecond before the ball is struck.

Assuming the machine was limited in term of the force it can apply to the ball, it could still adjust its actions as soon as any new information was available. I’m not saying the outcome will always be better for the machine football striker. However, it could reduce the scope for error and randomness to dictate what finally happens.

So, with that argument, in aviation, I’m saying it’s not right to say that Single Pilot Operation will always be worse than two crew operations. Don’t get me wrong, those people aggressively advancing the idea that the intelligent machine will always be better than a human are missing something too.

One thing that highly capable automation could have to bring to the party is not only early detection and diagnosis of problems but a massive library of stored experience. How we embed and constantly update that flight experience is an almighty challenge.

Afterall, the dread in aviation is knowledge with hindsight. It takes the form: “You should have known. Why did you let this incident happen?”

I’m now tempted to think of a Star Trek analogy. Every second an aircraft of a type is flying, experience of its operation is being accumulated. If there are hundreds of a type flying at any moment across the globe, that’s a lot of data to collect and absorb and think about before acting. 

The fictional and scarry Borg are cybernetic creatures linked by a hive mind and they know a thing or two about assimilation. Granted that’s farfetched as analogies go but my point is that I believe we are generations away from that kind of capability. Not only that, just as humans fail so any such “intelligence” designed by humans will fail to.

SPO 2

An instant reaction to Single Pilot Operations (SPO) is like the instant reaction to completely autonomous flight. “I’m not getting on an aircraft without a pilot!” Then to justify that reaction fatal accidents of the past are cited. Typically, this is to remind everyone of the tragic Germanwings accident[1]. It was 24 March 2015, that an Airbus A320 was crashed deliberately killing all onboard.  

However, it’s wise to remember that the likelihood of incapacitation[2] is much greater than that of the malicious behaviour of the pilot in command. Cases of malicious behaviour leading to a catastrophic outcome are truly shocking but extremely rare.

One fatal accident, that is still disputed is EgyptAir Flight 990[3] that killed 217 people in 1999. The possibility of inflight pilot suicide is unnerving, since on the face of it there is little any of the aircraft’s cabin crew or passengers can do to stop it.

This could be a future opportunity to use automation to prevent these scenarios occurring. Afterall the aircraft knows where it is and that a sustained high-speed dive towards the ground is not normally intended. A safety system exists to do this[4], but its outputs are not connected to the aircraft’s flight controls.

Humans being adaptable, extremely creative and capable of highly irrational actions, it’s unlikely that malicious behaviour resulting in aviation accidents will ever be reduced to zero. This is said regardless of the procedures or technology involved. The fate of flight MH 370 remains a mystery.

Thus, the prominent safety issue in respect of SPO is pilot incapacitation. Where the pilot in command is no longer able to perform as expected. That is, if the aircraft flown is not capable of safely landing itself. The objective always being safe continued flight and landing.

I’ve had the “1% Rule” rule explained to me by a notable aviation doctor, but I must admit I didn’t fully take it in. So far, the rule has stood the test of time. When the pilot in command of a Czech Airlines aircraft collapsed and died on route from Warsaw to Prague in 2012, the co-pilot took over and everyone got home safely.

Any automated co-pilot must be at least as capable as a human co-pilot in all aspects of operation of an aircraft. The key word here being “all”. It’s not enough to have the functions necessary to undertake safe continued flight and landing. Task such as communicating with the cabin crew and passengers must also be considered. Including preparation for an emergency landing.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32072218

[2] http://www.avmed.in/2012/02/pilot-incapacitation-debate-on-assessment-1-rule-etc/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/16/duncancampbell

[4] https://skybrary.aero/articles/terrain-avoidance-and-warning-system-taws

Single Pilot Operations

Single Pilot Operations is not new. What’s new is considering this way of working for everyday public transport operations of large aircraft

Research is of fundamental importance. It seems obvious to say so given the benefits it has given us. When proposals come forward to exploit new technologies there needs to be that moment when everyone steps back and takes a long hard look at the implications of its use.

In basic technical research it’s not the most important consideration is to focus on the drivers for change. They can be multifarious: economic, environmental, social, safety, security, political, and maybe just a matter of preference. Policy directions are taken by the industry and governments not constrained by what is happening now as much as what might happen tomorrow.

Research has delivered incredible safety improvements in aviation. This is not only in the basic design and construction of aircraft but all aspects of their operation. So, to see that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) sponsoring research to study the implications of aircraft Single Pilot Operations[1] is a wholly good measure.

My history goes back to the early days of fly-by-wire aircraft systems. This is where the mechanical and physical connection between an aircraft pilot’s actions and the control surfaces that determine flight are replaced by digital computers. Back in the 1980s, a great deal of research and experimental flying proved the technology to make fly-by-wire work. It first found favour with the military. One reason being that an aircraft’s capability could be extended well beyond what was formerly reached. This change was introduced with caution, analysis, testing and much detailed risk assessment.

At the time, there was a significant body of professional pessimists who predicted a diminishment of aviation safety. Today, four decades on, studies show that even as air traffic has increased so civil aviation safety has improved. A momentous achievement. An achievement that has, in part, been because of the well-regulated adoption of advanced technologies. 

It is important to look at potential changes with an open mind. It’s easy to come to an instant opinion and dismiss proposals before a detailed study has been conducted. The detailed technical research can then be part of the challenge and response that is necessary to before approval of any major change. First difficult questions need to be tabled and thoroughly investigated.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-extended-minimum-crew-operations-single-pilot-operations-safety-risk

Bandwidth

There’s a mismatch. It really is the case that there are more demands for attention than any normal person can address. Certainly, social media has a habit of burning up time. TV channel numbers expand like prolific rabbits but ironically there’s nothing worth watching or so it’s said. Daily newspapers are in decline, but supermarket shelves remain covered with expensive colourful magazines packed full of advertising. So many demands for our attention but the 24-hour day is much the same as it was in stone age times.

I did start a “to do list” in the assumption that it would help. Get me organised. Problem is that such lists fill up quickly and each task linger like a sword of Damocles[1]. Due dates slip into the past. It’s not a good way to reduce a dynamic stack of e-mails or clear a cluttered diary. Such lists are more a source admin than they are a source of free time.

One descriptive word that’s more than familiar to an engineer is that of “Bandwidth.” In this case lack of it. In the technical world it’s a range of frequencies within a set band. That notion of a limitation exists because a band is not boundless.

For my e-mail list. The contemporary form of an in-tray full to the brim with paper. This means that time is not expandable in such a way as to address everything that demands attention. Even though, it’s true that a great deal of time-wasting junk is quickly consigned to the waste bin.

As a species we have not evolved to cope with the ever changing digital world. The speed with which information can move is unrelenting. Harsh weather, day, night, the global expanse, nothing slows it down. Anyone with an internet connection is quickly hooked. Disconnection become imposible.

The difficulty is the mix. Irrelevant drivel takes the same path as communications of great value. The job of sorting this out, to make stuff usable, takes time that squeezes out new contracts or new projects. Finding energy and mental capacity to deal with digital clutter drains the batteries.

The new art is knowing what bandwidth, to manage this deluge, you can muster and for how long. Then being disciplined enough to use the delete button more often. To be less bound by a drive to answer every question. To be less impacted by views and opinions that pass by like rocket ships.

[1] The expression comes from the Roman politician, orator, and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC). And I thought it was Biblical.

Step on the Moon

This coming Wednesday it will be 50-years since the last human footstep was made on our Moon. On 11th December 1972, Apollo 17 arrived on the surface of the Moon. Although 10 Apollo missions were planned to step on our Moon only 6 were made. The last man on the Moon left on 14th December 1972. Eugene Cernan was the astronaut who made that last footprint[1].

This last week, I listened to an online lecture called: “Return to the Moon: “Apollo” for a new generation”. Professor Craig Underwood gave that lecture[2] at Surrey University. He reflected on the success of the Apollo moon landing missions between 1969 and 1972.

Just as he did it gave me cause to reflect on the impact that space adventure had on my boyhood self. Those years from age 9 to 12 must have had a profound impact on not only Eugene Cernan but Professor Underwood and me. We each became electrical engineers.

We became captivated by the unbounded capacity of engineering to change the world around us. It’s true that’s a double-edged sword in that both positive and negative transformations can occur. Notably, we can see that with the current use of airborne drones. On the one hand they can be used to deliver medical supplies on the other hand they can deliver devastation in war.

Here in the UK, we have a lot to thank Gerry Anderson[3] too. The creator of Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, Stingray, Joe 90, UFO and Space:1999 had a market impact on both the Professor and me. Colourful fantasy it may have all been, but those stories captured the imagination a generation.

The British TV series UFO and Space:1999 envisioned a permanently stationed Moon base. The leaps of the imagination in the 70s were partly due to the real achievements of the Apollo missions. Maybe it was beyond us to have a working base on the Moon by 1999 but now it’s starting to become a practical possibility.

Today, Sunday, NASA’s Orion capsule arrives home[4]. All being well, the spacecraft will splashdown in the Pacific Ocean after a 3-week trip around the Moon. I wish the project good fortune. 

POST: Sunday 17:40 GMT. The Orion spacecraft, which is to carry astronauts to and from the Moon, has splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after its test flight

[1] https://thelastmanonthemoon.com/

[2] The Institution of Engineering & Technology

[3] https://www.gerryanderson.com/

[4] https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html