Category: Systems

Next Generation with Practical Experience

Backwards and forwards the discussion goes on platforms like LinkedIn. Everyone recognises the expected demand for engineers. This century will be as much an engineering century as any century that has gone before. Science advances rapidly. New materials are available. Computation power is shooting off the charts. It’s now possible to design, build and test more systems to do more tasks than ever before.

The question is where’s the next generation of engineers going to come from?

Here’s one aspect of the debate that I find mildly irritating. Despite that discomfort, I’m prepared to be a hypocrite on this point. It’s to discuss future education and training with an almost blinkered reference to one’s own experience. For me, that’s to look back 45-years and then project forward. This is a natural tendency that should be handled with extreme care. However much it’s good to cherish past successes they do not guarantee future ones.

My first paid job involved Rotring[1] ink pens and pencils. Drawing film and large dyeline printers. Ammonia vapour filled the print room. It’s the sort of place the term “blueprint[2]” emerged. Drawing a myriad of small mechanical components used to make-up cabinets of electronics. I’d follow them through to the workshop where they would be turned into hardware.

That world has gone almost entirely. At that time, an infant was growing. A chunky electronic pen that could be used to move straight lines around on a bulky computer screen. That infant was computer aided design. Methodically and slowly computer digitisation was taking over. Soon the whole job description; engineering draftsman, disappeared into the history books.

Today’s infant is Artificial Intelligence (AI) or at least, if we discard the hype, massive infinitely flexible computing power. As a result, we have no idea how many jobs will next disappear into the history books. So, if I have a point to make it’s along the lines of being mighty cautious about what could inspire the next generation of engineers.

Moving to the next step in my early career path. Given that I made solid progress and having an exceptionally progressive employer[3], I moved through departments each time having a go at something new. My pathway to electronic design (analogue) was step by step.

I’ve pictured an oscilloscope because that’s one of those key steps. What it provides is a way of seeing what can’t normally be seen. Sitting in a classroom learning about frequency modulation, or such like, is necessary. Doing the sums to pass exams is essential. But nothing beats hooking-up a few bits of equipment on a workbench and seeing it for yourself.

So, that’s my recipe for inspiring the next generation of engineers. Create opportunities for them to see it for themselves. Even in the massively complex digital soup that we all swim in.

Theory is fine. Being able to visualise is the best tool. Or is that just me?

[1] https://www.rotring.com/

[2] https://youtu.be/7vnGY9vXgsQ

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessey

Brazilian Air Crash

Two weeks have elapsed since the tragic loss of VoePass Linhas Aéreas flight PTB2283[1].

Reports are that the Brazilian air accident investigators[2] have successfully downloaded recordings from the aircraft Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR).

A detailed analysis of both recordings should provide a replay of the flight events on the fateful day. This means that any flight anomalies can be interpreted. Both actions of the crew and the response of the aircraft can be used to understand the sequence of events.

Those conducting the analysis will need to verify the past serviceability[3] of both recorders. It’s easy to assume that what’s presented in the recovered replay is what happened. However, that depends on the calibration of sensors and the correct functioning of the aircraft’s audio system.

CVRs and FDRs are primarily tools for the investigation of accidents and serious incidents by investigating authorities. Accident recordings can be a rich source of information. It’s not just the obvious contribution technical records make to an investigation. The CVR, via a cockpit area microphone picks up much more than just the speech of the crew and their communications with air traffic. Engines, propellers, aircraft warning systems, aerodynamic noise and the impact of structural failures all produce audio signatures.

I assume that the aircraft operator has a Flight Data Monitoring Program. Such a program can support continuing airworthiness and operational safety of an aircraft. It can be a vital part of a Safety Management System (SMS). Also, the regular analysis of flight data is one way of ensuring that the serviceability of the data acquisition system for an FDR is known.

A preliminary report on this fatal accident is expected in early September. It is up to CENIPA if the publish any transcript of the accident recordings.

VoePass, the airline in question, operates a regional network in Brazil. Not surprisingly it has now come under greater scrutiny by the Brazilian aviation regulator, Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC).

It’s worth noting that the Brazilian civil aircraft fleet is one of the largest in the world. It’s a sizable country. Both ANAC and CENIPA are well experienced in addressing the aftermath of a major aviation accident. Expectations are high that the causes of this fatal accident will be fully understood. Appropriately then corrective action will be taken.

[1] https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/409335

[2] Brazilian Aeronautical Accidents Investigation and Prevention Center (CENIPA)

[3] https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/12811

Navigating Speculation in the Age of Abundant Information

Speculation is a natural human response. When faced with a paucity of information we often put together what we know and then make a best guess as to what happened or what might happen. However, wise or unwise it’s not possible to stop speculation. Well, that is assuming that autocratic power doesn’t use force to crush the free exchange of ideas.

Since the rise of the INTERNET, with a proliferation of all kinds of material, it becomes less and less possible to quell speculation. A sprinkling of information can grow into a monstrous conspiracy but equally it can grow into a stepping stone to greater understanding. Living with this two-edged sword is our modern dilemma.

In a more deferential society, that we may have been immediately post WWII, officialdom was accustomed to restricting information. The principal of “need to know” and statements like – wait for the official report – were enough to quell Press intrusion and intense public curiosity. On occasions this deference turned out to be tragic and been an enabler for authorities to cover up dreadful errors and failings. My mind goes to the Hillsborough disaster[1] when I think of tragedies made worse by the manipulation of information.

What’s all this about – you might say. I’m giving a thought to the post- accident scenarios that become more common. When major fatal transport accidents happen to planes, boats and trains there’s an instant demand for detailed information.

This is happening in relation to the recent Brazilian ATR aircraft accident and, this morning, to the sinking of a large modern yacht off the coast of Sicily. Both tragedies seem astonishing in their own way. So much of our technological world works so perfectly, a great deal of the time, that we get accustomed to reliability, safety and security. Almost taking it for granted.

Basic technical information, like registration numbers, type and age of the vehicle all surface quickly after an event. Even numbers of fatalities are verified within a couple of days. What gets the speculators going is the answers to the question – why?

A list of circumstantial factors can soon emerge. The time, the weather, the location and the organisations involved. All of this creates a mix that feeds both intelligent and unintelligent speculation. I’m not saying this is de-facto bad. It’s reality.

What’s all this about? There are reports across the media of the “last words of Brazil plane crash pilots.” This speculation surrounds the words spoken in the cockpit and seem to come from someone’s knowledge of a transcript. How can that be? Through international agreement the independent aviation investigation organisations across the globe are committed to a protection of this type of recorded information (Cockpit Voice Reporter (CVR)[2]). Accident flight recorders are there for the purposes of the investigation of an accident or incident.

Back to our modern dilemma. Is it good or bad that sensitive protected information leaks into the public domain before it’s been thoroughly analysed and properly understood? There is a cost to a dilution of the protection of information. For one, it may discourage the voluntary application of safety enhancements, like fitting a recorder to a plane, boat or train.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c8m8v3p0yygt

[2] https://skybrary.aero/articles/cockpit-voice-recorder-cvr

Free Speech or Unregulated Chaos?

Twitter grew to a global scale. It didn’t make money. It was a social media success but a commercial mess or, at least, that’s how a lot of people saw it. Its snappy short text became the playground for people pushing press releases and journalists seeking immediate printable lines. On top of the professional users were a mountain of commentators that ranged from the highly credible and reliable to the outlandish crazies promoting their every possible madness.

For whatever reason it caught the attention of Elon Musk. He has a numerous selection of descriptions ranging from wry businessman to futurist visionary. There’s no doubt he’s a risk taker who has an uncanny ability to come up smiling where others would likely have collapsed in bankruptcy or chaos.

Reports of “X”, as it is known now, are that Musk sees it as a platform for free speech. There’s an absolutism about this mandate. Although there’s legislative obligations in most countries that put some boundaries around what’s called “free speech” the platform X has become one that pushes at the boundaries.

Generally, moderate opinions don’t stir-up controversy. So called “mainstream” factual reporting can be boring and somewhat dry. What seems to trigger a lot of activity are opinions that are “extreme”. That is often extreme in the political sense from the left and the right. Tapping into the popularity of populism – if that makes any sense. Polarisation if it doesn’t.

As a platform for legitimate political views, however disagreeable, there’s not so much to complain about the openness of a lightly moderated space. Through history public spaces have been created for people to vent their views[1]. However, this is not done without regulation on conduct.

Where free spaces get extremely toxic is the riotous spread of misinformation. It’s one thing to have strong socialist or liberal views or hard conservative views but when views are presented as based on facts when they are not[2], and expressions are intended to create aggressive responses, there’s a line of unacceptability that has been crossed.

I am taking the view that today’s X is not a place for a reputable organisation or person. It’s not that social media platforms are intrinsically bad. No, it’s the way that they are managed. My observation is that there is a connection between the mindless riots of recent days in England and the lack of attention to civilised regulation of certain digital platforms. It’s a question of both written regulation and its consistent implementation.

This situation is recoverable. Putting digital social media back into a good shape for the public to conduct a dialogue about the issue of the day will require effort from its owners and governments across the globe. Is there a willingness to step up and act? Let’s see. Surely these subjects need urgent action. 

[1] https://www.royalparks.org.uk/visit/parks/hyde-park/speakers-corner

[2] https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/5/20/23730607/elon-musk-conspiracy-twitter-texas-shooting-bellingcat-taylor-lorenz-psyops

Tragic VoePass ATR72 Crash

2024 was going so well. Looking at the indicator of worldwide fatalities in commercial aviation for the first six-months of this year, and it is exceptionally low. The time between major fatal accidents across the globe is another indicator that my team once looked at on a regular basis. Aviation is an extremely safe mode of transport but when accidents happen, they can be devastating.

Yesterday, the situation changed in Brazil. A VoePass ATR72-500 aircraft[1], registration PS-VPB, flight number PTB2283 crashed in the Brazilian state of São Paulo. The twin-engine aircraft crashed in a residential location.

Yet unknown events resulted in a loss of control in-flight. On-line videos of the aircraft flying show a dive and then a spiralling decent to the ground. The aircraft was destroyed on impact, and it is reported that all lives were lost.

The publicly available flight data shows a sudden decent from a stable altitude[2]. The aircraft was about and hour and twenty minutes into its flight.

Looking at the video information it might appear that local weather may not have been a factor in the accident. However, there was known to be severe icing conditions at the altitude that the aircraft was flying.

It’s speculation on my part but unrecognised severe icing is one of the conditions that can bring about a catastrophic outcome for such an aircraft. It is sad to have to say that there is a record of a major accident to an ATR-72 that has some of the characteristics of this new accident.

In fact, it is one fatal accident that is etched on my mind given that it happened in late 1994, when I was still fresh in my job with the UK Civil Aviation Authority as an airworthiness surveyor. It’s known as much by its location as by the name of the aircraft, namely Roselawn[3]. The accident was extremely controversial at the time.

Crews are told that they may be operating in severe icing conditions but there is no specific regulatory requirement for on-board advisory or warning system on this generation of turboprop aircraft. An ice detection system can serve as a final warning to alert a crew that ice protection is needed.

Work to update the technical document; In-Flight Ice Detection System (FIDS) Minimum Operational Specification EUROCAE ED-103 is completed. Issued in April 2022, ED-103B – MOPS for In-Flight Icing Detection Systems is available[4].

In the case of the current accident, it is a matter for Brazil’s highly capable independent accident investigators to determine what happened. Anything I have written here is purely speculative.

POST 1: Reports of statements made by Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (Anac) say that the aircraft was in good condition.

POST 2: Accident flight recorders have been recovered from the accident site. Flight recorders retrieved from crashed Voepass ATR 72-500 | Flight Global

[1] https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/409335

[2] https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/PSVPB/history/20240809/1450Z/SBCA/SBGR/tracklog

[3] https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N401AM

[4] https://eshop.eurocae.net/eurocae-documents-and-reports/ed-103b/

Electric Aviation: The Promise of Clean Flight

Electric aviation is not new. Not new at all. The engineers of the past struggled with two factors. Power and weight. A French electrically powered airship was the first aircraft to make a controlled circuit. On 9 August 1884, it flew a circular course of 8 km at a max speed of 14.5 mph. Its electric motor weighed 100 kilograms and its battery weighed 263 kilograms.

It’s not a problem to be able to distribute or use electrical power on-board an aircraft. The problem come in generating enough of it from a reliable source. Today’s “conventional” civil aircraft generate and use large amounts of electrical power. For example, the Boeing 787 has two starter/generators per engine[1]. Electrical power from the generators goes to four alternating current (AC) electrical distribution buses, where it is either sent for use as is (235 V AC) or converted for use by the aircraft systems that need it.

A revolution is taking place in electric aviation. It offers the opportunity to fly cleanly. That said, the traditional technical challenges remain the same. Power and weight. In 140-years battery technology has advanced considerably. But is that enough?

A difficulty that battery powered flying is stuck with is that at the start and at the end of a flight the batteries weigh, more or less, the same as they did from the day of their manufacture. Today’s “conventional” civil aircraft consume fuel. Thus, they are significantly lighter at the end of a flight than they are at the start. Airframes can be designed to take advantage of this fact.

One of the up sides is that a good electric motor can get to an efficiency of 80% whereas a turbo fan engine comes in at around 35%. That sound great until we look at the amount of energy we can store within a given volume. Jet fuel packs a punch. To get the same punch from an electrical battery it would likely be 15 times the size. That’s not good for a practical design. The low battery energy density coupled with the high weight of batteries means that this strategy for large aircraft needs to be put to one side for now.

A modern aircraft engine like the CFM International LEAP, can develop a max take-off thrust of over 30,000 lbf. Two of those engines can safely accelerate a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 with ease and cruise with good economy. Thus, electrification of the propulsion of this class of aircraft is a long way off. The nearest possible future for propulsion of a B737 and A320 sized aircraft may be hydrogen based.

This explains why the drawing boards are full of small electric aircraft designs where performance demands are more modest. There’s a hope that the continuous development of battery technology will provide year on year gains. Much more than aviation alone demands that battery technology advances.

Developments in hydrogen-electric aviation are catching the headlines. Much of what has been achieved is experimental. I look forward to the day when hydrogen is not used to fill airship gas bags but becomes the life blood of transport aviation. It’s conceivable that will happen in my lifetime.

[1] http://787updates.newairplane.com/787-Electrical-Systems/787-Electrical-System

Solar farms

New Government signs off solar farms. Not everyone happy.

It would be good if we could all agree that the UK needs to recognise the importance of locally produced food and drink. There’re large environmental gains to be made by reducing the distance between production and consumption. Thousands of heavy trucks thunder up and down the inadequate road infrastructure in the UK. Colossal amounts of food waste get thrown away from supermarkets. Questionable preservatives enable supply chains to grow longer and longer. There’s are bad trends.

On a related subject, I do have a problem with proposals for large solar arrays that will take out productive farmland. However, that is by no means an objection to large solar arrays, or onshore wind farms for that matter.

It’s not as if we have always been so precious about what we do with our glorious countryside. One observation I’d make is that there has been a huge increase in the urbanisation of the countryside in my lifetime. Areas that were either wild or exclusively used for agriculture are now pony paddocks, car parks, golf courses, housing estates, out-of-town shopping warehouse, fulfillment centres[1], and bypasses. In 50-years, there’s little that remains untouched.

I’d sing “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” if I could. We really do need to think carefully about what we industrialise and what we preserve and protect.

For me large solar arrays are in the same category as acres of poly tunnels. Both serve a fundamental purpose, and both are structure that can be relatively easily removed. Keeping the lights on and eating fresh food are both part of society’s basic needs.

So, I’m not going to raise an eyebrow at new Minister Ed Miliband approving 3 large solar arrays[2]:No shock but no blank cheque either. No jumping on a political bandwagon to condemn the immediate decision.  

It’s likely the decision was sitting on the former Conservative Minister’s desk. Is this a case of difficult decisions deliberately delayed because of an election? We may never know. It would be a bit disingenuous for such politicians to complain now. Wouldn’t it?

Let’s get it right. Failure to decarbonise our national energy system is a contribution to global warming we can’t afford to make. Long-term that global warming will impact food production.

In years to come it will be interesting to see what research flags up with respect to solar farms and biodiversity in an area. There’s some chance that the results will not be entirely negative. There’s all that sheltered and undisturbed soil under the array structures. A habitat for wildlife.

Choosing between what might seem as the lesser of two evils is often the situation a politician finds themselves in. Afterall, that’s the role they must play in a democracy. The outcome may not be popular in the short-term, but a balance must be struck.

Maybe we should reverse some of the urbanisation of the countryside. Return some little used roads to nature. Demolish unused industrial units. Put back the hedges that have been lost. Rewild one or two golf courses. It’s something to consider when building new infrastructure.

[1] Fulfillment centres enables outsourcing, warehousing and shipping. This is for online businesses to have the physical space to store stuff.  

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng6036vgqo

Rethinking the House of Lords: Toward a Balanced and Democratic Approach

Good to hear that there’s a prospect of House of Lords reform in next week’s Kings speech. Change is on the agenda.

It’s astonishing that “hereditary” is a valid qualification for the job as a legislator. I’ve nothing against the individuals involved. Especially those who try to do the best they can. Put all that to one side, there’s a huge gulf between what’s normal in normal life and what’s normal in the Place of Westminster. It’s time to consider merit as more important than who your parents were.

The removal of hereditary peers should be just a first step. One of the most egregious unfairnesses is that way the HoL gets topped-up with political cronies a regular basis. We’ve institutionalised political tribalism in the second chamber. Ennobling people for dubious reasons has become a habit of Prime Ministers. Making contributions to political Party funds should not be a ticket to the HoLs.

There’s the religious element too. Whereas there’s a lot to be said for a level or moral guidance to be given to Peers there’s little justification for them to have votes in the HoL. I’m not denying the important part region plays in many people’s lives. What I am saying is that the laws that affect every citizen shouldn’t be shaped by a small cohort of clerics. Two countries have religious clerics in places of legislative power, and they are UK and Iran. That doesn’t sit well with me, and no doubt most people.

One change maybe controversial given that it smacks of discrimination and that is the setting of an age threshold. If Peers are given a compulsory retirement at the age of 80, it may meet an objective of getting the overall number of Peers down. What disconcerting is the implication that beyond the age of 80 a Peer’s potential contribution is less valuable.

I don’t agree that the compulsory retirement age for the HoL should be set at the state pension age. For some people age does mark a dimming of their intellect but for others they can be as sharp as a pin. The only easy option is a fixed threshold, but it should be a temporary measure.

Ideally, the size of the HoL should be fixed. Ideally, the size of both chambers should be similar. Not just because that number line-up but because the political weight should be set closer to a balance. I do assume in this formula that every Peer is a working Peer.

It’s been pointed out that in its current state the HoL makes it the second largest political chamber in the world. It’s reached ridiculous proportions for a country of our size.

Modest changes can only be a start. There’s the real need for permanent restructuring. Parliament’s second chamber must be replaced with a democratic upper house. One model would be an elected upper house with two members elected per UK region based on current/proposed metro mayoral regions or former regions used for electing MEPs.

Even the chamber’s name must go. It’s not good that we have legislators lording over us. Those sitting on the red benches are not superior beings. They are privileged. One would hope for them to be humble given that great privilege. Afterall they should be there to serve us. To serve the country.

Just Culture

My thought is that we’ve forgotten the discussion of more than a decade ago. There was a time when the thoughtful reflections on responsibility and accountability were much discussed.

Without focusing on specific examples, there are plenty to choose from, there’s the propensity of our institutions and politicians to reach for “blame” as a first response. When situations go bad the instinctive inclination to hunt out someone to blame. This is an all too prevalent habit.

Naturally, in cases, there’s the strong need to identify who is accountable for bad decisions. Society does not like it when the powerful protect, cocoon themselves and grab for immunity. Certainly, some people and organisations are genuinely blameworthy. However, if we scrutinise and point the finger of blame, it doesn’t help if that finger is pointed at a person’s honest errors. There isn’t a human on this planet who hasn’t made an error.

The finger of blame is easily pointed. Judgment so often falls after an event. The time when more is known, and hindsight comes into play. This tips the balance. It’s so much easier to say: why on Earth did you do that? I would never have done that.

For people to come forward and be fairly heard in an open and fair inquiry or investigation they need to have the confidence that they are not stepping into a public blame-fest. Without trust between those on all sides of it’s less likely that the truth will come out.

“Just Culture” is a concept written into aviation legislation and followed by others. The overriding aim is to learn from mistakes. It’s the surest way of not repeating the same mistakes time and time again. It’s beneficial to have that long-term learning objective. Why suffer the pain of a bad event when the means to avoid it are known and understood?

Now, I’m going back 20-years. I remember being part of an international working group[1] called GAIN. The group compiled guidance about organisational culture. At the time, the group was considering the subject in the context of the air traffic profession. Guidance like the one referenced, emphasise that a Just Culture is not simply a no-blame culture. It’s not, and never has been a way of circumventing accountability.

Determining culpability can be complex. There’s often a test to consider the wilfulness of the participants in a bad event. In other words, did they carelessly, intentionally, maliciously or negligently make decisions that resulted in the bad event? In these cases, the “they” could be an individual or an organisation.

Gross negligence, wilful abuses and destructive acts should be addressed by the enforcement of laws. If we say the criminalisation of honest people involved in bad events has a negative impact. That is not to negate the need for enforcement. Regulators in all sorts of walks of life have a duty to apply enforcement where and when it’s appropriate. Maybe we ought to have applied that to the UK water industry.

My plea here is to first consider the nature of the events in question. Was there an element of genuine honest human error? Is the right balance being struck between the need to learn and the need to ensure accountability?

NOTE: Just Culture is defined in EU law as “A culture in which operational staff or others are not held accountable for actions, acts, omissions or decisions commensurate with their experience and training, but gross negligence, intentional violations and destructive actions are not tolerated” EC 376/2014 Art. 2 Para. 12.

[1] A Roadmap to a Just Culture https://flightsafety.org/files/just_culture.pdf

Rapid

Such a rapid change. In days we go from one governmental regium to another. The government of the UK has changed. It’s now dramatically different from what it was only a couple of days ago. It’s not overstating the case to say dramatic. On a relatively modest percentage of the overall national vote the Labour Party has been handed all the leavers of power.

The UK’s main electoral system is not proportional. It tends to exaggerate and distort performance. Lifting those who do well in the national vote numbers but suppressing those who are supported by smaller overall percentages. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats, who have always been in favour of a proportional representation electoral system, have an approximate match between the number of seats won and the number of votes cast across the country.

Sticking with the positives, this rapid change does mean policy resets are possible. One significant example is the immediate scrapping of the policy mess that the previous government had got itself into over immigration.

Accepting a fresh start has a upside. However, the difficulty that can present itself is the challenge to continuity. Lots of new faces with new responsibilities. Lots of people learning the ropes. One answer to that challenge is to say that the civil service provides a seamless continuity. The mandarins in Whitehall guide the ship of State through the transition. Not only that but many of the people coming into power have been preparing for this opportunity for a long time.

The difficulty is that the mismatch between the national percentages of the General Election vote and the number of Westminster seats held is there for all to see. It’s a stark indicator of the reality of people’s wishes verses the outcome of a process.

I was a counting agent standing in a sports hall until the early morning totting-up an estimate of the vote for a political party. Pen in hand watching officers carefully unfold paper ballots. In a world of smart phones and tablets there’s something very retro about looking at piles of black and white paper for hours.

One aspect of First Past The Post (FPTP) is the theoretical simplicity of the counting process. Naturally, it’s far from simple. One cross, in one box is well within the capability of every kind of voter. However, it’s crude in terms of what it says about the voter’s views. It forces everyone to make stark choices. There’s no accommodation of preference. Say, you are a person who’s essentially conservative or socialist but can’t stand that Party in its current form, you are forced to leap to vote, if you vote at all, for a political candidate that may not be your natural choice.

So, society ought to ask itself, do we value the result of the electoral process most? Or do we value the expression of the individual preference the most? There’s an inevitability to the answer to that question, if the horizon set is a long one. Where so much of what we now do is addressed by algorithms designed to distil our individual preferences how can we stick with a paper based last century electoral system that ignores preference?

Change will come one day. The difficulty is that if the UK’s FPTP electoral system offers no incentive to the winning Party to change it, so we will be bound to stick with it. Well, at least for the next few years.