Category: Trade

Exploring the Greatness of Great Britain

What’s great about Great Britain? GQ has asked this question[1]. Produced a nice article that looks at this subject with a cultural eye.

It’s a bit retro. When we (Brits) start talking about how great pubs are there’s a tendency to forget how many we have lost in the last decade. If we loved them so much, then more would have survived crushing economic pressures.

Brit pop was a wonderful surge in creativity that swept across the country in the 1990s. It was good – mostly. Riding that wave, because we are romantic souls about the past, are the band Oasis with their multimillion £ world tour. Accounts of which are tremendously positive.

I think I can take a position about what’s great about Great Britain. Having lived in Germany and travelled a bit, my perspective isn’t too insular or defensive.

Because we are no longer the world’s premier power and imperialism is a fading memory, we’ve shed the stiff upper lip and bowler hatted civil service bureaucrat image. It’s there in film and television to remind us of former times. It’s few who want to return to all that deep seriousness.

That seriousness is the burden that the US carries. If they send a gun boat somewhere it means business. For Brits it’s more a symbol of still being on the stage. Don’t get me wrong, as a country we box way beyond our size.

For all the right-wing jerks who parade around with false patriotism, our great strength is diversity. Having that legacy of the world map once having been painted in a great deal of red, we can now engage with multiple cultures and benefit from them all.

Number one of the lists of inherited advantages is being able to speak to the world. Not in their language but in ours. English doesn’t belong to the English any more, it belongs to the world. They amount to a lot; the times I’ve had fun reading Brussels English and being amazed at how it’s being used.

Pick a discipline. Science, technology, humanities, art, entertainment, there’s always a Brit that can be named as shaping the world. Influencing others and providing a spark that sets off a flame.

Now, being more parochial, I’ll look around me, in this town, and see a diversity of styles from punks who never stopped being punks to suited tie wearing customer service executives. Welly booted farmers in the town for a day to young gamers stuck to their small screens.

Sport is another anchor. If we (Brits) didn’t invent it, then it’s a derivative of something we did invent. Top that with the eccentricities from international tiddlywinks[2] to stone skimming. Despite the school of hard knocks we still value fair play.

Comedy is taking a downturn, but the British legacy is monumental. Irreverent, rebellious or intricate, often all three, even if we (Brits) do invite in the bland factory-made stuff from the US. In a unregarded small corner there’s a someone writing hysterical lines waiting to be discovered.

So far, as a nation, 2025 won’t go down in history as our best year. I’ve every faith that the best is still yet to come. Unlocking that dynamic zest, that quirky imagination, that complex amalgam happens several times every decade. Let’s hope the spark is just about to be set off.

[1] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/

[2] https://iftwa.org/history-of-iftwa/

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

Regulatory Insights

I can’t remember if my teacher was talking about maths or physics. His scholarly advice has stuck with me. When things get complex, they can seem overwhelming. Problems seem insolvable. So, it’s good to take a deep breath, step back and see if it’s possible to reduce the problem to its most basic elements. Do what could be called helicopter behaviour. Try to look at the problem top-down, in its simplest form. Break it into parts to see if each part is more easily comprehended.

Today’s international aviation regulatory structure, for design and production, follows the arrow of time. From birth to death. Every commercial aircraft that there ever was started as a set of ideas, progressed to a prototype and, if successful, entered service to have a life in the air.

This elementary aircraft life cycle is embedded in standards as well as aviation rules. Documents like, ARP4754(), Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems are constructed in this manner. There are as many graphs and curves that represent the aircraft life cycle as there are views on the subject, but they all have common themes.

That said, the end-of-life scenarios for aircraft of all kinds is often haphazard. Those like the Douglas DC-3 go on almost without end. Fascinatingly, this week, I read of an Airbus A321neo being scrapped after only 6-years of operations. Parts being more valuable than the aircraft.

Generally, flight-time lives in operational service are getting shorter. The pace of technology is such that advances offer commercial and environmental advantages that cannot be resisted. Operating conditions change, business models change and innovation speeds forward.

My earlier proposition was that our traditional aviation regulatory structure is out of date. Well, the detail is ever evolving – it’s true. Some of the fundamentals remain. The arrow of time, however fast the wheels spin, mixing my metaphors, remains an immobile reality.

In airworthiness terms an aircraft life cycle is divided into two halves. Initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness. This provides for a gate keeper. A design does not advance into operational service, along the aircraft life cycle, until specified standards have been demonstrated as met. An authority has deemed that acceptable standards are met.

I’m arguing, this part of the aviation regulatory structure is far from out of date. However much there’s talk of so called “self-regulation” by industry it has not come into being for commercial aviation. I think there’s good reason for retaining the role that a capable independent authority plays in the system. A gate keeper is there to ensure that the public interest is served. That means safety, security and environmental considerations are given appropriate priority.

To fulfil these basic objectives there’s a need for oversight. That is the transparency needed to ensure confidence is maintained not just for a day but for the whole aircraft life cycle. And so, the case for both design and production approvals remain solid. The devil being in the detail.

Aviation Regulations Outdated?

Machines, like aircraft started life in craft workshops. Fabric and wood put together by skilful artisans. Experimentation being a key part of early aviation. It’s easy to see that development by touring a museum that I’d recommend a visit. At Patchway in Bristol there’s a corner of what was once a huge factory. In fact, somewhere where I worked in the early 1980s. Aerospace Bristol[1] is a story of heritage. A testament to the thousands who have worked there over decades.

Fabric and wood played part in the early days. The factory at Filton in Bristol started life making trams. An integral part of turn of the century city life. Carriage work brought together skilled workers in wood, metal and fabrics. It was soon recognised that these were just the skills needed for the new and emerging aircraft industry. The Bristol Aeroplane Company (BAC) was born.

It’s war that industrialised aviation. Demonstration of the value of air power led to ever more technical developments. Lots of the lessons of Henry Ford were applied to aircraft production. Factories grew in importance, employing a large workforce.

My time at the Filton site was in a building next to a hanger where the Bristol Bulldog[2] was originally produced. This was a single engine fighter, designed in the 1920s, in-service with the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Right from the start orderly processes and regulatory oversight formed part of aircraft design and production. The management of production quality started as a highly prescriptive process. As aviation grew into a global industry, the risks associated with poor design or faulty production became all too apparent.

In the civil industry, regulatory systems developed to address the control of design and production as two different worlds. Airworthiness, or fitness to fly, depended on having a good design that was produced in a consistent and reliable manner. So, now we have a regulatory framework with two pivotal concepts: DOA (Design Organisation Approval) and POA (Production Organisation Approval). It took about a century to get here. Now, these concepts are codified within EASA Part 21, FAA regulations, and other national aviation authorities’ frameworks.

Here’s my more controversial point. Is this internationally accepted regulatory model, that has evolved, conditioned by circumstances, the right one for the future? Are the airworthiness concepts of DOA and POA out of date?

This is a question that nobody wants to hear. Evolution has proved to be a successful strategy. At least, to date. What I’m wondering is, now the world of traditional factories and large administrative workforces is passing, how will regulation adjust to meet future needs?

Maybe I’ll explore that subject next.

[1] https://aerospacebristol.org/

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

Paper in a Digital Age

It’s oblong and made of paper. My phone is oblong and made of a long list of exotic elements. Paper on the other hand is relatively simple. I’m sure a paperologist will correct me and describe its subtleties and complexities. Regardless, paper has been around for a long time.

Both have an ephemeral quality. Paper decays. It burns and bugs eat it. Digital media gets lost, overwritten or deleted. Without wires and suitable equipment, it doesn’t exist.

I think that God forbid, that if Armageddon did come to place, we’d find more paper remaining useful than surviving digital help. Henry Bemis[1] loved to read. Strangely, that’s what saved him from ultimate destruction. Try writing an equivalent story with an iPhone in hand and we would be disappointed with the results. That would really see a sad Bemis doom scrolling empty nothingness.

Contuining the banking theme. What I’m refereeing to here is an envelope containing my latest bank statement. Yes, I haven’t ticked the go paperless box on-line. To me there’s something reassuring about having a tangible paper copy of what exists in the digital ether. Even though it’s only a printout, it somehow feels more real.

Holding a statement in my hand, whatever its errors or miscalculations it cannot be altered. Unlike an on-line digital reading that a capable cybercriminal can flip in a second. Both have an ephemeral quality. One exudes a greater feeling of permanence.

Above “ephemeral” is the right word to use. My banking App on my phone is a good service. However, it encourages a certain neurosis. Whereas a paper bank statement turns up, periodically as a personal balance sheet summing up the ins and outs of a month, my App is changeable hour by hour, a less meaningful snapshot.

The News is full of this phenomenon. Snap shots of the county’s GDP going up and down every month are newsworthy but don’t tell us much about where we are going. That doesn’t stop politicians treating them as if they were a sign from some mythical deity. A small number that changes within a range of error doesn’t mark a beginning or end of an era.

I like tangible things. A paper report or statement is a tangible thing. I can hold it in my hand. It doesn’t change from moment to moment. It’s a record of a direction set, not an hourly windvane. However unfashionable, as a crusty gentleman of a certain age, I will continue to ask for a printed record of where I am and where I’ve been.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734683/

What’s in a box?

I didn’t have a jack-in-the-box as a toy. Springing into life at the flick of a catch. For the larger part frightening the living daylights out of a young child. Or is it play, and thus basic training that surprising events can be scary and fun? Early days of leaning to handle risks.

In this case my boxes are square. Although they don’t need to be square. They are square or rectangular on a ballot paper (usually). These boxes are a boundary within which a mark is put to say “yes” this applies or “no” this is does not apply. Naturally, that can be the other way around too. For that matter they can indicate all sorts of conditions or views.

Here’s my beef. Back in March, this year, me and the Sun developed our relationship. There’s the giveaway – year. My number of years on Earth clocked up to sixty-five. At the time, I didn’t think of this as any more significant than past birthdays as a man of mature years. Then I got to completing numerous questionaries. Yes, I have moved the subject to more stuff to do with data and its use. Collecting data has never been so popular.

Never in the whole of human history have we, you and me, been faced with so many questionnaires. Almost every time I buy a coffee, and use a card of App to collect points, next day my in-box has an e-mail with a survey. Most of these I just ignore. Now and then, I fill one in with the ridiculous idea that the insignificant draw prize they offer could come my way.

Please offer your feedback in this short survey. The number of minutes they say that are needed are never right. Then they, the collectors of my data, get greedy. Asking for “as much detail as possible”. At this point I want to say – get real. What’s even worse is clicking on the “Next” button and then an error message comes up saying “This is required”. What audacity. Checky. Pushing my good will to its limits. If there were questionnaires about questionnaires, when it asked: “please tell us how your experience was on this occasion” they would get more than 100 creative words.

All this said, my real beef is to do with the collection of personal data. There’s no obligation to provide such data, when it comes to marketing surveys. This is when the incentivising possibility of a prize comes in. Afterall this data is valuable to the collectors with little incentive for a respondent to offer it. Surveys with prizes must have published terms and conditions. I wonder if anyone ever reads these legal niceties.

To the point. One question that often gets asked is – tick the box appropriate to my age. What I’ve noticed is that several of these unsolicited surveys have a box marked sixty-five and over. It’s like a whole section of the population is piled into one big bucket. Like we all fall off the end of the bell curve. Over 11 million people in England and Wales are like one.

I’m part of a growing cohort. That maybe good or bad but it is the case. It’s the case too that my cohort spends. Again, for good or bad, we are the beneficiaries of some good fortune. However, marketing surveys continue to sit in the stone age. At both ends of the demographic bell curve, toddlers and more mature folk, we are viewed as the same, one big bucket. I imagine data collectors and the designers of surveys have wrestled with this one. Whatever, the results don’t sit well with me.

The Power of Numbers

If I was to give advice to a politician in power, it would go like this: numbers matter but don’t let them dictate the right course of action. Of course that’s fully loaded advice. The right course of action is subjective. That can mean expert or non-expert judgement of such a great wide range of felicity that it doesn’t bear thinking about.

For a long time, there was a mantra that organisational policy should be data driven. There’s quite a bit of wisdom in this statement as an alternative to arbitrary opinion and volatile reactivity. There’s no doubt an organisation is better off if it has a few able number crunchers.

I can recollect times when I’ve been advised to look favourably upon one way of presenting information as opposed to another way. Not that either was in error but that one way would reflect better on the management of an organisation. This is a perfect example of Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics[1]. Which is often nothing to do with lies but rather the presentation of information. Some would say manipulation.

Sacking a head of a Bureau of Statistics because the numbers their technical people produce are not favourable, well that’s one way to go. It’s the sort of action that’s take in devoutly authoritarian countries. Better not be embarrassing the higher ups at any cost.

Suddenly, I’m taken back to my “O” level history lessons. Our enthusiastic secondary school teacher who wanted us to love the Russian revolution as much as she did. It’s a fascinating but brutal period for Europe. Here I’m thinking of Stalin’s Five-Year Plans. A Russian official, in the late 1920s, would have been very unwise indeed to produce anything other than favourable statistics. However, for all the cruelty and suffering Russia did archive a rapid industrialisation.

Numbers matter. My dictum. If they are wildly inaccurate or manipulate numbers, they are worthless. Even presentational they are worthless because few will believe. Credibility is key but that’s often the issue. Who do you trust?

My domain has been aviation safety numbers. The analysis of these numbers can be of significant consequence. Going back to that data driven philosophy, if the numbers are wrong the direction of travel will be wrong. When policy making has an objective basis then it’s much easier to justify to a wide audience. There are advantages in having trustworthy numbers.

In the ideal world, a degree of independence is essential. This is so that the producers of statistics and associate information can endeavour to be accurate and unbiased. Doing this without fear or favour to any interested party can take some resolve. It’s only possible in an environment that is both inquisitive and respectful.

I say “degree of” as an observation. Just as investigators often follow the money trail, it’s as well to consider who is paying the bills. The analyst’s salaries must come from somewhere. Again, in an idea cultural environment where integrity and trust are valued, it’s not those who are funding the number crunching work that should determine (dictate) the results. Let the numbers speak.

The ideal world doesn’t exist but it’s clearly unwise to swerve away from it at speed.

[1] https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

Why 12,500 Pounds?

Regulation is a strange business. It often means drawing lines between A and B. Bit like map making. Those lines on a map that mark out where you are and the features of the landscape. You could say that’s when all our troubles start but it’s been proven unavoidable. As soon as our vocabulary extends to words like “big” and “small” someone somewhere is going to ask for a definition. What do you mean? Explain.

For a while you may be able to get away with saying; well, it’s obvious. That works when it is obvious for all to see. An alpine mountain is bigger than a molehill. When you get to the region where it’s not clear if a large hill is a small mountain, or not then discussion gets interesting. Some say 1000 ft (about 300 m) others say much more. There’s no one universal definition.

[This week, I drove through the Brecon Beacons. Not big mountains but treeless mountains, nevertheless. Fine on a clear day but when it rains that’s a different story. This week Wales looked at its best].

Aviation progressed by both evolution and revolution. Undeniably because of the risks involved it’s a highly regulated sector of activity. Not only that but people are rightly sensitive about objects flying over their heads.

For reasons that I will not go into, I’ve been looking at one of these lines on a regulatory map. One that’s been around for a long time.

I cannot tell you how many discussions about what’s “minor” and what’s “major” that have taken place. That’s in terms of an aircraft modification. However, these terms are well documented. Digging out and crewing over the background material and rationale is not too difficult, if you are deeply interested in the subject.

The subject I’m thinking about is that difference between what is considered in the rules to be a “large” aeroplane and a “small” aeroplane. Or for any American readers – airplane. So, I set off to do some quick research about where the figure of weight limit: maximum take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or less originated for small airplanes (aeroplanes).

I expected someone to comment; that’s obvious. The figure came from this or that historic document and has stuck ever since. It seems to work, most of the time. A confirmation or dismissal that I wanted addressed the question, is the longstanding folklore story is true. That the airplane weight limit was chosen in the early 1950s because it’s half the weight of one of the most popular commercial transport aircraft of that time.

There is no doubt that the Douglas DC-3[1] is an astonishing airplane. It started flying in 1935 and there are versions of it still flying. Rugged and reliable, this elegant metal monoplane is the star of Hollywood movies as well as having been the mainstay of the early air transport system is the US. Celebrations are in order. This year is the 90th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3[2].

What I’ve discovered, so far, is that the simple story may be true. Interestingly the rational for the weight figure has more to do with economic regulation than it has with airplane airworthiness. The early commercial air transport system was highly regulated by the State in matters both economic and safety. Managing competition was a bureaucratic process.  Routes needed approval. Thus, a distinction established between what was commercial air transport and what was not.

POST 1: There is no mention of 12,500 pounds in the excellent reference on the early days of civil aviation in the US. Commercial Air Transportation. John H. Frederick PhD. 1947 Revised Edition. Published by Richard D. Irwin Inc. Chicago.

POST 2: The small aircraft definition of 12,500 pounds max certificated take-off weight first appears in US CAB SPECIAL CIVIL AIR REGULATION. Effective February 20, 1952. AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 42 OF THE CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS. This was a subject of economic regulation in the creation of the air taxi class of operations.

[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/douglas-dc-3/nasm_A19530075000

[2] https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2025-07-17_dc3_society_celebrate_90_years_douglas_dc3_airventure25

Tariff Turbulence

Tariffs are back in the daily News again. In fact, they never went away it’s just that more attention getting events have been happening. Tariffs were something specialist trade negotiators talked about before this year started. Now, the word is commonplace.

The simple assumption is always made that everyone knows what the word means. Apparently, the origins of the word are Arabic[1]. Linked to information. Now, it’s a fee that someone must pay. The important bit being “must”. In this context it’s about the import and export of goods. The relations between countries.

A presumption made by politicians, who like these bureaucratic instruments, is that they can help protect a nation’s domestic industry from competition from other countries. Thus, tipping the balance away from investments made abroad to those made at home. This chimes with nationalistic instincts.

If only it were as simple. Globalisation is a reality. Kicking against it has its attractive points, if it weren’t for the overall benefits that it has delivered in recent decades. Much of the technology we take for granted is available at low prices because of where and how it’s manufactured.

One advice given out by banks is to avoid knee-jerk reactions. In other words, the ups and downs and on and offs of changing tariff regimes may seem to demand an immediate response. However, it could be wiser to ride out the turbulence of these early months of 2025. To sit back and let the dust settle.

Politically driven efforts to disrupt global trade are likely to impact both importer and exporter. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes walking around a large warehouse store to see goods originating from all over the world. That is quality goods that are offered for sale at astonishingly low prices. It astounds me that I can easily buy a perfectly good basic kitchen microwave for £50.

I hate to say it, but I don’t think there’s anyway whatsoever that a domestic manufacturer could compete with that electrical product’s price and quality even if there was a 100% tariff placed on its import. The story vacuum cleaners is one of designs emanating from Britain but being made in Asia. Globalisation is a reality.

I will make at least one concession. That’s the environmental one. Shipping vast qualities of raw materials and goods around the globe has a real cost. An environmental cost. So, it would be wise, at least, to investigate if domestic production is a viable prospect before automatically assuming an import is better. This is a matter for both industry and public policy.

Not only this point but for some critical products, say steel and semiconductors, there should be a domestic capability even if it’s only aimed at meeting a fraction of the potential demand. Strategic needs are not trivial.

Are tariffs a good way to shift the global balance sheet? To me the answer depends on adopting either a short-term or long-term perspective. Certainly, in the later tariffs are a foolish measure. My recollections come from the history of subsidised industries in the 1970s and the poor products that resulted. It a sorry saga of designed decline. One quick look at the story of the British Leyland Motor Company (BLMC) is a good lesson.

I know for a liberal I sound Thatcherite but competition brings better outcomes than protectionism. That generally depends on a level playing field. Yes, tariffs are a form domestic protectionism and that’s much like a permanent subsidy. Trouble is that permanence is never permanent.

Trump maybe a part-time socialist. If not by word then by action. For the time being the tariff humbug will continue to command attention. In the longer term – I think not. Relearning what has been learnt in the past.

[1] https://blog.collinsdictionary.com/language-lovers/the-fascinating-journey-of-the-word-tariff/

Probabilistic Predictions

Uncertainty is the only certainty. Not a radical statement. As long as I live, dealing with uncertainty is inevitable. Unavoidable everywhere. I wouldn’t have it any other way, even if it can be uncomfortable.

Prominent Ancient Greeks may have travelled to Delphi for advice as to what the future may hold. There’re those three enigmatic witches who warn Macbeth of his fate. History and fiction are littered with references.

For me, I can pick-up a newspaper and look for a daily astrological prediction. One I like. I can flick around social media and see more prophecies than ever. Mostly gibberish. There are those convinced of their foresight.

Despite a cynical disposition towards the above, science can be applied to the world of uncertainty. Generally, the proposition is that an element of the past and present will be reproduced in the future. This is not absolute. However, human engineered systems tend to behave with a degree of predictability.

Empirical methods, where society collects data from the past and present, can be useful in trying to forecast what may happen next. The more deterministic the systems under study, the more useful acquired data can be. For these, forecasting challenges mount for the new, novel, or radically altered.

I’m writing this given the interest there is in probabilistic safety. There are figures that hit the headlines that are almost incompressible. If the rationale behind the numbers is not clear then incorrect assumptions result. Tiny numbers from 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-9 are quoted in the News (SI Units). What do they mean? Let’s start with simple probability.

If an occurrence is certain then a numerical value of “1” can be given to it.

Absolute certainty is a rare thing. I can say that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and most people will take that as a statement of certainty. Intriguingly there’s the most incredibly improbable case where the solar system is thrown into instability and the Sunrise isn’t as expected.

If an occurrence never happens then a numerical value of “0” can be given to it.

Absolute impossibility is only possible with absolute knowledge. So, again it’s rare. I can say that human time-travel, to and from the distant past, is only fiction to next discover that a way has been found.

Let’s say we live in a world where the probability of occurrences ranges from the 0.99999, with ever more “9s”, to a number as small as 1 x 10-30[1]. A quecto.

These extreme numbers are nice for physicists and astronomers to play with, but they are outside normal engineering practices. As yet, we do not have the means to operate at the level of these limits. Time will tell. Or I maybe wrong.

By the way, I used the word “occurrence” above to denote anything that can happen in an instant. When talking about undesirable happenings, that can mean an incident, accident, mishap, slip, failure, or error. Each of these has a definition. Often more than one.

Next. I’ll go back to the tiny numbers more commonly quoted.

POST: For extraordinary numbers we need look no further than the nimble electron. So far, the best measurement for the life of an electron suggests that one now will still be around in 66,000 yottayears (6.6 × 1028 yrs). That’s about 5-quintillion times the current age of our universe. 

[1] https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si-prefixes