Perceptions of Aviation Professionals

Let’s see what aviation stereotypes look like. There’s a wide selection of free images on-line. There’s a typical view of the crew of an aircraft. It didn’t take long to find one.

I can point out the obvious gender related features of such images, but what first caught my eye were the aircraft engines. They were way to far out on the wings. I suspect our good friend artificial intelligence may have generated such a colourful image.

Now let’s go for an Air Traffic Controller. The image that came up did have plus points. It did give an impression of what a controller’s job is about, at least as much as a simple graphic image can. I did expect to see a radar screen with dots on it as part of the image. A controller sitting at a desk with buttons to press and a window to look out of sums up the basic picture.

Next my on-line search was for an aircraft mechanic. Now, I started this search with low expectations of what might come up. The picture I got was of a hanger with two large aircraft to the left and right. Standing in the middle of this scene was a man in overalls moving an aircraft engine on a trolly. Proportions were off, in that the engine diameter was half the hight of the mechanic. Yes, the stereotype of a workingman with a spanner persists.

So, what have I discovered? Not much really. Or not much that didn’t fit the title of time-honoured stereotype. Images that pigeonhole jobs as done by people who dress in a particular way and are surrounded by the equipment of their trade. Roles, age, race and gender are fixed in a traditional pattern. I do draw the conclusion that, for all the daily hype, artificial intelligence is not going to do anything original when faced with a simple question about specific job.

This isn’t good. If the latest advance in technology is locked into classical and predicable images from the archives, then it’s not so advanced at all.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a great deal of concern about where the next generation of professional in aviation are going to come from. Our wish to fly is affected by lots of social, environmental, and economic factors. Overall, the trend over coming decades is in one direction – up. More flights, more aircraft, and the need for more people to operate the system.

If the generic images of the professional roles in aviation are stuck in the past, then that’s not going to help. It’s off-putting. There are those young people who may find the traditional professional stereotypes appealing. My guess is the majority are unlikely to think this way.

In an on-line environment where artificial intelligence regurgitates the past this technology may drive us backwards. Not for one moment does the image of a workingman with a spanner need to be demoted. What needs a touch of imagination is a portrayal of images more akin to reality. A changing reality too.

[Yes, the title image is an appropriately prompted artificial intelligence generate one provided by WordPress].

Defense Needs

I’m a simple creature. Not too difficult to agree. Controlling a country’s border is one of the fundamental aspects of national security. However, it’s one amongst many and it’s not the single most important. Certainly, I’d put provisioning and training of the country’s military personnel above that of basic border control. It’s possible to carry more than one priority. What’s important is to put those priorities in the right order.

There’s a lot to be said for the notion of speaking softly and carrying a big stick[1]. Possessing strength is as much about perception as reality. But if the gap between the two grows too far then trouble is just around the corner.

Thus, the media obsession with immigration, at a time when it’s clear that the peace dividend that has been taken since the falling of the Berlin Wall has gone too far, is an indulgence. It’s missing the point by a million miles. Putting up more barriers and walls is not a way of building strength. The past should teach us that lesson. Dare I say, a lot of people are being led by the nose in the wrong direction.

Saying that we live in turbulent times can be a predicable line. Turbulence, in one part of the world or another, is a constant. However, in today’s mishmash of geopolitical movements, we here in Europe have been fortunate, at least in the last 40-years.

The Cold War was a clear and present danger to our way of life. That story was played out as I left school. The prospect of an accidental nuclear catastrophe was real. As such the UK invested in national defence along with its close allies. Sometimes not wisely, it’s true, but the threat was well understood. As the threat appeared to diminish so government spending habits changed. For perfectly understandable reasons the end of the Cold War ushered in a period in which society focused less on military provisioning. Government turned its attention to issues that were more at the forefront of day-to-day public demands. Blown by the winds of regular media frenzies.

Yesterday, in the rain, I visited a local arts centre. Greenham Common[2] is now an industrial estate and open parkland. The military runway has long been ripped up. That’s good. What we shouldn’t forget is the history of the place.

Big stick diplomacy is about sober confidence that is backed by an unquestionable capability for immediate action. It seems to me that the UK has slipped a long way from that philosophy. Recent events have tested the gap between words and deeds.

Where does the cacophony of voices about immigration came from? One source is political parties that take money from foreign donors. Another is media organisations who have a track record for backing the wrong people. Another is spokespeople who don’t have the UK’s best interests at heart. Yet, these all get massive amounts of press coverage.

The current US President may have a considerable number of faults. In one area he’s right. It’s not easy to say he’s right. Europe must stand on its own two feet. That’s a Europe that includes the UK. Our national security is only sustainable by working closely with our neighbours.

So, we need to get off a short-term media obsession about immigration.

Start being serious about what we spend on defence and why. The government’s defence investment plan, originally scheduled for last year, needs to be settled and put into action. There’s no point in talking big and carrying a lesser stick. In fact, it’s dangerous.

POST: Industry calls for closer links Fast-Tracking EU-UK Defence Industrial Cooperation: a critical reset – ADS Group


[1] widely attributed to US President Theodore Roosevelt.

[2] https://visitnewbury.org.uk/attractions/raf-greenham-common-crookham-common/

Understanding Conspicuity

It’s a weird word. That’s if you have not come across it before. How it’s used depends a lot on the context. Conspicuity isn’t everyday langauage.

One way to picture this word is to imagine a cyclist on a busy but poorly lit road. This is a case every driver has observed, I’m sure. Let’s consider two distinct cases. One where the cyclist is wearing dark cloths and riding without lights. The other case is where the cyclist is wearing a luminous jacket and is riding with lights. No prizes for guessing which one is the most conspicuous. Not only that, but the one who is less likely to be involved in an accident.

This is a simple two-dimensional space where two vehicles, or more, share a road. Both have a right to be there. However, one road user is much more vulnerable than the other. Being noticed, being seen, is key to a rider’s safety. Not a guarantee of safety. A necessary consideration, if not a mandatory one. Both driver and rider need to see each other for there to be safe operation.

In aviation the situation gets a whole lot more complex. For a start flying objects move in three-dimensional space and at speeds that can differ dramatically. From a static ballon to a fast military jet. Yet, just like driving on the roads the most basic way of avoiding collisions is to see and avoid. Naturally, there are a whole collection of rules of the air that wrap around that requirement. These rules set-up expectations that pilots will behave in predicable ways.

As technology has developed so the reliance on see and avoid has changed. Recently, I have found this is happening on the roads too. Sensors on my new car provide an autobraking function that kicks in when approaching a slower moving vehicle ahead. There’s a tracking function that nudges the steering wheel when drifting across a white line. Both forms of safety automation can be deselected. Do they result in fewer collisions? I don’t know.

There’s another aspect of flying that is an obvious difference from life on the roads. When collisions happen those involved are not going to stay put. Gravity will do its job. If an impact is sufficiently severe then it’s highly likely that one or more aircraft will not be flyable. An incident turns quickly into a catastrophe.

Thus, in aviation it’s vital that not only does each pilot need to know where they are but they need to know about everything around them. The condition of being conspicuous is not optional. It’s best if aircraft are easy to see. Surprisingly, this is far from always being the case. Unlike the lines on the roads, paths in the air crisscross and aircraft can be above and below one another. The geometry involved can get extremely complicated.

In the 1920s, innovations in Croydon[1] led to the world’s first air traffic control system. A growing amount of air traffic meant that a means had to be found to regulate their use of the air space. This was possible because an electronic means of aircraft communication had become viable.

The subject of Electronic Conspicuity[2] has come on in leaps and bound ever since. Finding ways of sharing awareness of everyone’s situation has made aviation safer. Radar and aircraft transponders are an integral part of commercial flying. This story doesn’t stop. I could go as far as to say that this whole subject is still in its infancy. With ever more airspace users demanding access then innovations continue to be absolutely vital.


[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/ops-safety/2020/02/colourised-images-mark-centenary-of-worlds-first-control-tower/

[2] https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Electronic-Conspicuity-devices/

Make a mark

Daily writing prompt
Do you vote in political elections?

I vote, stand, campaign, but never officiate in public ones. It needs to be said time and time again. Particularly to younger people. If you don’t vote, then don’t complain afterwards. Not that, that would make much difference afterwards given that complaining is part of our culture. A cross in a box, as it is in the UK, mostly, is key part of a citizen’s responsibility. Make a mark, even if it seems small beer. That said, it’s as well to take a moment to consider the candidates in front of you on their individual merit.

Journey to and from Space

Words count. Even so, this is the age of the image. An almost infinite variety of pixels arranged to capture a moment in time. That’s what has come back from the Moon along with the safe return of the astronauts last night. When I switched the radio at around one in the morning the story was unfolding. Methodical commentary following s flight back to Earth step by step.

There’s nothing like live suspense. The Moon mission was not complete until the safety of everyone involved was assured. Along with launch, re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere is still the biggest challenge in human space flight. As happened with the space shuttle tragedy, it feels doubly tragic to successfully undertake a mission and not make it home.

Outstanding design, meticulous planning, precision execution and good fortune all come together to make a transition from the void of space to the surface of Earth a success. It’s been said a lot of times; surely there’s a better way of getting home. Hurling a capsule along a path, to make a trajectory at incredible speed, heating like a furnace, is necessary but has an element of crudity about it.

The method used to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere works. What’s unsettling is that it’s a million miles from the fanciful methods that are frequently depicted in science fiction. Almost as if nature is adverse to humans leaving the planet. Earth’s atmosphere is the greatest asset life has but it’s also a tough barrier. Transitioning it will never be simple.

Various imaginative ideas have been presented over the decades. Yet, they are picture perfect illustrations and little more. For example, the space elevator[1] is a viable concept. The downside is that humanity does not have the technology to make it work. If it did the problem would be marshalling the international cooperation needed to make it possible. Then sustaining that cooperation for generations.

Today we are stuck with methods that are one shot technologies. Costly and throw away. Huge rockets that are discarded. Spacecraft that become museum pieces, if the make it back.

It occurs to me that I have been born into the space age. An age when humanity is taking baby steps exploring the practically infinite. To go further a next step, maybe decades ahead, will open greater possibilities. For now, the sheer cost of coming and going from space will shape everything that is done.

The prospect of commercialisation is real. Depending solely on State entities to fund every mission has sever limitations. However, the commercial enterprises that can take on the challenge of space flight are few in number. What’s needed is a construction of regulatory frameworks that fairly and soundly distribute both costs and benefits for future projects.

I’d place emphasis on this work needing to be for all humanity. Not easy to do given the global history of commercial enterprises. Having a new East India Company[2] for space exploitation is not an attractive prospect.


[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm

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

Refuse to Go

Daily writing prompt
What place in the world do you never want to visit? Why?

A place with no redeeming features. A place void of life. A place where the sun doesn’t shine or shines unendingly. Well, not really. I’d be fine with the above landscapes. Not for long, naturally.

The place I don’t want to be is where a large predator sees me as its next lunch. Add to that having no way of avoiding an unpleasant fate. That’s no place to be.

Myth or Productivity Booster?

A four-day week. It’s true that there’s nothing magical about the conventional five-day week. It’s an invention of modern times. There are plenty of self-employed people who’d say there were working a seven-day week. So, is the claim made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) advocates merely a sales pitch or does it have any substance?

Much depends on how seriously we take this mythical word called “productivity”. I’ve put it like this because there’s a million and one ways of determining what needs to be done as opposed to what people want to do and, when things go wrong, are forced to do.

A beaver is extremely productive. There’s an ingrained motivation to use what nature has provided to build a dam and a home. It’s non-stop. Come setbacks or successes this innovative creature keeps on going. It doesn’t watch the clock. Rarely discouraged.

I’m going to bring up a small paperback that cost 3 shillings and 6 pence when it was published. It’s one of those books that is both comedy and seriousness wrapped up in one. Parkinson’s law or the pursuit of progress is older than I am. It was first published in 1957.

The plot is simple but there are several messages. One for example, relates to the provision of resources. It goes something like this – if only we had a couple more staff and a state or the art information system we could double our efficiency. That’s contrasted by a view of past statistics that often shows a growth in staffing (or computing power) and roughly the same or even less being achieved. Why it’s suggested that AI will circumvent this nicety, I’m not sure. Speed and multiplication don’t always add up to building better projects or being more “productive”.

What a wonderful world it was going to be. The future now. I remember that clunky personal computer on my desk, in about 1996. The sounds of the dial-up modem connecting to the information superhighway of the day. The world wide web was so new we had to keep reminding ourselves of what the www stood for. Boxes of floppy disks replaced filing cabinets.

Here we are 30-years later and what do I find, or not find as the case may be? Tens of thousands of files generated by Apps on my smart phone, tablet and desktop. Whereas once I’d mastered constructing folders with logical names and placing documents exactly where I could find them in their latest version, now I’ve got an unfathomable messy clutter.

Have I become more “productive”? That entirely depends upon what is meant by that word. Decluttering digital information isn’t that much different from decluttering piles of paper on an over weighted office desk. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Where does a four-day week sit in that equation? Parkinson would likely say that whatever the length of the working week we’d fill it with activity. It’s almost transparent to the tools used whether they be paper based or applying the latest powerful computing capabilities.

Remember decades ago, we said; public services were going to be dramatically improved because we could be contacted by e-mail. Scrapping the paper in-tray was a day many people longed for. Files wouldn’t be delayed as they passed from office to office. Desk to desk. Or so it seemed. I don’t think we’ve stopped complaining about public services – have we?

There is one possible new element. If AI use means that humans abdicate from decision-making, then a new situation comes about. This needs to be a choice. Forcing humans out of the loop to chase the God of productivity is a dangerous pathway.

Return to the Moon

Return to the Moon is the aim of the latest American project to venture into space. It’s an ambitious attempt to get to the Moon and eventually to establish a base on its surface. 

For fans of the British TV series Space 1999 it’s a possible realisation of Moon base Alpha. Although the reality is likely to be rather more modest in size. As far as we know there’s no aliens to repel or possibility of being spun into the empty void of space.

Setting up camp on a Moon, with no atmosphere and much less gravitational pull than Earth, is not for the faint hearted. Just the act of landing on it without crashing into it takes considerable skill. I remember early computer games based on a simple lunar lander. Block graphics written in BASIC floating across the screen.

Look as hard as you can, there are no signs of cows jumping this morning. That nursery rhyme is to be left on the shelf. If the Moon bound astronauts should see a cow on their mission, then I’m sure that it’s more a case of something they ate rather than a bovine space traveller.

This space mission should take humans further away from our home planet than any human has travelled. Hopefully this will happen as per the script. It seems strange that it has taken until 2026 to mark this great achievement.

Makes me think of the HHGTTG and the reference to humans being so lazy that they can’t be bothered to travel to their closest star. Afterall the plans for the demolition of the Earth have been sitting there for all to see for eons.

In fictional space travel terms this mission to the Moon is baby steps. A hop to our constant satellite. Both an opportunity to admire it close and look back at the Earth. To look back to see the whole Earth. Not a single boundary fence or line on a map. Not a palace or bunker.

Passing over the dark side of the Moon has been done before. Immortalised by Pink Floyd, the dark side is a unique place that few have seen with their own eyes. Yes, a spacecraft has landed there but there remains something spooky about the face that’s turned away from us.

One thing is for sure. Should they succeed, these 21st century astronauts can report back to US President Trump. They can finally confirm that the Moon is not made of green cheese. Rumours may persist amongst the flat earthers. Conspiracy theories do the rounds on a regular basis. Modern popular culture hasn’t embraced the green cheese theory – yet.

Return to the Moon is a grand ambition. Not a lot of practical benefits to be gained in the short-term. This is more a venture for the long-term. If we are to become a spacefaring race, then these are steps that must be taken.

Uncertain Times

What do you do when faced with abusive and disruptive behaviour? For the most part, it’s common to have an emotional response and an idealistic one. That’s not the way situations play out, in reality. We do not live in a world of superheroes where a baddy is reformed and order is restored. Well, not always.

World affairs are full of tragic circumstances. Full of volatility too. One moment paise goes to a friend and the next minute insults are thrown like confetti. There’s a rhythm to this backwards and forwards stream of words. It’s plagued with inconsistency and simple error.

Let’s say a disruptive colleague is ranting and raving about the rights and wrongs of the day’s news. It’s great to say – just tell him to take a walk. Clam down and engage brain. In the idea situation there’s some form of accountability. All actions have a consequence.

Here we are. There’s a crisis on the doorstep. A war is raging and it’s only just begun. Setting light an oil rich part of the globe has ramifications everywhere.

Putting aside the fact that history has given us plenty of warnings about situations like this one. Continuing to be dependent upon sources of fossil fuel is not sustainable. However, we look at it, eventually this elixir of the modern world will run out. In the meantime, the foolishness of increasing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is proven.

Here in Europe, a clear divide is growing. Historically, fair trade, the rule of law and common defence goals have marked out the relationship between Europe and the US. In international institutions the two have a long record of supporting each other. Common interests run through the thread of affairs like the words in a stick of rock[1].

Donald Trump’s second term as President of the US is proving to be a massive test to that long thread. Interests are diverging. Diverging not between the people of Europe and the US but between their political leaders.

So, let’s remember that political leaders are like fireflies. They go through several stages during their careers. The last one is most often marked by failure. One witty guy said that the adage that political careers end in failure needs to be changed. In fact, all political careers end in the publication of memoirs. Often saying – I was right all the time. With Trump it’s as if he (or his ghost writer) is writing his memoirs as he goes.

It’s abundantly clear, for the next couple of years, Europe and the US are going to travel different paths. As ever, the UK must choose or end up straddling a wide gulf. With Europe the tenants of fair trade, the rule of law and common defence goals still stand.

One day, in the not-too-distant future, I will be a septuagenarian. I hope that the passing of years has enabled me to accrue some wisdom. I’m determined not to succumb to disruptive and unruly incoherence. Even if I do, I hope that I’m not in a position of power that encourages those around be to become sycophantic.

Democratic processes do have a way of punishing political failure. They need to kick-in.


[1] https://brightonbitesback.com/a-history-of-brighton-rock-candy/