Now, I get asked the question: what is Airworthiness? Now you might think the answer was easy. Just for an analogy you might say; there’s Roadworthiness and Seaworthiness too. Strangely enough the words; Spaceworthiness and Railworthiness are quite valid but not so often heard outside their fields. Thus, Land, Sea, Air and Space are all covered.
With a different focus the word; Crashworthiness is often used. Finally, new to the fold is the up and coming term of Cyberworthiness.
Unsurprisingly, these words are all associated with fitness, legality, safety, soundness and reliability.
In definitions my preference is for simplicity. Several dictionaries go for the unpretentious definition of airworthiness as: “Fitness to fly”. Now there are lot of implications associated with that level of brevity. An aircraft one person considers fit to fly may be totally unfit in the eyes of another. But, at least those three words get the general concept across because no one would want to knowingly fly in an unfit aircraft. As one of the classics in aviation quotations sums up nicely: “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.[1]”
The next element is legality. It’s not enough say; this aircraft is fit to fly so jump on-board and let’s go. From the first days of flying it was quickly recognised that accidents and incidents were going to happen. Some would be fatal. Gradually a whole framework of legislation grew-up around flying with the aim of addressing the risks to aviators, their passengers and to the public.
In the early months of 1944, the US Government invited 55 Allied and Neutral States to attend a conference in Chicago. This forward-looking proposal was to take on the issues and problems that were arising as aviation became more international. 52 States turned up and the outcome was the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This Chicago Convention was signed in December 1944
Airworthiness was not the first concern of this gathering but the process that followed soon realised that international standards and practices were going to be needed. So, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was born. Under Article 37[2] of the Chicago Convention, ICAO is obliged to adopt international standards addressing the airworthiness of aircraft and the licencing of personnel.
Airworthiness became a measure of an aircraft’s suitability for safe flight. ICAO defines the word “Airworthy” as the status of an aircraft, engine, propeller or part when it conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation.
For practical purposes, Airworthiness can be considered as the sum of:
- An aircraft designed, manufactured and certificated in accordance with requirements;
- A continued airworthiness programme to support the aircraft in service;
- A maintenance programme to ensure the aircraft is properly serviced and maintained and
- Availability of licenced personnel to certify that tasks associated with the above have been properly completed.
Here you can see that Airworthiness has become an aircraft plus a process to assure suitability for safe flight. Today that’s what it is as interpreted and implemented across the globe.
[1] Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. c. early 1930’s.
[2] https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_orig.pdf
Change doesn’t come for free. It’s a common misconception that moving from one way of doing things to another can be done without a lot of effort. Over simplification is used to persuade people to make a change because their reluctance may be difficult to overcome. This is drama being played out big time in the Brexit debate. Week after week, Brexit supporting politicians come up with bland statements to try to offer assurance and comfort to their supporters. Last year, Liam Fox said; the Brexit deal will be the “easiest thing in human history”. David Davis was criticised for his “simple and easy” Brexit claim. Former Ministers have said trade talks should be “easy”.
The image of Britain standing in world wars against German domination has fed Euroscepticism in the UK. Yes, German Ambassador, Dr Peter Ammon has a good point.
Anytime something goes badly wrong its human to look around for something or someone to blame. It often a destructive emotional human response to a grim situation. However controlled, objective and rational you maybe its remarkably difficult to hold back and think through what’s going on without the temptation to lash out. The closer a person is to the event in question the stronger the response. After all its one thing to watch an accident unfold on a smartphone and its quite another to see it impacting people all around you.
I keep seeing the word “bespoke” in articles written about Brexit. It’s the unspoken strategy of the UK Government for a tailored outcome to negotiations that is unique in its advantages and unlike any existing agreements the EU has with third Counties. On the one point, there’s no doubt the UK’s position is unique. To have been a big player in the EU for 40 years and then to leave it without a compass or a map is a special situation.
Can I say anything good about Brexit? The answer is emphatically “no” but….. Intriguing is the “but”. Yes, it’s often the last part of the sentence that’s the most interesting. Bit like learning German. Having to listen to the whole sentence before you can figure out what’s going on. Anyway, I digress. I’d better rephrase that question like so; is there anything positive that supporters of Brexit and I might like? Well, yes, maybe there is but there are better ways to get to it than Brexit. We can do without all the jingoistic nationalism that Brexit is wrapped in.
Why do things fail? Now, in a technical sense, I’ve had quite a long experience finding out. Accidents, incidents, breakdowns, crashes, catastrophise, mistakes, mishaps, errors, call it what you will – “to err is human” (to forgive divine) so the English idiom goes. Never will there be a time when we get everything right all the time. Don’t be misled. That idiom is not pessimistic, as if to say there’s nothing we can do, in a fatalistic way.
It’s a biblical quote: “A house divided against itself cannot stand” and it was used by Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois on 16 June 1858. In a speech against slavery, he said: “I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” Lincoln was right but at that time he was heavily criticised for his courageous remarks.
So, what might be on the road ahead? It’s clear, the road behind is littered with failures and mistakes but we have the capacity to learn from what went wrong in 2016 and 2017. The year ahead is a great opportunity to make amends. It’s the verge of the New Year and I’m happy to indulge in one or two predictions for 2018.