From Prescription to Performance-Based Regulation

One regulatory development that has stuck since the start of the new century is the idea that we need to transition from prescriptive requirements to performance-based requirements. It’s not too hard to understand where the motivation to change has come from but there are several strands to the path. Here’s three that come to mind.

For one, the intense dislike of overbearing governmental regulators who adopt an almost parental attitude towards industry. It’s true that safety regulatory bodies have a duty to serve the public interest. The difficulty arises in interpreting that brief. Not as police officers sometimes did, imagining everyone as a potential miscreant.

My experience as a regulator started at a time when traditional institutional approach was quite common. There was a respectful distance between the airworthiness surveyor or operations inspector and the aviation industry that they oversaw. I think, even the term “surveyor” was one inherited from the insurance industry at the birth of flying.

A wave of liberalisation swept into the 1980s. It was an anathema to those who started their careers as men from the Ministry. The idea that regulators should be in a partnership with industry to meet common goals was not easily accepted. Undoubtably a change was necessary and, naturally, easier for an up-and-coming generation.

The next move away from regulatory prescription came as its value declined. That is, not that there will not always be an element of prescription by matter of the written law. However, for detailed technical considerations it became less and less practical to say, this is the way it must be. The minute decision-makers were faced with the complexity of a microprocessor it become clear that it’s not effective to simply prescribe solutions.

Much of the changes that took place can be traced to the evolution of system safety assessment and the use of probabilistic methods in aviation. In mechanics, prescribing a safety guard for a chain drive is straightforward. For complex electronics saying when a flight system is safe enough requires a different approach. Regulators are now driven to set objective rather than dictate solutions.

My third point is a future looking one. Whatever the history and heritage of aeronautical innovation, it’s true that a “conservative” but rapid adoption of new technology continues to be a source of success. Great safety success as well as commercial success.

Hidden amongst the successes are products, and ways of working that don’t meet the grade. The joke goes something like this: “How can I make a fortune in aviation?” Answer: “Just start with a big one.” Implicit in this observation is a wiliness to innovate at risk. That means, amongst many things, having confidence, adaptability and not be so constrained as to be assured failure. An objective or performance-based approach to safety regulation opens opportunity to innovate more freely whilst still protecting the public interest in safety.

There’s no fixed destination for regulatory development.

Key Milestones in Safety Management

One chunk of a recalling of the path civil aviation has taken in the last 40-years is called: Safety Management Systems (SMS). It’s a method or set of methods that didn’t arrive fully formed. It can easy be assumed that a guru with a long white beard stormed out of his quiet hermitage to declare a eureka moment. No such thing happened.

Through every part of my engineering design career the importance of reliability and quality systems was evident. Codified, procedural and often tedious. Some say the quality movement had its origins in the world of the 1960s moonshot and the advent of nuclear weapons. I don’t think there’s a single spring from which the thinking flows.

That said, there are notable minds that shaped the development of standardised quality systems. Acknowledging that the Deming Cycle[1] is core component doesn’t take too much of a leap. It’s a simple idea for capturing the idea of continuous improvement. Aerospace design and production organisations adopted this method readily.

Those first steps were all about the Q word, Quality. How to deliver a product that reliably worked to specification. At the time the S word, Safety wasn’t spoken of in the same way. There had been an underlying presumption that quality success led to safety success. However, this was not entirely true. An aerospace product can leave a factory 100% compliant with a pile of requirements, specifications and tests only to subsequently reveal failing and weaknesses in operational service.

In the saddest of cases those failing and weaknesses were discovered because of formal accident or incident investigation. In civil aviation these are conducted independently. Worldwide accident investigators and aircraft operators often detected a lack of learning from past events. This situation stimulated activities aimed at accident prevention.

In 1984, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published the first edition of its Accident Prevention Manual. This document introduced concepts and methods aimed at accident prevention. It was a pick and mix of initiatives and processes gleamed from the best-known practices of the time.

One of the jobs I had on joining the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Safety Regulation Group (SRG) was to work with the ICAO secretariate on an update to the Accident Prevention Manual (Doc 9422). The UK CAA has long been an advocate and early adopter of occurrence reporting and flight monitoring. Both were seen as key means to prevent aviation accidents.

It was envisaged that a second edition of the manual would be available in 2001. That didn’t happen. Instead, ICAO decided to harmonise information available on safety and put that into one manual. At that point safety information was scattered around the various ICAO Annexes. Thus, the content of the Accident Prevention Manual was consolidated into the Safety Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859). This new document was first published in 2006.

There’s much more to say since the above is merely a quick snapshot.

[1] https://deming.org/explore/pdsa/

1985 to 2025 Trends

On reading J. C. Chaplin’s paper on the first 100-years of aviation safety regulation in the UK[1], it struck me that the journey from the 1910s to the 2010s was one of constant change. That change has not slowed down. In fact, the last 40-years of my aviation career have seen dramatic technological changes that have demanded ever new regulatory methods and practices.  

Overwhelmingly aviation history writings obsess about the early days of flying or the start of the jet age. It’s as if those periods were so dominated by great pioneers that nothing worthy has happened since. I exaggerate for effect, but I think you get the meaning of my comment.

So, what of the race from the 1985 to the 2025? I think that is useful period to look at. One of the reasons is that those years are mark the transition from an analogue era to a digital one.

The early 1980s saw experimentation with the potential for digital technologies, most particularly fly-by-wire systems. Quickly the military understood the increase in aircraft performance that could be gained by use of such technologies. Groundbreaking was Concorde in that it demonstrated that critical electronic control systems could safely go into everyday operation. That project drove the development of new regulatory methods and practices. 

A turning point occurred in the mid-1980s. That silicon revolution that impacted so much of life was dramatically put to use in civil aviation. Computing power had so miniaturised and become affordable so that past theoretical possibilities could now be practically realised.

The Airbus A320 aircraft first flew in 1987. It was a shaky start. Not everyone was convinced that safety critical systems were indeed safe. The not so obvious discovery that the human factor was even more important for a computerised aircraft. Learning to adapt and adjust ways of operating didn’t happen overnight.

The lesson is that learning lessons must be part of the process. Through applying continuous improvement, the Airbus A320 family has grown ever since.

Maybe there needs to be a short paper to cover civil aviation safety regulation from 1985 to 2025. It’s needed now. It’s needed because the next 40-years are going to see equally dramatic changes. In the time to come the main driver will be the environment.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4858/safety-regulation-the-first-100-years.pdf

Tariffs Fail

Do you need to be a monster brain in economics to get the hang of tariffs? If you deep-dive into all the complexities surrounding every possibility, maybe you do. Nevertheless, the basics are the basics. Much like erecting a wall. Putting up a barrier makes it harder to do business. Harder to communicate. Harder to understand common concerns.

It’s a perfectly human thing to do. We erect barriers all over the place. That garden hedge, wooden fence or brick-built wall are a statement that says, this bit is mine and that bit is yours. Rarely is this absolute. Both sides of these unnatural barriers have mutual interests. Not admitting that reality is a problem. In fact, disputes between neighbours are one of the most common forms of dispute.

A barrier isn’t an invitation for you to disregard the concerns of your neighbours, and vice versa. That all night party, with the music turned up to eleven, maybe fine once a year but don’t do it every week. Well, don’t do it unless you are quarrelsome.

Economic barriers, like tariffs, are going to happen. When perception is all, the idea that one party can protect itself from those who would wish to do harm or take advantage, is very powerful. I say “perception” because a threat doesn’t need to be real. Politics is much about perception.

Trouble is that erecting barriers has a painfully poor history of failure. If we go back to walls, there’s not one that has stood the test of time. Maginot Line[1] is a case in point. The lesson there is that a barrier concentrates the opponents mind on how to overcome it. The elaborate nature of a barrier is no defence to the inventive mind. Barriers are time limited.

Tariffs, and non-tariff barriers are much the same. They may work to advantage for a while only to crumble when their weaknesses have been discovered. Although, I would say that non-tariff barriers are more powerful than straightforward economic barriers. The point being that the former is far more difficult to understand, counter and control.

2025 is a year of volatility, at least so far. Talk of tariffs is on, then it’s off, then it’s on again. It’s the real cat on the hot tin roof. A hop, a jump, and a skip. Everyone is left wondering what comes next. Even if there’s to be any return to a form of reasonable stability anytime soon. That’s the point.

Disruption offers opportunities. At least, for those quick inventive minds with resources to hand. If you don’t fit into that category, then chances are there’s a big downside and a lot of hurt.

To give the monopoly of the home market in the produce of domestic industry…………………must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or hurtful regulation. Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations (1776).

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maginot-Line

Exploring Sunday

To the rationalist everyday is the same. Earth turns on its axis. We all experience day and night. Day and night change as the season change. It’s all mechanical and predicable. Even the builders of Stonehenge knew that there was a rhythm to the year.

Last night, to mark that transition between the cold winter months and spring, the clocks went forward one hour. So, I’m already out of sync with my normal routine. Happy with it. Those extra hours of light in the evening are a great joy. Time to get the garden in shape.

This seventh and last day of the week, has a marker too. Christian communities see this day as a day to take stock, to rest. We don’t entirely observe that tradition anymore, but it is a different day. A day when life takes a slower pace.

If I go back to my youth, Sundays were distinct. The day was always a time set aside for visiting relatives. Now and then, a church or chapel service in the evening. West Country village life was one of compromises. We went backwards and forwards between the Church of England and a small Methodist chapel in an adjoining village.

Sunny spring and summer Sunday evenings could be unlike every other day. Until my parents gave up the dairy, and reliance on a cheque from the Milk Marketing Board[1], everything we did had to fit around milking time. Cows have internal clocks. They know when the time has come for milking.

Lighter spring evenings opened the opportunity to go visiting or, as we often did, going for a drive. All six of us would get packed into the family’s Wolseley 16/60. Dad would head off over the hills and vales of Somerset and Dorset to get some relief from the constant demands of the farm. Later on, the 16/60 was replaced by a newer bright white Wolseley 18/85[2]. A quite dreadful car to ride in. It was a time when the British car industry was desperately trying to modernise. The Japanese had started to produce cars that were starting to offer better value and reliability.

Cruising around the country lanes was not only an opportunity to get out and about, but this was also a way of looking over the hedges and surveying the landscape. Finding out what the neighbours were up to. Checking out some new farming venture that was being talked about at market. Criticising poor husbandry or the dereliction of what was once a “good” farm.

This childhood experience has left me with a curiosity. Could be inherited. That need to know what’s around the next corner or just over the brow of a hill. It’s imbedded. Naturally, that curiosity was stimulated by the unending variety of the topography. On my trips to America, it has always struck me that driving for miles and miles can be easy, but it takes a long way for the sights and sounds to change. Somerset and Dorset, and I mustn’t forget Wiltshire, have a world around every corner. Sundays were explorer days. Adventure days too.

[1] https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C179

[2] https://www.wolseleyregister.co.uk/wolseley-history/blmc/1885-six/

Don’t forget your towel

Daily writing prompt
What makes you laugh?
View all responses

Excursions into the improbable. It’s the way that people look at life that reveals the absurdity of existence. We are highly improbable beings and that’s best approached with humour.

I’m not all that original. I’m going to celebrate the HHGTTG[1]. When it was first broadcast, I clung to the radio, wondering what imaginative excursion it would take us on next. It’s a jigsaw puzzle of abstract ideas that surround a wacky plot.

Why is it funny? Radio has a wonderful way of forming pictures in the mind. The creation of Zaphod Beeblebrox takes a bit of getting one’s head around. Notice what I did there? Such a mad romp of absurdity opens huge vistas of comic horizons. Cosmic even.

[1] The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a comedy science fiction created by Douglas Adams.

Power and Choice

How is it so surprising? This transformation that’s taking place. It’s undeniably so. With notable exceptions. Understandable ones. The stories that have filled the last 65-years of my life have been ones where the good American rides in to save the day.

Black and white movies were replaced by Technicolor images of hearty American hero types beating the bad guys. Batman, in his 1960s persona, would outwit dastardly scheming villains. Mild-mannered, decent, and magnanimous.

Fine. We were warned that the more ruthless side of American life was out there on the streets. Captured by iconic movies like Wall Street[1]. But that was the fashion of the times. The 1980s were, both in the US and UK a time of hard-nosed ambition. Often set against a backdrop of industrial decline and hardship summed up by Bruce Springsteen[2] and alike.

Everything has a price. Or so it’s said. In fact, it’s more accurate to say: “Every man has his price.” That crusty old German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche put it differently. Like fishing, he suggested that a bait that exists that can attract everyman. Can entice and win over.

If this is your sole mantra, I’d suggest counselling. It’s a shallow way of looking at the world. Not entirely wrong. It’s just incomplete. Let’s face it. The biggest decisions we make in life often have nothing to do with enticements, like money. Certainly, there would be no romantic fiction or fantasy if we were all matched by algorithm according to specified needs and wants. Hey, maybe that will happen one day. Afterall, I can’t discount such a development.

My point is that it’s one thing to make an offer to buy something but, in a free market, if you believe in such, then it’s entirely up to the seller as to how they react. Now, of course, the marketplace may be rigged. Powerplay has a part to play. Swaggering powerful entities, companies or people, may wish to “encourage” a seller to sell. Apply pressure. Crooks and hoodlums have been doing this for centuries. Like saying: “I’ll burn down your barn if you don’t let me have the extra pasture that I want.”

Above where I wrote of dastardly scheming villains, I should have painted a less wholesome picture. Indeed, that’s what happened to Batman. He became portrayed as darker as the villains he faced became darker.

So, how does President Trump want to be remembered when history is written? The Good, the Bad or the Ugly, getting back to the movies.

Greenland is not some titbit that a powerful man can grab and possess. It’s a large island. A cold, remote island with a culture and history all of its own. It’s up to the inhabitants of that island as to the future they choose. Is there an enticement that those inhabitants will not be able to resist? Who knows? However, it seems to me extremely unlikely that an aggressive approach will bring about assession to another country.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/

[2] https://youtu.be/W2X0Gf9jfz8?list=RDW2X0Gf9jfz8

The UK’s Path Back to the EU

It’s great to see a debate in the UK Parliament[1]. Monday, 24 March saw a debate on the UK joining the European Union (EU). A public electronic petition[2] called for this debate. UK MPs get the opportunity to speak openly of their experiences of the outcomes of Brexit. There’s little that is positive and an ocean of negative.

Lucky for them, at the end of the debate, MPs are not called to vote on the issues raised in this petition. Nevertheless, there’s enormous merit in putting the facts in the public domain.

The 2016 Brexit vote was an unpatriotic act of self-harm, but it is history. Gradually, bit by bit, every part of British society is coming to the realisation that we need to do differently in the future. One day, I have no doubt that the UK will join the EU. The “will of the people” is not static. It is incredibly arrogant of Brexit supporters to say that it is static.

Besides, the inevitability of change means that new ways of cooperating will be found because it is in the best interest of all the parties. The UK is a liberal free-trading country that believes in the rule of law.

In the debate, Government Ministers can take what is being said and rethink. It is no threat to democracy to consider a rethink. In fact, for democracy to be stuck in a deep rut – now, that would be dangerous.

Today, Brexit has been a wonderful generator of piles of meaningless paperwork. It’s destroyed businesses and ruined lives. The enormous damage that has been caused is clear. Sadly, the people who cause that damage are not inclined to take any accountability for the mess.

In the debate, a shadow minister digs-up the grumpy past. It is shameful that the Conservative Party has nothing useful to say on this important issue. It is like listening to a bad recording of an old set of lies and proven nonsense. In speaking, this politician displayed no interest what-so-ever in improving the position of the country.

With all the talk of “growth” being so important to our future, it is difficult to understand a reluctance to address the festering wound that has been caused by Brexit. We can only be more secure and prosperous if we work more closely with our nearest neighbours.

The Labour Party leans on its election manifesto of last July. It’s an awkward act of sitting on the fence and sticking their head in the sand. Now, that paints a picture.

So called, “ruthless pragmatism” is a peculiar Government policy position. It can mean 101 things to 101 different people in 101 different places. Citing “global headwinds” to excuse obvious failings is no excuse for sustaining a burnt-out Brexit winding on like a runaway train. It would be wiser to question everything as the wholly new circumstances dictate.

2025 is dramatically different from 2015. When I first returned to the UK from Germany. The tectonic plates of global affairs have shifted. The Atlantic is wider. The Channel is narrower.

Oceanus Britannicus should be no barrier to trade and cooperation.

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

[2]  https://petition.parliament.uk/

Laughing Through Politics

Maybe it’s not a new seam to mine. That rock of British popular culture that puts up a mirror to entertain us or even shock us. There’s always a space for the public to be tickled by the absurd or hamming up of clichéd characters. It’s struck me, particularly on rewatching British TV comedy, how what we find humorous is an indicator of how we might think more generally. Or there’s a peculiar connection.

Obviously, it would be good to look at this subject in an objective way. To see what the evidence says. However, it’s almost impossible to separate personal experiences from any general observations. Afterall, I went to school where we endlessly repeated lines from Monty Python’s Flying Circus. This had our poor teachers totally bemused. Long forgotten is the “woody and tinny words” sketch. It only took a teacher to say a woody word and we’d have hysterics.

Not that Python didn’t offer one or two educational opportunities. In imagination, if nothing else. Try “The Man Who Speaks in Anagrams[1]” as an example.

When Mrs Brown’s Boys[2] became popular, I knew we were in serious trouble. I may be a real snob, but this kind of British “comedy” is a throwback to the worst of the 1970s (almost). To me the show has no merit whatsoever. It’s a sop to a grim set of stereotypes.

Jamilla Smith-Joseph’s short article[3] does point out that British culture is one of seeing the funny side of both us Brits and those strange foreigners. Problem is that in a simmering Brexity climate, we find it so much easier to lampoon our nearest neighbours, European foreigners.

I matured from Python to then enthusiastically embrace “The Young Ones” in my anarchic student days[4]. Now, I rewatch the series and the impacts are curious. In so many ways 21st Century Brits have become tame and unadventurous. The sheer destructive energy that let rip on TV screens delighted in upsetting established norms. Now, lots of people are embarrassed by what was called “alternative” comedy at the time.

Then we grew-up and got jobs. Tony Blair came onto the scene. Born out of that period of change was such masterpieces as “The Think of It”. Hope and optimism descended into spin and panic.

Popular culture and politics do connect. Is it a mirror like refection or is it a subconscious trend indicator? Or even a driving force that sustains a current way of thinking?

British popular culture is not going through a creative period. In 2025, there’s not a lot to recommend. Oddly it’s a series that started with a low budget movie from New Zealand that I find is the best comedy of the moment. “What We Do in the Shadow[5]” is variable in places but has horrendously funny moments.

So, come on British writers it’s time to better lampoon the toolmakers son who sits on the fence. One leg here, and one leg there. Labour’s latest adoption of conservative attire is surly worth funny lines. Something original. Maybe even out of this world.

[1] https://youtu.be/Q1sXeUHBHgk

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1819022/?ref_=ttep_ov

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-very-british-euroscepticism-the-popular-culture-politics-nexus/

[4] Yes, I really did live in a rundown brick terrace, with a hole in the wall as space for a payphone, and a dodgy builder come landlord. Carpets with slug trails and an icebox as a shower.

[5] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7908628/

A Key Political Agenda?

Whatever you might think, I think Keir Starmer is turning out to be a better conservative Prime Minister (PM) than most have been in the last couple of decades. On his list of things to do is reforming this, and reforming that, and making bullish statements on the world stage. Agreed that there’s the usual amount of crafted BS. Compromise and dealing with reality, not the world as one might wish it to be, are as they ever are in politics.

He’s in the business of stealing the clothes of the official opposition. Across the chamber they panic. Yes, further along the benches, the howling menace continues to howl. Fighting amongst themselves this week. Questioning their leader is not allowed. However, it’s surprising how high they stand in opinion polls, even if this is meaningless at this point in the electoral cycle.

The normal opposition now comes from the Liberal Democrats and a small number of unhappy Labour Members of Parliament.

This week I was amused to read of the concerns about Quangos[1]. That takes me back. I remember writing a motion for a conference on that subject back in the early 1990s. At that time there was questioning of why there was so many Quangos.

As a country we seem to go through waves. They go like this.

For a while national politicians take the view that day-to-day operational decisions of a sector should be made by dedicated professionals and at arm’s length. This has the advantage of getting politicians out of the complex detail, avoiding blame when things go wrong, a degree of continuity and setting their minds to the higher calling of top-level budgets and policy.

Then, if sector hasn’t performed as well as desired, the Quango at the heart of the storm is set ripe for taking apart. Thus, day-to-day operational decisions go back to “accountable” politicians, surely to do better. This has the advantage of reigniting the pace of change, a chance to be radical, securitising lower-level budgets and the satisfaction of blaming the past system.

I think you can tell which part of the wave that has hit now.

A point of reference here is, as so often is the case, Yes Minister. There’s a story line where the civil service pack the Minister’s red box with so much information and decisions to be made that he’s completely overwhelmed. Initially, he’s keen to have information on everything. Then the realisation that path leads to madness slowly dawns.

Now, it’s not clear what type of civil service, and associated Quangos, the PM thinks work best. It’s not strange to say I don’t like what I’ve got. It’s better to have an idea what it is that you want. A reform agenda in name is a headline grabber. It’s not a substitute to having a plan.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840