Aviation – John Vincent

Future Aircraft Systems

I read that there’s lesson to learn from the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) experience that plagued Boeing. And led to fatalities. There’s a lot that has been written about the tragic saga. Much of great value.

It’s true. Aviation advances as the community learns lessons from incidents and accidents. Yes, there’s variability in the effectivity of this learning process. Occasions when oceans are written about one case and dozens of others are given an inappropriate light touch[1]. A trustworthy centralised repository of safety recommendations from published aviation accident reports is a useful tool. A point of reference. In the first months of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in Cologne, back in 2005, my team established such a database. It’s only possible to track the follow-up of key safety recommendation if there’s a well-maintained administrative system. Safety is often about the intelligent use of data.

Cockpit design, and the human factors issues involved, are without doubt one of the most critical parts of an aircraft. Society is not ready for fully autonomous passenger carrying aircraft. I believe it will happen, in decades to come but the horizon is way off. For certain types of vehicles, autonomy must be the solution given that flight control is beyond human capacities. Here’s I’m thinking mostly of hypersonic and space flight.

For a pilot to exercise responsibility for a flight there’s a need to have, at least, a basic understanding of what a machine is doing. In past times of strings and wires and clockwork instruments that understanding was ingrained knowledge gained from training and experience.

Future aircraft systems will not be easily described as functional blocks that perform well understood and dedicated functions. An autopilot, an autothrottle, autobraking, a flight management system, even an engine. Hybridisation is coming.

That does not mean a pilot must understand the inner working for a multicore microprocessor or complex software algorithm. Flight test pilots being the exception, in this case.

The design goal should always be to make safer systems. Engineering these aircraft systems is not a case of purely fitting together a set of Lego like components. The error made with the MCAS is one that ignored this fact. Interdependencies are manyfold.

Ideally, future aircraft systems, however capable and complex, should be describable, predicable, and ultimately trustworthy. These words sound so simple. One reason this is not simple is that very word – complex. The minute that there’s a massive number of possible combinations and permutations of conditions at may exit boundaries must be set. What’s a little more reassuring is that complexity if far from new in human experience[2].

Just to make the airspace of the future even more complex it’s no longer correct to think of an aircraft as alone and free to make any appropriate manoeuvre. Increasing connectivity, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (AI) all come into the mix.

To stay safe, pilots will have to appreciate how constraints and boundaries are managed. This information must be provided transparently and preferable with options.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/opinions/the-safety-paradox-fewer-accidents-greater-responsibility/

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

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/

Runway Incursions and Airline Safety

Firstly, condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the recent aviation accident at LaGuardia airport in New York. It’s incredibly sad that this destructive runway incident took place in the way that it did. At this stage there is a jumble of international News reports. As is often the case while attention is focused on what happened at a time when the facts have not been verified or data collected.

What is known is that Air Canada Express flight 8646 was where it was supposed to be on a runway and an airport-based fire truck was not. The resulting high-speed collision had disastrous consequences for both the aircraft and the fire truck.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has quickly engaged to start a detailed technical investigation. Their role is to independently piece together all the information that is available and determine a probable cause of the accident. With that to make formal safety recommendations aimed at preventing accidents and incidents.

What I can say is that the subject of Runway Incursion (RI)[1] is a long-standing aviation safety concern. So much so that it has its own accident category when it comes to aviation safety data analysis. Such tragic events are not isolated or extremely improbable.

Air Traffic Control (ATC) is tasked with separating aircraft from each other and any other vehicles. Accidents in this category have been the catalyst for advances in equipment and procedures. That said, there’s no getting away from the substantial number of human and operational factors that pervade this domain.

Unlike the design and construction of aircraft system whereby an onerous safety objective can be stamped on a technical specification. Managing air traffic on the ground is done with a high dependency on the actions of professionally trained staff.

In an internationally accepted code, a RI is defined as:

Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

I don’t hesitate to say that’s what happened at LaGuardia. This says nothing about – why?

So, we have an indication of what happened. What’s a little unsettling is how quickly there is News reports speculation on why it happened. Initial references to someone having made a mistake or error are no helpful. This signalling tends to encourage a simplification of the circumstances of the accident into a matter of blame. That unfortunately leads to an impression that this is a rare event that can be attributed to one factor. All to often this is not the case.

The actions of professionally trained staff can be put under such work pressure as it comes to a situation where no normal person can perform adequately. It was the introduction of Safety Management Systems (SMS) that was intended to identify these scenarios and ensure that they were mitigated or eliminated.

The actions of everyone involved with this fatal aviation accident are now under investigation. Aviation is not a “a dangerous business”. However, it is a business that requires more care and attention than most. That includes the provision of adequate resources at all times.

[1] https://www.intlaviationstandards.org/Documents/OccurrenceCategoryDefinitions.pdf

Transitioning to Green Aviation

Put your hands over your ears if your mantra is – drill baby drill. If climate change is a myth, in your mind, or you take a devil may care attitude, then the mere mention of the word “green” may give you the jitters. This is not for you. Move out of the way.

For the rest of us, who live in the real world, on planet Earth, there’s a problem. A prickly, tricky, sticky, long-term global problem. One that has commanded a great deal of attention but sometimes almost to the point of boring the pants off. Transport is one of those sectors that needs attention. Progress toward the adoption of Electric Vehicles (EV) is underway. Now and then, there’s a push back, but the direction of travel is clear. An immediate reminder of the need to change is the volatility of fuel prices at the pump. An inability to control or foresee global events that push oil and gas prices one way and then the next.

Sustainable aviation is turning out to be a hard nut to crack. For ground-based vehicles the issue of power density is not as constraining as it is in aviation. Weight is one of the fundamental parameters in flight. So, current high energy batteries present a particular technical challenge.

Exploring new forms of flight propulsion is a god send for futurologists, researchers and adventurous innovators. None of the technical challenges are a quick win. The avenues for study are infinite. Well almost. Antigravity doesn’t seem to be on the cards – yet.

I guess one of the barriers is that we have a sophisticated global aviation system that we, almost entirely, take for granted. The technology involved in transporting 200 people from a cold, grey, dull, wet Britain to a sunny warm inviting holiday destination has matured to such a point that few look at it with astonishment. That so much is provided for so little outlay.

It wasn’t that the problems of providing such air transport services were easy to solve. It’s an inheritance that has stretched over many decades. Testament to the work of a vast number of smart entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, officials and alike.

Hydrogen fuel, or some form of hybrid propulsion does seem to be a long-term prospect.

What I see now is the excitement created by past projections is being tempered by practical reality. Wonderful strategic plans, with outlandish charts, pointed the way to a fossil fuel free utopia. Those colourful documents did good in driving forward a level of thinking. Where they offered a lesser contribution is in predicting and enabling a practical transition.

This is the time when everyone does a double take. Where the aim is a workable business cases that provides a transition in a believable, sound and rational sense. Flirting with bankruptcy has been a habit of past adventurous aviation developments. Read the turbulent story of the jumbo jet. Most agree this is not a desirable state to wish for or be in. Maybe this is the tale of the tortoise and the hare. Methodical plodding through the difficulties, incremental change, ingenuity and sheer hard headedness are needed. A couple of points to round off.

One – don’t get stuck on the repetitive nonsense that new developments can’t takes place until the regulatory structure is in place.

Two – don’t build houses on all the small airfields and lesser-known airports that may, one day, become part of a new transport system[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_City_Airport

The Mystery of Flight MH370

It’s ridiculous and shocking. In the modern era of civil aviation, that a large passenger aircraft can go missing and never be found. This tragic disappearance that has had experts baffled.

Mysteries, in the early days of flying, were not commonplace. They were, however, sufficiently commonplace for pulp fiction writers and amateur investigators to fill their boots. Mysteries at sea, and in the air have been a fascination for as long as there has been maritime and air transport. As our scientific and technical capabilities have increased so has our expectation that these mysteries are of the past, not the present.

Without any cause for concern, Malaysia Airlines flight MH370[1] took off 12-years ago. The aircraft disappeared from radar and has never been seen since. Parts of the aircraft have been recovered. Unfortunately, those parts provided insufficient evidence as to where the whole aircraft crashed. With what is known, this Boeing 777-200ER[2] aircraft is somewhere in the depths of the ocean. How it got there, wherever there is, and why remain unknown.

The most recent sea search for the wreckage of the aircraft has yielded no findings. Systematically searching the Indian Ocean, an organisation known as Ocean Infinity, has not advanced our understanding of what happened to flight MH370. That might be unfair, since we now know that the aircraft wreckage is not likely to be at the locations they searched.

The vast area of the Indian Ocean has an average depth of over 12,000 feet. Locating an object on the seabed is a hard task even when there’s some idea where it’s resting. To make the task even more difficult, ocean seabeds have a wide variety of geological formations. Mountains, crevasse and flat expanses.

We spend most of our time living on dry land. The reality of planet Earth is that a larger part of its surface is covered with water. That we can be thankful for given what we see of other planets.

Thus, the importance of having the mechanism for location that works anywhere and everywhere. Airborne Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) is vital in all aspects of international flight. Flight MH370 was equipped with Boeing’s FANS-1 (Future Air Navigation System). This does have a surveillance function in that it provides aircraft position reports via satellite communication (SATCOM).

[In the late-1990s, I was involved in the standards setting and regulatory approval of the airborne components of both the Boeing FANS-1 and AIRBUS FANS-A systems].

Reports of the loss of MH-370 say this aircraft system was working at the point of take-off. Official reports also say that this aircraft system was “deliberately” disabled during the flight. A mystery remains as we may never get to understand the motivation for this action.

There’s no good reason for disabling such systems unless they are presenting a hazard to the aircraft in flight. Clearly the crew need to have the ability to isolate aircraft systems in the event of an avionics bay fire or other significant failure events. Circuit breakers are provided for that purpose. Procedures and training are too.

So many questions. Will the Indian Ocean search be revived again? Not for a while, I think.

[1] https://john-w-vincent.com/2024/12/20/mh370-and-mh17-a-decade-on/

[2] The ER stands for Extended Range.

Transport of Flight Delights

Air Taxies are becoming a reality. It’s not Science Fiction anymore.

The history of the “hackney carriage” is along and illustrious one. They remain firmly attached to the road. They do move with the times. From horses to combustion engines to electrified cabs[1], I wonder if London back cabs will adopt Hydrogen fuel next?

Providing safe and reliable public transport for about 8-passengers, in reasonable comfort, with a limited amount of luggage, they are a vital part of the city landscape. Ferrying people from place to place and even going south of the river (a popular saying from the people who live north of the River Thames).

In New York, “Yellow schools of taxi fishes” in a song by Joni Mitchell. Schools or sholes of taxies swimming in a sea of traffic. Frantic and colourful as they are shown in a lot of 1970s movies. A chaotic scene where the protagonist runs out into the middle of dense, barely moving traffic.

What happens when these modern convinces take to the air? If they were still with us, I’m sure Flanders and Swann[2] would have written a song about this new marvel. The distain of London buses towards black cabs is there in the lyrics. So, as air taxies take-off, as it were, will the cab drivers of the city protest or join the ranks of new flyers?

Please don’t answer that question. I’ve in mind more serious issues. The whole history of aviation safety data analysis shows us an immutable fact. Take-offs and landings are riskier than flying in at altitude. It really matters not if flying horizontally or vertically.

How does this come to be? A simple answer would be to say that the results of aviation accidents eventually end-up on the ground. Gravity does its work. Put that aside for a moment. Take-offs are optional but landings are mandatory. That’s a traditional saying that amuses non-flyers but is all too real to pilots and alike.

The act of taking a flying machine from the freedom of movement in 4-dimensions to a preselected stationary point on the ground. Those policies and plans that are published refer to Vertiports being established much as Heliports have been in the past. Some may double up. The theory is good. A pre-defined clear space that can accommodate a typical eVTOL aircraft used as an Air Taxi, with all the necessary operational and safety provisions. Surrounding areas protected from the down wash of the Air Taxi. Care to remove any foreign objects from the vertiport surface. A mini terminal to add to the cityscape.

One of the biggest variables in this brave new world of public transport is as old as the hills. It’s the local weather. Dubai can roast an aircraft with clear skies and 50C while Aberdeen can soak them in rain and impenetrable mist. Dust and wind can blow through Marseilles while deep snow and ice covers Montreal. Whilst in Lahore the air itself can be hazardous.

Terrestrial vehicles do cope. Often this means that there are different rules and regulation that take account of the local conditions and priorities. The impatience that some advocates have for a rapidly formulated globally set of harmonised rules and regulations might be misplaced. In fact, it may even impede the introduction to service of Air Taxi services.

Since I’m discussing the busy urban environment, I can presume that any accidents and incidents will be the focus of a great deal of public attention. Ultimate safety is a nice aspiration, but then reality takes hold. There will be occurrences. When they happen, city councillors are going to have their say.

Post 1: Air taxis are an exciting development in air mobility, but to get off the ground. SESAR Joint Undertaking | EUREKA- European Key solutions for vertiports and UAM

Post 2: Infrastructure Developer Highlights Timeline Convergence as eVTOL Certification and Vertiport Development Both Require Nine Months, Creating Binary Decision Point for Property Owners | citybiz

POST 3: The Air Taxi topic has become newsworthy this last week. US lawmakers push FAA certification reforms for eVTOLs:

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-mobility/lawmakers-push-faa-certification-reforms-evtols

https://www.flyingmag.com/congress-faa-electric-air-taxi-certification/

Click to access Aviation-Innovation-and-Global-Competitiveness-Act-Final-Bill-Text.pdf

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

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

FLANDERS & SWANN – ‘A Transport of Delight’ – 1957.

Aviation Insights

One shilling and seven pence, that’s what a copy of Flight magazine cost in 1960. Today, roughly that’s equivalent to £6. Which is not so far off the weekly cost of a typical printed magazine taken off-the-shelf in a newsagent. Now, Flight is a digital subscription[1] at £22 a month. We consume our News in a different way, but the overall price is not so different.

Spending money in charity shops always contributes to some good cause or another. Certainly, our British High Streets in 2026 are markedly transformed from that of 66 years ago. Fine, if I get hung up on that elegant number. It’s not a bingo call. It’s the number of times I’ve circled the Sun. Circled, that is, while safely attached to this rocky planet.

The young woman behind the counter was chatting to what must have been a regular when she looked up. I pointed an unregarded dusty box on the floor in the corner of the shop. “How much to you want for that box of old aviation magazines”. She looked slightly fazed. Nobody had even thought about pricing them let alone selling them. They had probably been donated as someone emptied the attic of their grandparents. Probably on the verge of going to the recycling bin.

Eventually, we settled on a modest price. She looked me up and down. I’m sure she thought that I was completely mad. That said, charity shop workers, volunteers, must face that colourful situation more than a couple of times a week. Even a day.

What struck me was the first inside page. The weekly editorial could have been written yesterday. It’s titled “Facing it” and reads thus:

“More than one great newspaper has given warning that our nation is living beyond its means – that our export prospects are poor, and that we are taking a commercial thrashing”.

“Bleak prospects for a people who have never had it so good, and one that promotes us to consider how the aircraft industry is facing up to cold reality.”

It went on to highlight that there had been few new aircraft at the Farnborough airshow of that year. It was an October publication[2]. There was a lot of talk about industry and Government cooperation but that this was not delivering.

“And now that the industry is needed, as it has never been needed before, it will not be found unready or unwilling.”

But the lament was about the failings of the Government of the time, and there being no room for complacency. This was 4-years after the Suez Crisis.

Today, we have an increased security threat, much as arose in the Cold War days. Industry and Government cooperation needs to be a lot more than fervent aspirations. We seem to be in the same phase of formulating strategies rather than implementing actions.

Don’t let me paint a picture of gloom and doom. What this Flight magazine had is great stories of British technical innovation. Electronics and control systems were advancing rapidly. Automatic landing systems were being pioneered. Technology applied improved aircraft performance and aviation safety significantly. In fact, in numerous areas Britain was not only leading, but guiding the world.

[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/subscribe

[2] Flight Number 2691 Volume 78.

Mutuality in Aviation Safety

Back to the benefits of mutuality. That idea of working together for a common goal. It may seem bazar but instead I will start with the downsides of mutuality.

Parties who are in conflict often like to deny interdependency. It’s that instinctive feeling that we can go it alone. Highlighting that working with others turns out to be complicated, calculating and compromising. Surely much better to be that lone High Plains Drifter who lives day to day.

In the aircraft airworthiness discipline, I saw this happening during the lengthy process of the international harmonisation of technical requirements that took shape in the 1990s.

It’s not easy to say but a substantial number of aviation rules and regulations that are applied are written in blood. Ever since the first aircraft took to the skies there has been incidents and accidents. Each one presents an opportunity to gain experience. Tragic though they maybe, if there’s a positive outcome, it’s that measures are put in place to try to prevent similar occurrences happening again. This doesn’t aways work but it works often enough to make it the intelligent way forward. When that learning doesn’t take place, the result is condemnation and outcry[1].

So, imagine a situation where Party A has a rule that comes from a tragic aviation event and Party B does not have that rule, or see the need for that rule. Equally, where Party A is eliminating a rule that Party B views as a judicious measure for managing aviation safety risk.

Clearly, where safety is the goal, the harmonisation of technical requirements is not a trivial matter. Disagreements can put stress on relationship. It can from time-to-time cause people to walk off the playing field. To use an expression that became real at the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations football final. When the application of international rules doesn’t go the way people would like the results can be testing.

What I’m alluding to here is the early days of the technical harmonisation work that was done within what was then called the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in Europe. And how that work interleaved with the work that was done to harmonise rules across the North Atlantic.

People did indeed walk off the playing field. One or two of them became ardent anti-Europeans. Maybe it was easier for younger technical staff to accommodate change. Nevertheless, each step that was taken to change or eliminate additional national technical requirements created tension. Maintaining sight of the greater goal of mutual benefit was demanding work. In fact, technical harmonisation is demanding work and always will be as such.

Across boundaries circumstances differ. My analogy is that of saying that it is no surprise that the Netherlands maybe concerned about bird strikes and overwater helicopter operations. At the same time Switzerland maybe more concerned about mountain waves and high-altitude helicopter operations. Each concern needs to be met. Priorities may vary.

Recent headlines saying: “Trump Says He Is ‘Decertifying’ Bombardier Aircraft In US[2]” has a sour ring about it. Political pressure should not be the driver of aviation safety technical rules. It’s perfectly reasonable for aviation entities to compete aggressively in the commercial world. It’s idiocy to compete on aviation safety grounds. This is not new learning. This has been the case for at least the last half a century.

POST: A view Gulfstream Confirms Delay over Canadian Type Certification of Business Jets | Aviation International News

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20260127.aspx

[2] https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/aircraft-propulsion/trump-says-he-decertifying-bombardier-aircraft-us

Visual Cues and Decision Making

Back to visual perception. Initially, it may not seem right to focus on one human sense and not discuss the others. We are multifaceted humans. The brain takes advantage of all its senses, when they are available. We’ve evolved with amazing capabilities.

The interesting notion that certain wines taste better when accompanies by certain music is a wonderful example of how interactive our systems can be. That’s without us having any conscious control over their immediate intimate workings. Parts maybe hardwired and others soft wired and adaptable.

Vision plays a dominant part in enabling us to move around. We haven’t yet evolved echo sounding, like bats and dolphins. This is not to say that those who loose vision can’t compensate to some extent, but they don’t fly aircraft or drive fast cars or become astronauts.

My thoughts arise from exposure to several aspects of our dependency on seeing the world around us. To begin, at the early part of my career, it was indeed the process of taking sound imaging and making it usable for recognising objects. Converting the information that come back from sending sound pluses through water into an image must deal with a dynamic environment. Interpretation of such electronic images can be the difference between hitting an object at sea and avoiding it.

Later, my design work concentrated on information presented to a pilot and what happens next. That whole arena of the aircraft cockpit is one big interface. The link between the senses and the decision maker. I’m not straying into the interminable debates about human factors.

Let’s stay with the trend that’s in front of us in every walk of life. That’s the dependence on recognising and acting on information that is presented to us on a nearby screen. In so far as I know, humans didn’t evolve with this need to relate acutely to closely presented information as much as reacting to distant stimulus. Afterall if a hostile animal or dangerously armed person was heading towards me at speed, I wouldn’t sit around debating the subject.

Aeronautics has experience in this shift of attention. At the start of my career aircraft cockpits where mostly knobs and dials. Mechanical indicators and filament bulbs. Sometime unreliable. Still the idea of flying by the “seat of the paints” prevailed. That centred around situation awareness, predominantly guided by looking out of the window. At the outside world. Distant vison equally, if not more, important as looking two feet ahead at a panel. Over the last five decades the above has changed radically. Instruments are large flat screens dotted with an array of colourful symbols offering every aspect of “situation awareness”.

Now, this is happening to cars. Most new cars have electronic screens. The expectation is that we humble humans have transitioned from simple mechanical dials to a fascinating world of colourful animated markers and whizzy logos. Despite the glorious technology the basic function remains the same. That is the link between the senses and the decision maker.

Adequate levels of visual perception being the number one attribute a pilot or driver is expected to maintain. This continues to be true as automation does more and more. What maybe a long-term trend in human evolution is that shift between the importance of what’s a couple of feet away and what’s in our surroundings. Will we become less sensitive to a personal experience of what’s more that two feet away? I wonder.

Safety Differences

Are the safety standards for all large aeroplanes the same? No, they are not. I’m never sure if the public naively expect this to be the case. I’m sure it’s not something that goes through the mind of every air traveller. Looking up at an aeroplane, flying overhead, this is not a thought that instantly comes to mind. Even watching them take-off and land at a busy airport.

A large aeroplane is a large aeroplane – surely. Well, not exactly. Several issue come into play when addressing the safety standards for large civil transport aeroplanes. For example, when did the type of aeroplane first go into service? What is it being used for? Where is it flying to? How many people are on-board?

One place to start with any discussion on this subject is with the basics. For a start an aeroplane is heavier than air and its power driven. Immediately, two important factors pop out of that definition. One: weight counts. Two: operating engine(s) are needed.

Almost lost in the mists of time are the reasons for dividing the world of transport aeroplanes into two categories. Simply called – large and small.

Underlying this basic categorisation is an historic assumption. This is an assumption upon which civil aviation safety regulation has been built. Namely, that efforts need to be made to ensure large aeroplanes are safer than small aeroplanes. One way of looking at this is to consider a spectrum of risk, and several parameters of concern.

Let’s start with the question above – what is it being used for? A transport aeroplane can be used to carry cargo or passengers, often both. The number of crew and passengers carried can range from 1 to 850[1]. In fact, for large aeroplanes, there’s no upper limit written into international standards. However, the term “very large aeroplane” is coined for the upper end of weight or passenger numbers carried. Sadly, the very largest of these very large aeroplanes (cargo), the Antonov An-225 Mriya, was destroyed by war.

Although, a matter of primary concern is the number of passengers carried, and therefore at risk in the event of an incident or accident, the main dividing line in the regulatory landscape between large and small aeroplanes is weight.

To some extent this has a foundation. It could be viewed that in the event of an incident or accident any resulting impact will be more severe the greater the weight of the aeroplane. This is where a parameter called the MTOW, or Maximum Take-off Weight, comes in. This number includes the total weight of an aeroplane, crew, fuel, passengers, and cargo.

Today, we divide the world of large and small aeroplanes based on MTOW. Yes, the maximum number of passengers that can be carried comes into the equation too. The question I have is, should that be the number one consideration?

[1] https://www.airwaysmag.com/legacy-posts/top-10-largest-passenger-aircraft