Tag: History

Lessons from Operational Events

For an aviation industry that takes pride in learning lessons from experience and taking timely corrective action, a series of operational events is surprising to say the least.

Today’s large aircraft do look much the same. The tricycle undercarriage has become universal. A set of steerable wheels at the front and a heavy set of landing gear, each side, to the rear. When parked, a nose gear collapse or inadvertent retraction on a large aircraft is not catastrophic. The aircraft can be recovered, inspected, and repaired. This undesirable event can be dangerous for anyone in the vicinity. It has the potential to be fatal. Fortunately, so far, there has been no fatalities.

For an aircraft operator such an event at an airport gate is a massive expense. Putting an in-service aircraft out of action for a considerable time.

To date, several damaging nose gear collapse (and alike) events have occurred to large aircraft[1]. Detailed analysis of these events exists and corrective actions are proposed.

One conclusion is to say that this is about people not following procedures. That is the instruction is to put a pin in one place but instead it gets put in the wrong place. So, this dramatic unintended event is written up as a maintenance error. It’s an outcome that no one intended. That’s fine. There’s no doubt that an error was made. Accepting that an error occurred is not a reason to blame. That is if there are no signs of negligence.

The trouble is the simple question – how easy was it to make that error?

Then we get into that grey area of the gap between aircraft design and operations. In a design office it may be reasonably assumed that a procedure will be followed in an almost robotic manner. No need for the people in operations to think beyond taking the same action day-after-day. This would surely become widespread practice.

As we know the actual environment of aircraft operations can be more demanding than the original equipment manufactures might imagine. Pressure to turn around an aircraft can be high, working conditions can be poor and fatigue can play a part.

There are lines of communication between the aircraft design and operations organisations, and such difficulties are regularly discussed.

Faced with an event categorised as maintenance error then what next? Redesign the aircraft? Change a procedure or require more training? Those are three of the options, there are more.

This is where the possible discussion gets reactive. Now, it would be extremely costly to redesign an aircraft for the sake of an event that is rare or for which the consequences are minor. It is possible to put numbers on each of these. The rarity, the cost, and the impact.

Modifying or rewriting a procedure, on the other hand, can be less costly and it may be quite sufficient as a corrective action. That said, any procedure that can be written can be subject to error. In fact, the original procedure may have been straightforward and well thought out.

Then there is the fall-back position. Give the people in aircraft operations more training. The assumption being that more training means less errors. It is a crude assumption because this is not a linear relationship. So many other factors come into play.

Discussions surround the above possibilities can become protracted. There’s a call for more analysis and more data. There’s the proposal for a study to be conducted. Once in that loop a year can go by as if it was a month.

There’s always the argument that highlights dozens of aircraft operators haven’t had this event occur and therefore the finger is pointed at those who have. This argument gets an outing, but it is foolish. It’s like saying – I haven’t had an accident yet, and therefore I’m safe. Foolish.

There are a lot of detailed discussions and a million and one opinions. Taking the big picture, this is a problem that is solvable[2]. What is surprising is the reoccurrence of the problem.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-g-zbjb-inadvertent-nose-landing-gear-retraction-during-pre-flight-maintenance

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/12/2019-26734/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Allure of Geodesic Domes

Buildings and structure do leave an impression. That impression can sit at the back of the mind for decades. Certainly, it could be more than 20-years since I visited the Montreal Biosphère. This large open structure was created for the 1967 World Fair in Montreal[1]. It’s kept alive as a science museum.

Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome is an icon. This is an impressive structure that is almost timeless in its virtues. Visually distinctive, strong, and applying the minimum of lightweight materials. I say timeless. That said, geodesic domes and similar structures can be pigeonholed in the late sixties and early seventies. There was a period when this was a fashionable view of the future. What we consider “modern” is shifting sand.

When the “oil crisis[2]” hit in the seventies, such domes were seen as an environmentally efficient means of putting up structures quickly and simply. Even the building methods needed didn’t require immense resources or highly trained technicians.

One other image that I have that sticks in the mind is a quite different application of the technology Fuller promoted. Again, the basic idea was copied again because of its utility. In the UK, on the North York Moors, were, at one time, a line of huge “golf balls.” The military radomes at Fylingdale were an impressive sight on the landscape for about 30-years. In fact, a tourist attraction.

So, why did Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes fall out of fashion? It could be that we are so addicted to pouring concrete that smart structures took a back seat. Much as the “oil crisis” was forgotten and the incentives to drill for more oil has spanned the last five decades.

It’s true that domes have never gone away. If I wanted to buy a geodesic dome greenhouse[3] or a tent for camping, I’d have no trouble. These easy to build, affordable structures offer stability and durability. However, these elemental structures are viewed as novelties or the obsession of environmentally concerned activists. Which, when I think about it, is entirely silly.

There’s an argument to be made about aesthetic appeal. It’s familiarity that sometimes blinds us. We may not be blind to anything other than conventional vertical walls and rectangular rooms, but there’s a conservatism inherent in architectural fashion.

Afterall, the Greeks and the Romans didn’t build geodesic domes. Yet, I think they would have if they had the strong lightweight materials to do so. Classical practically wouldn’t have been inhibited. Domes and their component parts became a post-war artifact because of advances in materials, as much as anything. The imperative to build military aircraft in large numbers, as strong and fast as could be done drove an innovative use of materials.

In the current 21st century “oil crisis” will we see a new love for geodesic domes? Even new applications. It’s an interesting thought.

[1] https://www.mtl.org/en/experience/expo-67-legacy

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lj4976lvo

[3] https://www.snowdondomes.com/portfolio/shirleys-domes-35m-diameter-polycarbonate-dome

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

Celebrating Local Democracy

Thursday, a day named after a hammer-wielding Norse thunder God. That’s a good day on which to hold elections. And so, it is in the UK. A tradition, the origins of which I don’t know. One thing I can imagine is that it’s a day of the week when there remains time left over to count votes and deal with disputes before the weekend hits. Not a bad choice to make given that the first days of the week can be put aside for preparations.

I’m accustomed to local authorities who start the formal count of votes as soon as the polls close. This can be done where the electorate is of a manageable size. Polls usually close at ten in the evening. Ballot boxes are then transported to the count, often housed in a large sports hall or civil building of some kind.

If I go back as far as the late 1980s, I remember evenings spent in the Town Hall in Cheltenham[1]. The election count was a grand civic affair. Lots of, what I thought at the time, as unnecessary pomp and ceremony. Now, I think that wasn’t such a bad idea. A celebration of a cornerstone of our democracy. This event even stretched to a late-night announcement made on the balcony of the Town Hall to an assembly of people standing outside in the cold.

[To be allowed into the premises where an election count is held, the presiding officer[2] must accept you as a candidate or formal counting agent. The local press often get access too.]

There’s a couple of purposes in this short article.

One, please take time to say something good about your local council. I know council officers put an immense amount of effort in making sure that elections run smoothly. It’s incredibly easy to take this dedicated work for granted. Ensuring a complete and up-to-date electoral register, getting out poll cards, running polling stations and a count doesn’t happen by magic.

Yes, I know you can cynically say that people are paid to do this work. The reality is that running elections effectively, efficiently and with integrity calls for commitments above and beyond the normal the workday. As a counting agent, I’ve stood opposite bleary eyed counters sitting there well past midnight, after a fiery recount. This vital work requires concentration and fortitude.

Next, I’d like to raise glass to the candidates. Those people who put themselves forward for election, most of which will not be elected. They will be quickly forgotten, however much effort they put into their campaigns. In a small number of cases, people are elected unopposed but that’s a small number of cases.

In vibrant communities up and down the length of the land, the political parties will field candidates. Typically, these volunteers will stand for the Labour Party, Reform UK, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Unionist Party. In places there will be independent candidates and those organised under other banners, like resident associations.

At a local level these candidates are not professional politicians. Some may aspire to have a political career, but the majority are trying to make a difference in their community. To make our democracy work, everyone depends on someone stepping forward. Having a go. This isn’t always to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, but it can be.Demands can be high, in time and effort, as lot of local authorities live in turbulent situations.

[1] https://cheltenhamtownhall.org.uk/

[2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

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/

The Power of Words

Two hundred and fifty years.  It’s good to see and hear that we still have decent speech writers and a monarch able to deliver an address with immense style and a fair degree of humour. This week, King Charles III delivered an important address to a joint session of the United States Congress. It’s a wonderful reminder that the spoken word can be powerful.

Now, I’m not saying that these good efforts will change much in respect of world affairs. In fact, my view was that the King may have chosen a better time to make the trip across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, what is, is. If nothing else the perspective the King offered is one that looks over the whole of the experience of relations between the UK and US. Not focusing on the aggressively tribal and divided polices of the moment. Perspective is so important.

The reference to the history about the British burning down the White House, in a raid on Washington, was one I knew. It was part of a story I learned when visiting Baltimore years ago. Walking around Fort McHenry[1] and thinking what it must have been like when the battle raged. 1814 was a turbulent year.

The forging of independence was ferocious. It wasn’t actions that passed quickly or in one simple sweep. If I remember rightly, events were such that they could have gone either way. There were plenty of Americans who questioned the fight as much as there were those dedicated to it.

Here’s where I’m going. One of the factors that shifted the ground was not the cannon and the riffle. Although war did much to determine the outcome. In the end, it was too costly for the British to continue and the Americans were unrelenting and well organised. To fight and win, motivation is at the heart of the matter. There’s got to be compelling reason to commit all the energies needed. To take on all the inevitable risks and suffer the losses.

This is where the name Thomas Paine comes up. Described as an English-born American. He certainly was English, and thus British. He was a writer. Not a warrior or a politician or even a wealthy man. A simple object. A pamphlet stirred the emotions in a way that fired revolution.

He’s best described as a radical. What that means is a person with the ability to light a fire. To take people on a journey from one place to another. That’s frequently met with discomfort, prevarication and grudging reluctance. There’s every reason in the world not to upset the apple cart or to be content with the status-quo. A true radical will not accept this condition. They are not the easiest of people to live with and often come to a sticky end.

There are two things at play in this story of “modern” history. One is the power of the writer and the other is the medium itself, the pamphlet. Both are required for a storm to brew. Both need to be in tune with their times. This is not merely a story of history. Before and after, Paine there were writers and pamphlets but none that resonated so effectively at a critical moment. Thus, words gave momentum to change that stuck.

Today, there seems to be a surfeit of thinkers and writers. The problem is that none of them seem to be sufficiently in tune with the core of our society. The other problem is the medium for dissemination. New pamphlets exist in digital form. Social media is the river that carries the day’s espials, chronicles and visionary tracts.

In 2026, can someone capture what we want, write it down and draw a crowd around it? I think they can. Where are they?

[And it doesn’t have to be more than 90 pages long.]

[1] https://www.nps.gov/fomc/index.htm

Unity and Diversity

Ironic isn’t it. From the point of view of the pound in my pocket international trade, globalisation, is as important as it ever was and at a time when politics is getting more nationalistic and polarised. A ships captain stresses in Arabia and my car becomes ever more expensive to run.

It’s election time. Good luck to the Welsh nationalist in their bid for power. However, if anyone voting for them thinks it will make them richer they are probably going to think that even if an asteroid hits Cardiff. Much the same has been the Scottish experience.

In turbulent times, and all other times, we are stronger together. Sorry to use that slogan again. It’s a good one, but it proved to be bl**dy useless during the Brexit campaign ten years ago. Today, there’s certainly a need for European solidarity despite the separation that took place. Whether it’s in people’s hearts as well as their minds is another thing.

Solidarity is a wonderful instinct unfortunately it plays on many levels. For me, the United Kingdom is a construct that has served us well even if it is difficult to manage. What I mean is that unity has not brough a fair distribution of life chances and prosperity across the whole nation. To counter that it may be as well to say that solving problems in declining industrial communities can be so much different from solving the same problems in vibrant and dense city neighbourhoods.

Another slogan that gets banded around is the notion of no one left behind. It’s to point the figure at places that have suffered gradual decline, coastal communities and former sites of heavy manufacturing, and to say they should be special targets for help. So, they should be given support. However, it’s not just money that needs to flow from thriving prosperous areas to hard hit ones.

One policy that doesn’t often work is the purely restorative one. A case of trying to recreate the past. Bring back the fishing boats or reconstruct the fossil fuel industries. Equally, making their rusty remains into tourist attractions and museums has a limited shelf life.

I think the first effort must be to get at the soul of a place. Not just amongst nostalgic older folk. That strange meld of culture, community, history, geography, that has a uniqueness about it. What makes young people want to stay or leave?

The Welsh experience is one to note. Let’s take a place that has seen massive changes. The Llanwern steelworks site dominated the Newport[1] skyline for a century. Heavy industry. Coal and steel were key to the modernisation of Britain after the war. In recent decades, decline and uncertainty have been constant bedfellows.

What’s positive in this story is the resilience of the region. The reinviting back of nature. Continuing pride in heritage. Exploring opportunities for the future. Potential, sometime dormant, needs ambition and optimism. This is not a time to look inward and build more protective walls. Interconnection and interdependency are facts. We must make them work for the whole community.

[1] https://www.cityofnewport.wales/en/Home.aspx

Young People in Britain

You know, I find this argument so utterly tedious. Economics can be boiled down to old people verses young people. Polarising policy debates and setting one generation against another.

The UK Reform Party are pushing a commitment to the triple lock on state pensions. Not because they believe British pensioners deserve a good deal. No, it’s populist bandwagon to lock in the vote of one generation. Knowing that there’s a higher likelihood of older people voting for them than younger people [According to opinion polls].

It’s true that there’s a madness that has overtaken the British mentality. However, it’s not new. The value of land and property far exceeds its utility. The marketplace has been one of ever forcing a finite commodity to a higher price. The owners and inheritors of land and property have gained whilst its has become harder for younger people to get a foothold.

There have been different times. I remember my father talking about the inter-war period. It was of his father’s time. Practically farmland could not be given away. Estates were broken up. Labour was short. Taboos were challenged. The dynamic of marketplace for changed.

However, in the post-war period, the last 70-years, the cost of a modest dwelling, as a ratio of average earnings, has rocketed. Ownership of land and property has become concentrated.  

British humour addressed the situation in a famous TV sitcom. As said by the character Del boy over breakfast – this time next year, we’ll be millionaires. Only Fools and Horses captured the aspiration. Only that Del boy though it was second-hand cars that would lead to riches. Now, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that roughly 27% of people aged over 65, in Britain, live in households with a total wealth of exceeding one million.

So, what do we conclude? That this pot of wealth has been taken from young people in a transfer from one generation to another. No, that would be playing a sectarian political card worthy of an unprincipled populist. A foolish strategy too.

Deep within British culture there’s an attachment to assets. This particularly goes for commodities that are restricted in supply. Remember Del boy got his wish in the end. Antiques saving the day. Now, amongst most popular TV shows is the Antiques roadshow.

Maybe it’s a latent mistrust of bankers. The shady image of people who hoard money for the sake of hoarding money. In Britain, holding land and property are seen to be a stable assurance of long-term security. I’ve heard it said about land many times – they don’t make it anymore.

The tragic element here is not that young people finding it harder to become just like their parents. To harbour the same attitudes towards land and property. It’s more a question of society undervaluing their contribution to prosperity. Now, and in the future.

It’s pure idiocy to set one generation against another. It’s a mean political trick. What does need to change are the rungs on the ladder, especially at the early stages of life’s journey.

For example, the law in respect of student loans is dire, unjust and unsustainable. Making young people pay a higher marginal rate of tax, when early in their working lives is abysmal. The government penny pinching of education funding and thinning out of courses is short-sighted in the extreme. Apprenticeships must be substantial not hollowed out routes to poor rewards. The world of work [and leisure] is changing more rapidly than it ever has in the past. It’s imperative that society equips young people with the tools needed to navigate a complex and dynamic world. It’s not generous to make a priority of all aspects of education and training. It’s absolutely essential.  

Human Space Travel

It’s right to point out that space exploration is not solely a scientific endeavour. It’s odd to have to point that out. I do so because there are some purists who think that money should only be spent of space exploration if there’s a tangible scientific gain to be had. This thinking goes back to the agreement that public funds should only be spent of Earthy concerns. A glance at the extensive list of trouble that persist around the globe is one reason to focus on Terra firma rather than up at the heavens. That said, the choice is rarely simple.

Then there’s the accusation that exploration, of any kind, is intrinsically imperial. Powerful entities looking for sources of future dominance and wealth. This is not entirely wrong given humanity’s history of plundering resources from wherever they come. Minerals and trade routes being a couple of the primary sources of interest. A strong political will can be amassed to compete to be first to get a foothold on new territory. Despite all the above there’s something more complex going on.

The recent Artemis II space mission may not have been a great boost to humanity’s scientific knowledge. This adventurous lunar fly-by mission was more about proving technology than gathering an abundance of discoveries. Afterall, the far-side of the Moon can quite adequately be surveyed by automated spacecraft. Much as is being done by robotic machines on Mars.

I think there’s little doubt that 1st to 11th April 2026 will be recorded in the history books. If for no other reason that the gap between the Apollo space missions and Artemis. Like so many schoolboys in the 1960s, I watched those black and white TV images of men on the Moon, as they happened. I became an engineer. Would that have happened anyway? Probably, but I’m not discounting the inspirational impact of the Apollo missions.

[What would we ever do without the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Certainly, naming new space missions would be a lot harder.]

Do we need crewed missions in future? Given the advances in automation and autonomy that have taken place in the last 50-years, so much can be achieved without the need for humans on-board a spacecraft. However, this is not a binary argument. There are, and always will be, the need to take human experience to the absolute limits. President Kennedy cited George Mallory for a reason to explores space, “Because it’s there,” he said.

The simple notion that humans should be constrained and confined to Terra firma runs contrary to our intrinsic nature. Although societies do become more risk adverse as they acquire the comforts of economic success, there’s still an appetite for exploration even if it entails great safety risks. The allure of being the first does not diminish.

Ideally, the combination of adventure and discovery go hand in hand. Space exploration is not just indulging the most adventurous amongst us. Thus, I go back to my proposition that there something more complex going on.

The ancient Greeks and Romans could help. For what is humanity’s destiny? Ad Astra has a meaning. Far more than the movie of that name. Not one of my favourite movies either.

There’s an inevitability that humanity will go to the stars. That is, if in the meantime wars or environmental degradation do not consume us. Exploration is part of a natural progression of intelligent life. It maybe (likely to be) happened elsewhere in the universe too.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.”  As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o