Tag: News

The Value of Public Service

In praise of public life[1]. That sound like such a strange sentence to utter about this last week. It’s been local election week. First Thursday in May is traditionally the day of elections in the UK.

It’s good to say that a political life is a positive. I’d say most councillors elected in this crop are motivated by the simple idea of public service. Yes, a lot of them will have completely different understanding as to what that means but there’s a general desire to make life better.

Naturally, there are the exceptions. That is those people who are ideologues, intent on imposing their views on people regardless of rational belief or any basic understanding of how the world works. Yes, I am talking about the blip that is the current results for the Reform Party. Blip it is. Like it or not, the turnout for local elections is sadly unimpressive.

Party politics is in jeopardy. I’ve nothing to object to politicians who take an independent line. It’s often those individuals who cross boundaries and unravel roadblocks to stop a stasis descending over a political assembly. A council chamber full of sheep helps no one.

To command popular support a practical political party must be a board church. We have a common expectation that decision-making forums be made up of our peer group. It’s embedded in the jury system. If decision-making in the public realm becomes so disconnected from everyday life, then respect is lost. However, if ever changing newspaper headlines drive governance – well, you get my point.

I say, conventional Party politics is in jeopardy because popularism is distorting the playing field. If a political Party becomes a rabble-rousing creature that sits on the backs of the electorate, then no good will come of it. That’s especially true when issues pursued are nothing much to do with the remit of a Council.

My prediction is that the new Reform councillors will soon get locked into lots of noisy arguments over issues that bypass the things that need to be done in each locality. No fixing potholes or planting trees when meaningless debates about “woke” can be had. No improving recycling achievements or properly funding care provisions. No building affordable housing or cleaning up waterways.

For political leaders and parties to regain respect and support there needs to be less communication about the possible ways and means and more about what’s been done. Populism takes over when people become fed-up with endless jam tomorrow arguments. The cycle of empty promises feeds the demigods.

My advice. Even if it’s just one pothole is fixed – tell people.

[1] Book Title – In Praise of Public Life : the Honor and Purpose of Political Science

Finding Balance

Regulation can be a contentious issue. That’s an understatement. A spectrum of views extends from the complete libertarian to the past soviet model. Citizens shouldn’t be encumbered by any restrictions to the State has the right to dictate every aspect of life. Clearly, there are immense downsides to either of these extremes. Luckily, although not everyone will agree, the set of political choices available in the UK covers the wide range from the far-right to the far-left. These labels are deficient when it comes to the detail. Often these two camps are similar in their authoritarian ways and means.

Rejecting the extremes, being a liberal, means finding a balance. That means a minimal number of rules and regulations to achieve the prosperity, safety and security goals that most people happily support.

A pendulum swings in the British political cycle. Never quite sure what the cycle time is on this one. What’s for sure is that our society’s tendency is to go from urges to tighten-up rules and regulations to impulses to eliminate or relax them with gusto. Often, the aim is to tweak or protect economic stability or tweak or promote economic growth. After the banking crisis of 2008 it was the first of these, now it’s the second.

Brexit is a strange oddity. Although, great claims were made for the loosening of the ties that bind us, the reality has been much onshoring of past rules and regulation. The forces of continuity have some good arguments.

It’s reported that Prime Minister Starmer is considering dynamically aligning UK regulations with EU regulations, as if that’s not happening pragmatically and piecemeal already. OK, this is not consistent across every sector of the economy. It’s a mixed bag. Politicians banging the drum but not doing much.

Let’s say the financial services market goes a different way from the technology sector. One has a history as long as your arm the other is being made-up as we speak. Clearly, there are risks in both deregulation and overregulation. Thus, I get back to that notion of finding a balance.

To hardened Brexiters EU and UK rules constrain. To their supporters they enable, facilitate and transform.

Now, what’s difficult to discern is where do Starmer and Reeves stand?

A direction of travel, to encourage investment in the UK, has been touted. That implies alignment rules. Investors rightly seek the largest market on offer. Like it or not, the UK is not the US, or even the EU when it comes to the size of its economy. Maybe, it’s taken Brexit to realise that we align as a matter of common interest. Mutual benefit.

Most of our safety and security goals are not subjects of intense competition. If you fly internationally, why would it make sense to compete on safety or security? The general expectation is that common high levels of safety and security are desirable.

As the weather improves so we are heading towards a year of the Labour Party in power. There’s disappointment and concern about the timidity of their actions. The word “reset” is banded about. A ridiculous word. Press the reset button to restore a past condition. No, choices need to be made. Closer alignment and partnership with the EU are the rational choices.

Humanity and Tolerance

Who doesn’t know this short sentence? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. It has a particular meaning in play Romeo and Juliet. It’s Juliet saying she doesn’t care about her loves’ family name. The source of their great troubles. Being elegant and fragrant it’s no surprise that Shakespeare chose to speak of a rose.

More broadly this phrase makes the point that calling something different doesn’t change its core characteristic. Roses might not be the best example since naming these flowers plays a big part in distinguishing between one and another. So many modern hybrids. Instead, let’s go for trees. “An Oak by any other name would be a noble tree”. Which remains appropriate despite the number of different types of Oak trees.

Over the weekend, I was standing under a large ancient Holm Oak[1]. It had to be pointed out to me that that this type of Oak tree is evergreen. Most Oaks are not. An aged, stately and weathered one is definitely a noble tree.

I’m finding the News reporting of the moment mixed-up and confused. The word “diversity” gets thrown around like a political football. Let’s be clear. Diversity is everywhere. It is not unusual. Names are labels that we use like a scatter gun. Often to try to pick-out, to differentiate one group of humans from another. Not always with good intentions in mind.

Let’s remember our essence and intrinsic quality is that we are human. We live on planet called Earth and we need to find ways to get on with each other.

Today, there’s rather a lot of us. Globally, over 8 billion. However, that’s not the key factor. Let’s face it, in Shakespeare’s time there was a fraction of that number[2]. All the great strife and troubles he wrote into his plays are here now, as much as they were in his time. Proportionally, the diverse range of people and their ways of living haven’t changed that much.

It would be wise to heed the lessons of history. As we segment, categorise and slot groups of people into specific camps. The digital age, social media has added a dimension to this process. Now, likes and dislikes pigeonhole people into “similar” groups.

Here, I’m trying to keep the topic generic. Recent judgements from eminent judges, although necessary, hasn’t added a much to social harmony. To say “the law is an ass” is no understatement. I certainly wouldn’t want to fly on an aeroplane designed by lawyers. Although, it would be safe since it would never get off the ground.

I believe, we should treat each other in a way that respects that we are human, and thus diverse. That means tolerance and mutual understanding are essential. Not optional. Creating the need for bathroom police is the dumbest thing venerable British judges have done in a while.

[1] https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/holm-oak/

[2] In 1600, around William Shakespeare’s time, the estimated world population was around half a billion. London’s population was about 245,000.

Cartoons capturing us

To me, it’s fascinating how a few lines of pen and ink can sum up so much. One of the great underestimated influences is the power of the cartoon. They speak of their times, they speak of social niceties, they speak of the ever-moving conveyer belt of humour.

Every day the cartoons of MATT[1] sum up, in a witty way, what the News has to say. A little composed abbreviation of an event, a thought, or an idea. Not the least bit easy to do unless that’s your talent. Believe me, I’ve had a go, and the results were not good.

A picture can tell a thousand stories. Substitute for page of words. Often this is said about photography and not so much drawing. Pictures have a language all their own. Their properties escape the communication difficulties that language can throw up.

Back to the few lines. A minimalist drawing in black and white with a sentence is the basic format. I wonder which comes first. The witty line or the image? I’ll bet that varies from person to person. An idea must spring from the mind first.

Let me say right away that not every cartoon hits the mark. I’ve got a daily tear-off New Yorker cartoon[2] calendar. It has a cartoon for the day. In the morning, I’ve torn off the last day and pondered at the worst of them, thinking what on earth were they on when they selected this one.

The reason I started writing these words is a reaction to the cartoons of H.M. Bateman[3]. He’s from another era. A world of English etiquette that has faded with time. Although, I expect if you go to the races at Royal Ascot[4] Bateman’s world lives on in its modern form.

What came to my mind is the link between social media and Bateman’s view of the world. A lot of his cartons depend on the notion that just below the surface the English are about to explode at any moment. Like the 1970’s sitcom character Basil Fawlty.

Under the social equilibrium that enables society to function there’s a seething mass of rage. A bubbling anger that can spill over at the least provocation. Then reason turns into unreason.

A sense that a minor faux pas reveals a sense of injustice that has simmered for years. One small social blunder and an avalanche descends on the poor victim. So, is social media behaviour merely an extension of a human characteristic that has aways been there? That we can easily take a violation of etiquette or social norms wholly out of proportion.

And my further thought. Have certain unscrupulous politicians learnt how to exploit this suppressed emotion. Have encouraged the volcano to explode on que. Prodded and poked it. Even having lifted the vail on the weaknesses of you and I, meant that they could get away with innumerable gaffes, and blunders. There’s an essay for a bored writer to take-up.

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

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon

[3] https://www.hmbateman.com/

[4] https://www.ascot.com/royal-ascot

Communication Prevents Disasters

It’s often forgotten that there’s a need to repeat messages. We are not creatures that retain everything we see and hear. There are exceptional people, it’s true, those who cram away facts and have an amazing level of recall. Often that’s my reaction to watching students leading teams on University Challenge[1]. How on earth do they know those obscure facts?

Most of us do not respond well to those who say, “Well, I told them once. I’m not going to tell them again.” That line is probably one of the most misguided utterances a teacher can make. Like it or not, this approach is part of our heritage. Past ages, when deference was expected, listening was mandatory, and misremembering was entirely the listener’s fault.

We’ve had a cultural shift. Our complex technological society doesn’t work in a command-and-control way. Too many disasters can be traced to miscommunications and misunderstanding. Now, the obligation exists on those delivering a message to go some way to ensure that it’s received with a degree of comprehension. That’s when repetition has a role to play.

One of the pillars of Safety Management Systems (SMS) is Safety Promotion. It’s the Cinderella of the aviation safety world.

Why do I say that? Experience for one. It’s much easier to get policy made and funding for the “hard” sciences like data acquisition, analysis and decision-making systems. These are often perceived as providing tangible results. Actionable recommendations that satisfy the need to be recognised as doing something. Even if that something is questionable.

Communication is key to averting disasters. It’s no good having pertinent information and failing to do anything with it, other than file it. The need to know is not a narrow one. Confined to a specialist few.

Let’s go back to 2003 and the Space Shuttle Columbia accident[2]. This craft was destroyed in a disaster that claimed the lives of its crew. The resulting investigation report is extremely compressive, if slightly overwhelming, but it has some key points to make.

To quote, “That silence was not merely a failure of safety, but a failure of the entire organization.” [Page 192]. In other words, the hidden concerns and internal machinations of an organisation can smother safety messages and led to failure. Since 2003, it’s sad to say that there are multiple occasions when what has been learned has been ignored. The impact has been devastating.

So, to shape the future let’s remember the Cinderella of the aviation safety. Discovering problems is not enough. It’s vital that practical solutions and good practice gets promoted. That needs to be done forcefully and repetitiously.

NOTE: This is, in part, a reaction to watching this video presentation. https://acsf.aero/an-unforgettable-closing-to-the-2025-acsf-safety-symposium-with-tim-and-sheri-lilley/

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t6l0

[2] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030066167/downloads/20030066167.pdf

Revolution: Hype vs Reality

Talk is of a revolution[1]. That sounds sensational. It sounds like marketing talk aimed at creating an insatiable desire for something new. So, that kind of talk immediately switches on the cynical side of my brain. Is this hype or is it real?

We’ve had plenty of both in my lifetime. Colourful boys adventure books with novelties like nuclear powered aircraft and moonbase vacations. It’s not that “flying a kite” is entirely bad. Those imaginings of the future had pictures of prototype flying cars. Now, we maybe on the verge of that prediction becoming real.

AI is not new. It’s been a research subject for decades. What we have most recently is the coming together of concepts and the practical machines on which to run those concepts. Amazing has been the speed of progress. That’s a modest word considering the sudden adoption of new tools that go way beyond simple INTERNET search engines.

Bill Hunter’s line: “You can’t stop progress”. At least that’s the line I remember of the 1994 film Muriel’s Wedding[2]. It was said on a rocky path to “progress” induced disaster.

My curiosity centres around avoiding the hype and finding out what’s real. That’s in the vain hope that I might not be left behind in this rapid surge of “progress”. So, to keep up with the latest technical developments I clicked on a TED App. The boss of TED, Chris Anderson has recently interviewed Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI[3]. He’s the guy behind ChatGPT. AI has elevated new people into the spotlight. It’s given established technology companies a headache. Their desire to be in the pack, or leading the pack is mighty strong.

My takeaways form this interview are that AI will outpace human intelligence, in time. No one knows how much time, but the path is set. The direction of travel isn’t in the control of traditional institutions or government departments. Society must get its head around a time when we live with machines that out pace us.

Second, it would be nice to have an enlightened global regulator to ensure that the massive amount of development going on produces outcomes that are for the public good. Chances of that happening are about zero, although not zero. There’s even a possibility that the industry at work on this technology realises the need for a set of enforceable rules.

Questions of safety are paramount. Even though society debated the impact that the INTERNET would have on us, steps to provide protections and boundaries only came about after the event. Lost in a storage box, I once had a book called “The Sleeping Sentinels”. Basically, the thought was that political parties and the legal profession are always more than ten steps behind the technologists. We are highly reactive.

One interesting aspect of the interview was the pauses. What was evident is that it’s hard to find the right language to describe what’s happening. Walking a tight rope between sounding like Chicken Little[4] and a wise respected elderly professor. Revolution is the right word.

POST: It’s not just IT Why AI Demands a New Breed of Leaders

[1] https://youtu.be/Xv8FBjo1Y8I

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLDcevp5w5o

[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_altman_openai_s_sam_altman_talks_chatgpt_ai_agents_and_superintelligence_live_at_ted2025

[4] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chicken_little

Unlocking Prosperity

“So, whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, ………”

This is the code of reciprocity. In other words, I’d like you to be generous to me, so I’ll be generous to you. Now, of course this works the other way around in a perverse way. Perfectly human, although it’s tainted with suspicion. I’d like you to be generous to me, but I think you are unkind, so I’ll be unkind to you.

I don’t think that’s what Apostles had in mind. Their teaching is first to urge us to be generous as a way of encouraging others to act similarly. A lot there depends on how you view human nature.

For a long time, the United States (US) has had relatively low import tariffs based on adopting a leadership position. It’s to say, you should be like us. If you do that, there’s a chance that we will both become more prosperous.

Generally, argue how you will, as a result the US has become the most prosperous nation in the world. I know it’s only one measure but looking at the numbers of billionaires by country 2025[1] the US stands out. Over a quarter of the world’s billionaires live in the US.

I started with a Christian quotation and so it may be appropriate to ask how generous those fortunate billionaires are towards the people of their own country? I won’t go there. A nations prosperity should not depend on the philanthropic endeavours.

This year a lot has changed. Established ways of working are getting all shook-up. Ambition, suspicion and rivalry are all taking centre stage. An ambition to be unquestionably greater than all others. A suspicion that most others are taking advantage. A fight over valuable and often limited resources.

Again, human history is littered with times when such forces took over. Interestingly, Christianity gained a footing at a time when the Roman empire was plundering anything it could get its hands on. However, I’m not advocating a moral code to moderate the instinct to be imperial.

All to often those moral codes are just moulded and shaped to fit the prevailing circumstances.

No, my appeal is to mutual advantage. The simple idea that 2+2=4 is not the be all and end all of reality. In human affairs we can with effort make 2+2 equal more. It’s that saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s why people work together for common advantage.

Yesterday, I don’t suppose for a moment that ancient monument that I drove past would be there if it were not for the above benefits of having common goals and a willingness to cooperate. Stonehenge.

Trade barriers are foolish. Walls prevent the spreading of prosperity.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/billionaires-by-country

The Curious Case of Lists

How on earth does a humble soul like me make any comment at a time like this? Adding to the realms of things already said seems a bit pointless. We now have echo chambers sounding in echo chambers. Instead, I’ll take a sideways look. Mention one or two of the items that struck me during the week.

Penguins are getting a lot of Press. Ever since Trump decided to slap a tariff on an island inhabited by penguins there’s been a lot of speculations as to his ultimate motives. If I take Feathers McGraw as an example, I can well understand the need to make a pre-emptive strike against such a potentially villainous bird.

Of other notable penguins, I can only surmise that Trump has never heard of Pingu[1]. Now, there’s a subversive penguin if ever I saw one. He originated in Switzerland, which is strange to say the least.

I almost forgot another memorable fictional penguin of the past. A threatening comic character that combines menace with a gentlemanly swager[1]. One of Batman’s greatest foes. A well dressed master criminal unlike other criminals one might mention.

[1] https://youtu.be/yxqz9JqXdJU

I forgot it this year. Next year, I will pay attention to Penguin Awareness Day. 20 January might be winter to us but its summer to them. Birds that have the decency to dress up in black and white dinner jackets deserve some respect. I for one, will express my concern that the exports of our feathered friends may be taxed. Could it be that Trump is confused. Afterall the real penguins love the ice in the southern hemisphere. In fact, nowhere near Greenland.

“I’ve Got a Little List”. There’s a phrase that comes to mind. Lists, one in particular, does seem to have hit the News this week. I ask, why is there no modern-day equivalent of Gilbert and Sullivan? Accepted, companies do play with their songs and make words to fit the situation of the day[2]. There’s a great deal of scope for new lyrics.

The fabric of social media would rupture if there were no lists. I’m often entertained by an animation that shows a compilation of data as it ripples through the years. Something with colourful bar graphs that go up and down as the rank and order changes. A musical accompaniment that has no relation to what’s being presented. Lists are captivating. They spur a natural curiosity to look for the item of most personal interest. So, over time the economy of X or Y country goes up and then down and then up again. For sure, nothing stays the same for long. That maybe the moral of the week.

[1] https://youtu.be/7Uoug3d3AJE

[2] https://youtu.be/1NLV24qTnlg

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