Safety – Page 3 – John Vincent

Adaptation

There was a time when AI was an esoteric subject that filled the minds of high-minded professors. They had real trouble trying to translate what they were doing into langauage that most of us would understand. Research in the subject area was the purview of national institutes and military facilities. Results flowed into academic journals and little read folders in the corners of university libraries.

That has changed. What was expensive to build and test because everything was unique or bespoke is no longer. Enough is known about algorithms that work, and the ones that don’t, to make practical experimentation much more viable. AI tools are turning up on our desktops, tablets, and phones without us even asking. Opting-in is often assumed.

A massive number of applications are nothing more than fizz. They can be useful, but they are not game changers, and our lives carry on much as before. What is new, or at least pushing at the door, is applications that control things in our everyday environment.

If traffic lights start guessing what my age is before allocating a maximum time to cross the road, we are going to start to see a good amount of pavement rage when they get it wrong. When AI algorithms drive my car for me it’s going to be a bad day when accidents start to accumulate[1] (even if the total system of systems is far safer than us mere humans). Anyway, it’s easy to write scary stuff about AI. In this case I’d like to highlight some positive gains that might be realised.

A lot of what is designed, produced, and sold is pretty much fixed the day it leaves the shop or showroom. Yes, for example, cars are recalled for fixing known deficiencies but the threshold for taking such action is extremely high. Even in a safe industry like civil aviation dealing with an unsafe condition that has been discovered takes time and a great deal of resources.

AI has the potential to be adaptive[2]. So, that thing that you buy, car, washing machine, or whatever, will have the inbuild ability to learn. To adapt to its situation. To be like others of its type but, over time, to customise itself to the needs of its user.

Just image a domestic appliance that can adapt to its pattern of use. Always staying with safe boundaries, producing maximum energy efficiency, and doing its job to the best of its specification. Let’s imagine a car that gets to know common routes and all the hazards on those routes and even takes the weather and time of day into account when driving those routes.

In all that adaptive potential there’s great benefit. Unlike buying gloves that are made to specific standard sizes and don’t quite fit you, the adaptive glove would be that malleable leather that slowly gets a better and better fit with use. AI will be able to do that if it gathers the right kind of data.

Now naturally, this gets complicated if the adaptive element is also safety related. The control system in a car, truck, tram, train, or aircraft must get it right day after day in a wide range of conditions. Nevertheless, if systems are constrained within known safe boundaries there’s much to be gained by adaptation. This is not taking control away from the human in the loop but making it easier to do what humans do best. Just a thought.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/28/tesla-trial-autopilot-crash/

[2] https://luffy.ai/pages/IS-DR.html

New Walk

It’s a step to the left and then a step to the right. It’s not quite the “Time Warp” that featured in the 1970s rock musical: The Rocky Horror Show.

It’s a little mini dance that people do every day in the streets of Britain. I found myself doing it over the weekend. It’s that moment when you realise that you have lost a sense of what’s around you. A tiny drift away from where you intended to go. Then a step to correct, and look-up and set-off again towards your destination. A wiggle on the pavement.

Maybe this walk didn’t exist before 2006. Well, that is all but in the most exceptional situations. Hand-held devices are not entirely new. What’s much more frequent now is the compulsion to look at the small screen.

The colours, the constant demand for attention, the tickling of our curiosity, the mobile phone has it all. In fact, its dam silly to continue to call our devices “phones.” The primary purpose of these handy devices has long since passed from being able to make telephone calls from any location.

We call them a “mobile”, but the Germans call them a “handy”. An American will call them a cell phone. Given the way we use these ubiquitous hand-held devices, I think the Germans have got it right. The whole essence of the thing is its utility.

Now, if we are fixated with heads down there’s a lot that can go wrong. This has been the source of numerous aviation accidents. Looking up and checking visual references remains a fundamental part of flying. The basics of “see and avoid” are drummed into every new flyer.

On the pavement us poor humans are evolving in a world of every more connected technology. In our heads we have a perception of the world around us as we walk the urban streets. That’s made up of sights, sounds, and even smells. Our brains gather information and then do some spatial and temporal filtering before making sense of where we are and what we need to do to get where we want to go. The eyes, and image processing in the brain are on the top of the list of our normal priorities.

Heads-down attention is drawn to the small screen and away from our surroundings. Staring at the small screen draws us into the content of an e-mail, or a text message, or a cuddly cat picture running around social media. Luckily our other senses are keeping track of the world around us.

The textbook case is where we start to drift in our three-dimensional environment. Not much. It’s a step to the left and not a step to the right. Suddenly there’s a need to correct. Our ever-active brains pick up on the misstep. That’s where our tiny dance comes in and nobody but us may notice.

I’m talking about something that’s almost trivial. Hardly noticeable. However, there are far too many cases where fatalities have resulted from missteps[1]. There’s some evidence that bumping into people and objects is most likely. Slips and falls follow those incidents.

I’ll bet not much is known about the vast number of micro-events like my tiny mobile phone dance. Now, there’s a topic of study for a student of visual perception.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034962/

No shock

It’s very easy to have the false belief that – I’d never do that. Such phases top the bill. Of course, the one that really tops the bill is – well, I haven’t had an accident yet.

Most accidents and incidents happen in the home. When I say that, I include the garden and places that are extremely familiar. I suppose it’s the habit of taking the status-quo for granted that lulls us into a false sense of security. I’ve known several tragedies where seemingly benign situations have turned out disastrous.

Cutting through a hedge trimmer cable can be dangerous. I didn’t do that. Besides, the makers of hedge trimmers have made it difficult to get electrical shocks from their products. The extensive use of plastics, double insulation, two-wire connections and Residual Current Device, or RCD have made us a lot safer, however foolish we might try to be. An RDC is one of the most important electrical safety devices in everyday [1]use. A mains electrical current of a few milliamps (mA), for a second can be enough to kill a healthy person. My own experience of electrical shocks puts me in the lucky bracket.

So, what did I do? It’s like this. I have a large wooden shed in the garden. It’s supplied with power by a bright orange electrical cable that is hung high in the air from my garage to the shed. I even created a wire catenary to ensure that there is no stress on the electrical cable. It’s not new. It’s been there for a couple of years.

My bright red budget hedge trimmer is battery powered. It’s light weight and easy to use. That’s good – isn’t it? No problems with cables that may become damaged or frayed. It needs two handles to be squeezed to make it work.

Trouble is the ease of use means that the trimmer can be picked-up quickly to do a 5-minute job. That’s what I did. I thought, I’ll quickly trim back the overgrown honeysuckle that’s covering a fence. Slap the battery in and bish, bash, the job is done. Very straightforward job.

From here the story tells itself. Yes, such haste is never wise. The sweeping movements of the trimmer did the job they were supposed to do. They did something more too. There’s lots of stories about cutting through an electrical cable with a hedge trimmer. Sadly, that’s what I did.

The emotions after the event must be common place. How could I do something so stupid? For heaven’s sake the cable is bight orange. It’s high up. Why was I so careless?

Then there’s the feeling that comes later, however stupid the act might be there’s no injury to anyone. The RDC tripped, as it should. Immediately, I turn the power off in the garage. Now, I have two dangling parts of what was once a complete overhead cable. My damaged cable is going to need a waterproof repair. That’s the next job.

If there’s a lesson, it may be that none of us are immune from error. Common problems are common problems for a reason. The human factor is real.

Who’s in control?

The subject of artificial intelligence (AI) in an aircraft cockpit stirs-up reactions that are both passionate and pragmatic. Maybe, it’s a Marmite issue[1]. Mention of the subject triggers an instant judgement.

Large passenger transport civil aircraft are flown by two human operators. Decisions are made by those two human operators. They are trained and acquire experience doing the job of flying. A word that has its origins in the marine world is used to describe their role – pilot.

One of my roles, early on in my career, was to lead the integration of a cockpit display system into a large new helicopter[2]. New, at the time. The design team, I was part of comprised of people with two different professional backgrounds. One had an engineering background, like me, and the other had qualification associated with psychology. The recognition that an aircraft cockpit is where the human and machine meet is not new. A lot of work was done in simulation with flight crews.

The first generation of jet aircraft put the pilot in full-time command. It’s as we moved from purely mechanical interactions with aircraft, the balance of flight control has been shared between pilot and aircraft systems. There’s no doubt, in the numbers, that this has improved aviation safety.

Nobody is calling for the removal of aircraft autopilot systems. Much of the role of the formerly required flight engineer has been integrated into the aircraft systems. Information is compressed and summarised on flat screen displays in the aircraft cockpit.

Today, AI is not just one thing. There’s a myriad of different types and configurations, some of which are frozen and some of which are constantly changing as they learn and grow. That said, a flawless machine is a myth. Now, that’s a brave statement. We are generations away from a world where sentient machines produce ever better machines. It’s the stuff of SiFi.

As we have tried to make ever more capable machines, failures are a normal part of evolution. Those cycles of attempts and failures will need to lead into the billions and billions before human capabilities are fully matched. Yes, I know that’s an assertion, but it has taken humans more than a million years to get to have this discussion. That’s with our incredible brains.

What AI can do well is to enhance human capabilities[3]. Let’s say, of all the billions of combinations and permutations, an aircraft in flight can experience, a failure that is not expected, not trained, and not easily understood occurs. This is where the benefits and speed of AI can add a lot. Aircraft system using AI should be able to consider a massive number of potential scenarios and provide a selection of viable options to a flight crew. In time critical events AI can help.

The road where AI replaces a pilot in the cockpit is a dead end. The road where AI helps a pilot in managing a flight is well worth pursuing. Don’t set the goal at replacing humans. Set the goal at maximising the unique qualities of human capabilities.

[1] https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/marmite_2

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

[3] https://hbr.org/2021/03/ai-should-augment-human-intelligence-not-replace-it

First Encounter

My first encounter with what could be classed as early Artificial Intelligence (AI) was a Dutch research project. It was around 2007. Let’s first note, a mathematical model isn’t pure AI, but it’s an example of a system that is trained on data.

It almost goes without saying that learning from accidents and incidents is a core part of the process to improve aviation safety. A key industry and regulatory goal is to understand what happened when things go wrong and to prevent a repetition of events.

Civil aviation is an extremely safe mode of transport. That said, because of the size of the global industry there are enough accidents and incidents worldwide to provide useful data on the historic safety record. Despite significant pre-COVID pandemic growth of civil aviation, the number of accidents is so low that further reduction in numbers is providing hard to win.

What if a system was developed that could look at all the historic aviation safety data and make a prediction as to what accidents might happen next?

The first challenge is the word “all” in that compiling such a comprehensive record of global aviation safety is a demanding task. It’s true that comprehensive databases do exist but even within these extremely valuable records there are errors, omissions, and summary information.

There’s also the kick back that is often associated with record keeping. A system that demands detailed record keeping, of even the most minor incident can be burdensome. Yes, such record keeping has admirable objectives, but the “red tape” wrapped around its objectives can have negative effects.

Looking at past events has only one aim. That’s to now do things to prevent aviation accidents in the future. Once a significant comprehensive database exists then analysis can provide simple indicators that can provide clues as to what might happen next. Even basic mathematics can give us a trend line drawn through a set of key data points[1]. It’s effective but crude.

What if a prediction could take on-board all the global aviation safety data available, with the knowledge of how civil aviation works and mix it in such a way as to provide reliable predictions? This is prognostics. It’s a bit like the Delphi oracle[2]. The aviation “oracle” could be consulted about the state of affairs in respect of aviation safety. Dream? – maybe not.

The acronym CAT normally refers to large commercial air transport (CAT) aeroplanes. What this article is about is a Causal model for Air Transport Safety (CATS)[3]. This research project could be called an early use of “Big Data” in aviation safety work. However, as I understand it, the original aim was to make prognostics a reality.

Using Bayesian network-based causal models it was theorised that a map of aviation safety could be produced. Then it could be possible to predict the direction of travel for the future.

This type of quantification has a lot of merit. It has weaknesses, in that the Human Factor (HF) often defies prediction. However, as AI advances maybe causal modelling ought to be revised. New off-the-shelf tools could be used to look again at the craft of prediction.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Air_safety_statistics_in_the_EU

[2] https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/delphi

[3] https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-archief-d5cd2dc7-c53f-4105-83c8-c1785dcb98c0/pdf

Bird Strike 2

What makes a bird strike different is that it’s an unpredictable collision. If we talk about aircraft collisions with terrain the outcome is predicable bad. All that kinetic energy must go somewhere. So, a high-speed vehicle hitting something that is immovable is not going to end well.

Now, it must be said that some hunting birds can dive at incredible speeds. More typically, a large bird in flight between feeding sites isn’t going to be traveling fast. In fact, it may as well be viewed as a static object relative to an aircraft in flight. A bird in-flight is unlikely to be able to take avoiding action. For a pilot the action of “see and avoid” may work in respect of other aircraft but a bird ahead is no more than a pinprick in the sky.

These factors make aircraft bird strikes inevitable. That said, the range of outcome because of impacts are rarely at the severe end of the scale. One reason for this is the effort made at design certification to ensure an aircraft is sufficiently robust. Damage can occur but if the aircraft design and test processes have been rigorous everyone should get home safely.

I remember paying particular attention to the zonal analysis done by several major manufacturers. In my experience the most difficult designs are for those of business jets and large helicopters. One of the design challenges in both cases is the limited physical real estate within the aircraft structure. Weight is another big consideration. This leads to cramming essential avionics and electrical systems and their interconnections into confined spaces.

Zonal analysis is about ensuring there’s segregation between different systems. Afterall what’s the point of having two Attitude & Heading Reference Systems (AHRSs)[1] and putting them next to each other in the nose cone of an aircraft. That’s not a good design strategy. One damaging impact must not take out two essential independent aircraft systems.

It’s just as important to ensure an aircraft’s wiring isn’t all bundled togther and taken through one connector. That may save money on electrical parts but it’s not going to work after being hit hard by a 5kg goose.

These issues will need particular care in the new electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft that are on the drawing boards. Choosing a safe architecture, manufacturers must balance the use of creative design solutions, to produce a competitive product, with limited physical space.

A couple of key words in the certification requirements concern hazards that are anticipated. Bird Strike is hazardous and aircraft systems and equipment must “perform their intended function” should it occur. See EASA Special Condition for small-category VTOL aircraft, Subpart F[2].

POST: Good to see the bird strike criteria Joby’s airworthiness criteria: A blueprint for the nascent eVTOL industry – Vertical Mag

[1] https://helicoptermaintenancemagazine.com/article/layman%E2%80%99s-guide-attitude-heading-reference-systems-ahrs

[2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/SC-VTOL-01.pdf

Bird Strikes

Birds and aircraft share the same airspace. This is not a beneficial relationship for either.

I watched two rather aloof Branta canadensis in our local park the other day. They seemed oblivious to all the other birds on the priory pond. I’d certainly describe these two birds as being well fed. Given their stature and size, they looked formidable. These resident North American visitors are not to be messed with and are only eclipsed by the Swans on Reigate’s pond.

This species of bird has adapted well to living in urban and suburban areas and are frequently found on lakes, ponds, and rivers. I used to see large flocks of them gather on the river Thames. That was only a couple of miles from London Heathrow.

Even though they are numerous in the UK these birds are protected by law (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981[1]). Today, the population numbers may be as high as 62,000 breeding pairs[2]. Although these birds have the capability to fly great distances they tend to hang around where there’s a reliable source of food. Bird populations are changing their behaviours as a result of climate change.

Geese fly in the typical V-formation which is called a “wedge” or skein. From time to time, I see them fly over my house at a few hundred feet as they move between local lakes and ponds. They are easy to spot and often noisy as they elegantly traverse the sky.

Birds and aircraft share the same airspace. This is not a beneficial relationship for either. Strikes occur around the world every day. In the history of aviation, there have been hundreds of aircraft accidents and more than 47 fatal aircraft accidents caused by bird strikes[3].

It must be said that most bird strikes cause little damage to aircraft but that is highly dependent upon the size of the unfortunate bird and their habits. The story can be very different when an impact is with a Canada goose. Their large size and tendency to fly in flocks can have a devastating impact. On 15 January 2009, a US Airways Airbus A320 aircraft[4] ended up in Hudson River as the result of an encounter with such birds.

The risk of collision between birds and aircraft have always been part of aircraft operations. As a result, measures are taken to certify aircraft to be robust in the event of such collisions. Additionally, there’s a great deal of effort made at major airports to keep birds away from active runways.

Most of the bird threat to aviation safety exists when travelling at speed at relatively low altitudes. Bird strikes happen most often during take-off or landing. This makes me think that bird strikes are going to be a regular feature of the operations of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) / Advanced Air Mobility (AAM). The use of use highly automated aircraft may offer the opportunity to provide sophisticated bird avoidance features. However, so far, I’ve detected no talk of such features.

POST 1: A useful safety booklet Large Flocking Birds (skybrary.aero)

POST 2: A recent Boeing 737-800 serious incident LinkedIn

POST 3: An example of what can happen from 2019 Ural Airlines Flight 178 – Wikipedia

POST 4: Another useful safety booklet Bird strike, a European risk with local specificities, Edition 1 – Germany | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69

[2] https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/birds/waterfowl/canada-goose

[3] https://www.skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/615.pdf

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

Aviation, Brexit and COVID19 (ABC) 5

nature animal fog freedom — Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

At the start of this pandemic, prominent UK Brexiters were saying: no need to panic. Let people continue to mingle. Let the virus become widespread so lots of people build-up an immunity[1]. As is so typically with Brexiters, they could not have given worse advice at a worse time. What’s sad is that, at the beginning of the year the UK Government was going down this uncaring road.

In the UK, we have broken the ominous threshold of 10,000 deaths put down to Coronavirus. It’s tragic that the UK Government didn’t take the warnings signs coming from China sufficiently serious. Now, the horse has bolted, and everyone is desperately playing catch-up. The UK’s chief scientific advisor has admitted that coronavirus testing in the UK should have been ramped up faster[2].

Even the hardest of hard-core Brexit supporters are saying, responding to COVID-19 is more important than pushing on with negotiations between UK and EU. Let’s hope that common sense prevails. The two parties have until the 1 July 2020 to decide whether to extend the existing transition period, and on what detailed terms. There’s even strange talk in the media that the UK wants pay-as-you-go Brexit. It’s simply not sane to expect Governments to secure a new free trade deals while dealing with a deadly situation.

It hardly seems right to be writing about Aviation at this moment. At the beginning of this year the biggest crisis the industry faced was that concerning the Boeing 737 MAX. It’s been a year since Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed, taking 157 lives[3]. Naturally, that remains an important safety concern, only that it’s overshadowed by the coverage of the impact of lockdowns over the globe.

France has just extended its lockdown till 11 May 2020. It will be surprising if the UK doesn’t mirror what other European States are doing. Each should be learning from the other in this respect.

We ought to be thankful that there’s so many transport workers, air traffic controllers, pilots, engineers and professionals who maintain aviation. Cargo and essential medical supplies are continuing to be moved safely by air. Aviation safety must remain the top priority whatever the commercial or mission pressures.

[1] https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/02/daniel-hannan-alarmism-doom-mongering-panic-and-the-coronavirus-we-are-nowhere-near-a-1919-style-catastrophe.html

[2] https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-13/coronavirus-testing-in-uk-not-ramped-up-as-quickly-as-it-should-have-been-government-s-chief-scientific-advisor-admits/

[3] https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1237423006869225475?s=20

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 13

WP_20170826_008 For decades we (UK) have been interwoven with the EU in an intricate pattern that is complicated and often not well understood even by those who are supposed know. The twists and turns of the last 4-years have brought about a situation where those who say: absolute independence outweighs the risk of being “shackled” to the EU, now govern the UK. The idea of common interests and common solutions to common problems has gone out of the window.

Aircraft are built by experts, tested by experts and flown by qualified experts with exceptional skill and with multiple safety backups. Brexit has been driven by opportunist politicians who persistently distort evidence to support their beliefs with scant regard of the costs or harm done. Thus, the next steps in the Brexit EU-UK negotiations will be as difficult, as difficult as can be imagined. That’s what has indeed happened if reports of this week’s discussions are surveyed.

The UK will withdraw from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after 31^st December[1]. The divorce is a hard one. I can think of a lot of Brits who dedicated enormous amount of effort to European harmonisation who will be turning in their graves.

Yes, it’s true that the road that led to the EASA had its roots in the UK. When I started work at the UK CAA, the offices of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) were based at Aviation House, London Gatwick. The benefit to aviation of having a common code was recognised in the 1980s. Signing of the “Arrangements concerning the Development, the Acceptance and the Implementation of Joint Aviation Requirements” (the “Cyprus Arrangements”) by 24 European States, took place in 1990.

In time, the weakness of the JAA system became apparent in that the common application and interpretation of aviation codes was not so common. The framework of European law was necessary to ensure that there was indeed a level playing field and a high level of aviation safety. In European law, a division of tasks between the EASA and the national aviation authorities was determined. EASA was given the power to carry out legally binding certification tasks, thus overcoming the limitations of the JAA system. The creation of EASA, led to the harmonisation of more existing rules and regulations and greater cooperation in the formation of new rules.

Reversing out of 30 years of progress is a challenging task. Yes, it can be coloured as a bold new era in flourishing rhetorical terms but practically it looks like a knee-jerk reaction. Not only that but the timing is awful. Market turbulence due to the contagious virus is severely impacting aviation. Not only that but the whole process of certificates issued by one authority being automatically accepted by another authority is being questioned because of the Boeing 737 MAX case.

Playing to the crowd with symbols of post-Brexit independence isn’t a wise move. It’s kamikaze.

[1] https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/uk-will-leave-easa-says-british-transportation-secretary

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 12

It can take a long sentence to say something simple. On second reading, that simple sentence can mean a lot more than is first understood. Take this text for example:

In the case of conflicting interpretations of the laws, regulations or requirements pertaining to certification or approvals under this Agreement, the interpretation of the competent aeronautical authorities of the Contracting State whose laws, regulations or requirements is being interpreted shall prevail.

So, said an exchange of notes between the UK and US dated 28 December 1972. For reference, the UK joined the European Communities on 1 January 1973. The aim of the note was the reciprocal acceptance of airworthiness certificates. This sort of agreement is vital given that civil aeronautical products get shipped for use all over the globe.

Thus, the UK accepted that if there was a disagreement about a US rule then US law prevailed. Because this is about reciprocity, so the US accepted that if there was a disagreement about a UK rule then UK law prevailed.

Here we are in 2020 with talk of creating a suite of new Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs) as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Wouldn’t it be quick and pragmatic to use similar words to the 1972 ones again?

Here lies a big problem or at least that’s how one red line makes life difficult. If the UK’s current statements about being an independent self-governing nation totally excludes any role for the applicability of European law how can a reciprocal agreement be written?

Also, there’s the historic inconsistency, as before the UK joined the EU it accepted by the note mentioned that interpretations set against another State’s law would be accepted. There’s a peculiar element to this too, given that at the point of withdrawal from the EU, UK law and EU law are harmonised on the matters of certification and approvals.

Compromise requires a rejection of a narrow doctrine. If both the UK and the EU are satisfied that they both have competent aeronautical authorities, then the reciprocal acceptance of certifications should be possible. That’s if there’s the political will to make it happen.

The industry group ADS[1] said: “We are disappointed that both the UK Government and the EU are not seeking a more ambitious approach to aviation safety.” It’s easy to see why they are disappointed. That said, negotiations are just starting, and practical opportunities exist.

[1] https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/news/newsroom/ads-statement-on-uk-approach-to-future-economic-relationship/