Tag: Technology

Civilization’s Edge

Civilizations rise and fall. That’s not new in the human experience of the last couple of thousand years. One of the causes of failure is an encounter with an entirely unexpected threat. When I say “unexpected” I mean unprepared for threat. Then finding that the defences that have been constructed fall simply and quickly because they didn’t anticipate that threat.

Another reason for failure is a perpetual human characteristic. Arrogance. Everyday imagining that the pinnacle of achievement is – now. Look how smart we are in the 21st Century. Capable, Superman like, of leaping so far ahead of our forefathers.

I’m a child of the analogue age. I was born into the space age. What that brought us, by necessity, was the digital computer in all its myriads of forms. Yet, from day one, it’s no better that a mass of fast switches. Ones and noughts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

With miniaturisation and an understanding of how materials work a massive, global, interconnected digital system, called the INTERNET, has been constructed. It’s flexibility and utility are undeniable. Its extended human capabilities way beyond that of past generations.

Now, I can start a sentence with “however” or “but” or despite this fact. The whole enterprise is still an unfathomable, dynamic number of ones and noughts.

There’s a kind of vulnerability that is elemental. Whatever might be written about powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems it’s fair to say that the “A” is entirely accurate but the “I” is a bit of a myth. Mimicking intelligence is more the order of the day. That does make people shudder because that mimicking is so fast and draws on a massive amount of information. Seemingly that surpasses human capabilities. It doesn’t.

I write not of the machines that we have today but of those to come. I’ll resist the mention of the number 42. What’s happening is an acceleration of developments. These highly versatile tools that are permeating every aspect of life are not frozen in time. They overhaul themselves on a regular basis. What comes next is indeed machines that make machines. Algorithms that write algorithms.

Humanity is unprepared for the emergence of an intelligence that genuinely fits that bill. The whole idea of sovereignty and human autonomy might go out of the window. The ability to exercise control over where we are going is lost.

There are a lot of wealthy folks who are of a libertarian frame of mind who don’t seem too concerned about this race to the point of loss of control. This could be an expression of arrogance or ignorance or both. It could be the ultimate expression of short-termism.

It’s going to require real effort to hang on to democratic systems where we all have a stake in the direction of travel of our society. Money buys influence. Now, that influence is adverse to the idea of trying to regulate or moderate the advance of technology.

Civilizations rise and fall. Are we racing towards a cliff edge? Put aside climate change for a moment. Stop me from any tendance to doom-monger. My thought is that a comfortable, stable, prosperous society needs regulator instruments that work to mitigate threats. Let’s not be persuaded to ignore that reality.

Exploring Airworthiness Knowledge

How many good books are there on aircraft airworthiness? I don’t suppose a lot of people are going to ask that question. General introductions to airworthiness are not necessarily bedtime reading. This thought came to my mind, this week, because I had some time to kill in a library. A particularly technical library in London[1]. It’s at the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET).

Sited in a grand building on the banks of the River Thames. Savoy Place, as the name suggests, is next door to the famous hotel of the same name. What marks it out is a large statue, not of some long-forgotten stage actor or army general, but that of Michael Faraday[2]. His contribution to the modern world is enduring and undeniable.

I’ve been a member of this august engineering institute since my student days in the early 1980s. Then it was known as the IEE. One “E” being for Electrical. Our lectures encouraged us students to join and once done so they have us for life. Members worldwide have access to their books, databases and standards.

I could draw a thread between Faraday’s work and 21st century aviation. It’s a mighty wide thread and one that’s growing all the time. There are so many aspects of electromagnetism embedded in aviation. For example, without electric motors and servos, we’d still be controlling aircraft with strings and wires. Fine, hydraulics play their part too.

Technology has moved on. It continues to move. Electrification is displacing hydromechanical systems. The age of electric propulsion is getting closer as developers experiment with a myriad of different configurations of motors for different new aircraft types. More and more electrical power is needed to make modern aircraft tick.

In the IET’s library there are a few books with the word “airworthiness” on the cover. It’s a distinct niche. More often technical references contain huge amounts of material that concern or impact airworthiness, but the word itself is reserved for the more discerning.

One I picked off the shelf was “Airworthiness: An Introduction to Aircraft Certification and Operations” by Filippo De Florio[3]”. For me it’s full of familiar material. I was surprised at the level of detail and range of coverage. In its latest version, it’s reasonably up-to-date too.

One book that was not on the IET’s shelf is “Initial Airworthiness: Determining the Acceptability of New Airborne Systems” by Professor Guy Gratton. I believe he’s updating this book now.

There was a copy of “Aircraft System Safety: Assessments for Initial Airworthiness Certification” by Duane Kritzinger. Again, for me it’s full of familiar material.

Another book that was not on the IET’s shelf is “Aircraft Continuing Airworthiness Management: A Practical Guide for Continuing Airworthiness Engineers” by Daniel Olufisan.

What I’m wondering now is how many other contemporary books are there on this subject. That is up-to-date references. Yes, I know I could do a quick search to turn up an easy answer but that tells me nothing of the quality of the publications. All four above are worth a read.

Help me out with some suggestions – please.

[1] https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-and-archives

[2] https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/about/michael-faraday/

[3] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Airworthiness-Introduction-Aircraft-Certification-Operations/dp/0081008880

Trust in Voluntary Reporting

Hard data is immensely useful. Now there’s a surprise. That’s facts and figures. That’s accurate descriptions of occurrences. That’s measurements and readings of important factors. From this kind of data, a picture can be painted of events good and bad. However, this picture is not complete. It’s certainly not complete for any system that involves the interactions of humans and machines.

What’s often less visible is the need for what I might call – soft data. As such it’s not “soft”. I’m just using that loose term to distinguish it. Fine, you could say that social media is littered with the stuff. Vast qualities of instant judgements and colourful opinions. An array of off-the-shelf solutions to life’s ills. That’s all well and good for entertainment. It’s not so useful as a means of getting to the truth.

In civil aviation voluntary reporting systems have been around for several decades. They are not always successful, mainly because there’s a fair amount of trust required to use them when something major happens. When volunteering information there needs to be a level of assurance that the information will not be misused.

The human inclination to seek to blame is intrinsic. We wake-up in the morning, look out the window, and if it’s rainy and windy then someone is to blame. Probably a weather reporter for not warning us of a coming storm. Blame is a way of making sense of negative events without having to do lot of tedious investigation and analysis.

Don’t get me wrong. Accountability is vital. If someone does something unspeakably bad, they must be held accountable. That is a form of blame. Tracing the bad event back to the root cause. If that cause is found to be negligence or malicious intent, then blame can be assigned.

Where a good safety culture exists, as it often the case in civil aviation, then it is wrong to assume that undesirable outcomes can always be linked to a bad actor of some kind.

Human error is forever with us. Even with the absolute best of intent no one is immune from this pervasive creature. It can be illusive. There are environments where owning up to making mistakes is fine. Sadly, I’m sure it’s not uncommon to have worked in environments where such openness is punished. The difference between a good culture and a bad one.

One of my past jobs involved negotiation with a contactor. Every change that we made to a complex contact had a cost attracted to it. So, there was an understandable sensitivity to making changes. At the same time our customer for the product kept asking for changes. There’s nothing worse than being in a tense meeting with a contactor and having my boss pull the rug from under my feet. Seeking to blame a change on my error rather than a customer request. Introducing a voluntary reporting system in such an environment is pointless.

My message here is clear. Voluntary reporting in aviation is a powerful tool. Reports submitted by employees can offer insights that are not available by just looking at hard data. These reporting systems maybe required by regulation or company policy. However, without a good sound safety culture they can be all but useless. A safety culture that is defended and supported by employees and the senior management of an organisation.

Shifting Perspectives

Daily writing prompt
What’s a topic or issue about which you’ve changed your mind?
View all responses

If you write the perfect rule, you will get the desired outcome. Authoring a specification that is robust and watertight will assure success. Having the best possible plan will deliver the best possible results. All sounds reasonable – doesn’t it? It’s not surprising that someone like me, having been schooled in project management, and working in engineering, would have a rational and systematic approach to problem solving. A proven highly successful way of implementing complex technical projects and delivering successful outcomes.

As an analogy I’ll start with mathematics. Nature is a curious beast. What we lean about complex systems is that what happens is highly dependent upon a start point. The initial conditions. Graduate level mathematics about control systems with feedback show that their behaviour changes a lot with a change of initial conditions. So, it’s reasonable to extend that to a systematic approach to just about anything. It’s often true.

Fail to plan – plan to fail. That idiom is a simple few words to sum up this cause and effect. Used by famous names and often quoted. Management training books are littered with this notion.

20-years ago, my team introduced the first European Aviation Safety Plan[1]. This initiative was built around the idea that to achieve a common objective a plan is the best and quickest way to get there. A roadmap, a pathway, a strategy, call it what you will.

Start by identifying problems and then propose a fix for each one. Not all problems but the ones that fit that awkward Americanism – the low hanging fruit. Namely, the biggest problems (fruit) that can be solved with the least effort (easily picked).

Here’s where I’ve changed your mind. Maybe not changed in a dramatic sense but shifted perspective. It’s essential to have a plan, even if it’s just in my head, but it can be overstated as the most important part of a process of change.

The Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) cycle, starts with a plan. It must start that way. However, each of the four steps is equally important. Seems obvious to say. Even so, it’s often the case that a press release, or alike, will state – we have a plan, roadmap, pathway, strategy, as if that’s the job done.

Management teams will smile with a sense of achievement and show off their plans. A decade down the line that celebration might seem less momentous as the “do” part of the process turns out to be harder than anticipated.

This basic model for systematic change is a good one. Where I’ve changed my emphasis is in the distribution of effort. Don’t put all available energies into constructing the perfect plan. Yes, the initial conditions are important but they are not everything. The key part of the process is the cycle. Going around it with regularity is a way of delivering continuous improvement. Afterall, when it comes to a subject like aviation safety, that’s what’s needed.

[1] 2005 – DECISION OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD ADOPTING THE 2006 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

National Digital ID: Balancing Security and Liberty

We are in an age where identity is as important as it has ever been. Those line of demarcation that put us in one camp or another. It’s not a simple subject give the myriads of different combinations and permutations of distinct categories that can describe a person.

Without a doubt, I’m English, British, and European. A West Countryman, a husband, a graduate, a homeowner, a taxpayer, a liberal, an engineer and a gardener to name a few.

So, what of the current debate about the merit of identity cards or their digital equivalent. I remember, more than 15 years ago, the debate that surrounded this subject. Saying, as a Liberal Democrat I was against the introduction of ID cards as a matter of principle. A matter of principle seems like it should be an immovable statement. However, that which was a matter of principle in the context of the times does warrant revisiting.

It’s a transformation that was allowed to sweep much before it. From a paper-based analogue world full of mechanical processes to a ubiquitous high-speed digital one that has made life unrecognisable from the 1980s/90s. Digitisation is as much a social change as it is a bureaucratic change.

Past agreements range from the assertion that it will be impossible to control illegal migration without ID cards to the fear of big brother tracking every stage of our lives from cradle to grave. What’s moved on is the context within which arguments for and against are conducted.

A starting position is that each of us has multiple identities. It’s undeniable that these exist and they impact our daily lives. Some of these identities entitle us to specific privileges. This means permitting our access and restricting or stopping others. This can be as simple as a workplace security badge that allows access to a building.

A State-run identity recording system is not a universal cure all. Also, a State-run ID card and national database system has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between a Citizen and the State. I could say that there’s nowhere to hide. This is not a subject to go into with one’s eyes closed. The operational and associated implementation costs would be significant. Not to mention ongoing maintenance. These must be weighed against the benefits that might be accrued. I hope this becomes a rational discussion where costs and benefits are studied, published, and debated.

Can a national digital ID system prevent terrorist attacks, illegal immigration, identity fraud, and human trafficking? I don’t know. I do know that it will not be perfect.

On the political side, will people feel more secure and that State benefits or services are more fairly distributed as a result? That’s a big question.

To work effectively such a system will need to be required to by law. How much will that nibble away at the intrinsic perception of British liberty that we continue to hold? Will there be a backlash against a State that seeks to acquire more leavers of control?

My view is that the mandating of a national digital ID system needs to be balanced with a better clarification of the rights of citizenship in Britan. Without a written constitution there remains the vulnerability that a government of an extreme political type could misuse this innovation.

The Legacy of Beeching

Two hundred years is a long time. No, it isn’t. William the Conqueror, that’s the sort of name politicians crave, called for the building of Windsor Castle in England. That means, almost but not quite, a thousand years of continuous use. I guess in 2070 there’ll be a big celebration of the achievements of the Normans. Certainly, seemed to impress US President Trump.

If I had a time machine one of the destinations that I’d consider is 1963 and maybe 1965. I’d take a mass of press clippings and audio recordings about inadequate rural bus services and the high-speed railway saga (HS2).

History has a way of condensing a whole succession of events into a few simple words. William was a conqueror, but 1960’s civil servant Beeching was an axeman. That can be said to be unfair, since he was mandated to produce a report and, in the context of the times, British railways seemed like they had overexpanded and wouldn’t be brought back into profitability.

This happened when I was a child. I can just remember on my way to primary school stopping at a railway crossing and waiting a steam train to pass. It could have been the milk train. At that time milk was transported from west country dairy farms, in churns, to the local milk factory. Then loaded onto a London bound train. All this activity disappeared as I grew up. It was displaced by road tankers forcing their way along country roads.

I was born in a small Somerset railway town. Got my first pay packet in that small railway town. Had a couple of weeks of my engineering apprenticeship in the former railway shed. Spent time in the small motorcycle shop next to the railway embankment.

Beeching’s reports resulted in thousands of stations and thousands of miles of railway line being closed. The Somerset and Dorset (S&D) railway line was one of those that vanished. It was on 6 September 1965, the consent for closure was issued for most of the railway line.

Strangely, it was a newly elected Labour government that promised to reverse railway closures that closed the railway. A campaign to save the line was lost. Now, I think, what if, what if the new government of 1964 had not been so beguiled by modern road building and the white heat of technology. The internal combustion engine and purveyors of tarmac had won the day.

My message is to commission reports with a wider remit than merely improving economic efficiency. It’s a concern that is as ap today as ever it was. State of the art technology is alluring. Sloganising it’s easier to say that we are moving forward to a new dawn than it is to say we will update and improve the machinery we already use. There are good cases for scrapping past ways and means. Surely, it’s as well to try to look beyond immediate pressures.

Had Beeching’s axe not been so readily swung then we’d have an alternative to ever more road building and the billions ploughed into it. Remember those feeble promises to invest in local busses to replace the lost trains. How such recommendations are so quickly forgotten.

What will we say about robotics and artificial intelligence in 60-years’ time. Or even 200-years’ time. If we are still here.

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

Navigating the Digital Landscape

Maybe there’s no simple right or wrong answer. Polarising a debate doesn’t bring better results.

The landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in is ever changing. Moving to ban smart phones and tablets for children is gaining some momentum. Taking these components of modern living out of schools and limiting exposure to their influence is in the minds of campaigners. Organised movements and some politicians are going that way.

My childhood wasn’t dominated by digital technology. It was an analogue world. That single fact doesn’t make it “better”. Here, even my language suggests one good and the other bad. Perhaps I should be positive about the advantages of an analogue world. Afterall, it did stretch across the whole of human history right up to the time that personal computers found a place in our homes. However, that societal transition didn’t bring about Armageddon.  

There was a moral panic in my late teens. As analogue video technology became widely available then so did pre-recorded video cassettes. Now, they look prehistoric when they crop-up on the shelves in charity shops. Chunky, magnetic tape-based machinery became a rival to regulated broadcast TV. At the time, media legislation was way behind the curve.

In the early 1980s, social commentators got highly agitated about the harm that easily available video content could do. True, with some justification, although this reaction went overboard. The media would keenly focus on any crime that could be tagged to “video nasties[1]”.

What’s my point? It’s that media technology will continue to evolve at pace. Even now with our small screens, being carried everywhere people go, are systems that remain relatively crude. Imagine what will happen if technology that directly connects to the human brain becomes widely available.

Teaching children to be able to cope in this rapidly changing world matters. In my opinion, sheltering them from this technology landscape isn’t a good idea. Yes, censor the bad stuff but taking away smart phones and tablets has a downside.

Abstinence is favoured by strong believers in that way of living. Tightly controlling exposure to everyday society on the basis that the dangers of corruption are everywhere. Over the long-term, what is observed is that an approach based on prohibition isn’t sustainable.

Like it or not, there’s a schizophrenic reaction going on. As I was last week. sitting in a busy airport lounge, I noted the number of parents and children glued to their small screens. For the flight home of almost four hours, the proliferation of smart devices was notable.

Promoting legislation that prohibits the use and carrying of smart devices during the school day[2] is foolish. It ticks the populist box of the concerned parent but it’s stoking a new moral panic.

Learning to live healthily in the landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in, that’s part of the school day.

[1] https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-video-nasties

[2] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/19437/amendments/10018472

Evolving Communication

What happens when only a small percentage of the population can read and write? A historical perspective on that question gives the answer: feudalism. If texts are all in Latin and only the priesthood can read Latin, then it’s obvious what the results will be. That the priesthood acquires a superior power to that of the ordinary citizen.

Our interactions are what gives us our freedom. It’s difficult to challenge authority if that authority is holding all the cards. The means to communicate, and the willingness to do so, are integral to a free society. A democratic society.

Speculation about a future where humans spend most of their time interacting with machines is reasonable. In the last couple of decades, the increase in the number of machines that occupy more of our time is notable. Every trip to the supermarket[1] there’s the opportunity to enter a shop and leave without a single word to anyone. Not even a simple greeting or snippet of small talk. This is often sold as a benefit, faster, easier, less hassle.

If life can be conducted without the need for human communication, there are those who will take that path. Some will be by default and others willingly walk that path. If a majority do this then the balance of power shifts to advantage those who control the machines.

Before I go off on some dystopian movie plot, it may be as well to say that lot of new forms of communication have sprung up too. Those who play computer games and interact with other players all over the world. Such capabilities never existed until relatively recently.

What’s most concerning is the gradual distancing that is happening in politics. This might account for some of the disillusion that’s now evident. Gone are the days of major names addressing crowds directly. The idea that a political candidate would stand on a soapbox[2] in a public place and drum out their views and beliefs is getting remote. Such old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning methods are seen as dangerous and riddled with pitfalls.

Better a short video on a social media site is seen to be the substitute. Certainly, safer than standing up to a protest group or alternatively standing with them. Although, to be accurate, security has always been a matter of concern for public speakers. Taking onboard changes, verbal human to human communication is far from dead. It’s taking different forms. Mediated by the digital world we now act and speak differently. Post-COVID a degree of social etiquette has been lost.

Maybe this is why the UK Liberal Democrats are making so little impact on the national stage. With so many more elected members than one of their right-wing adversaries they still command less newspaper column inches (another old-fashioned term).

Like King Cnut[3], it’s foolish to think that the digital tide can be stopped. People must roll with it. If that means having a virtual pet or an artificial friend that will all become part of life’s colourful pageant. Small talk at a bus stop will never go away. However new ways of talking about the things that matter are happening – better adapt.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2025/aug/24/are-we-heading-for-a-world-where-no-one-ever-needs-to-talk-to-another-human-being

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/30/newsid_3739000/3739176.stm

[3] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Cnut-The-Great/

Why ‘Artificial’ in AI May Be Misleading: A Deeper Look

On reflection it seems strange to me that the biggest commercial push in technology should be called Artificial Intelligence (AI). Universally, this term has seeped into the daily media as being the only form of shorthand for the coming transformation in our lives.

Generally, the word “artificial” isn’t associated with desirable qualities. If I say that it’s opposite is “natural” then there is a wide gulf between the two. It couldn’t be clearer. Place a plastic garden chair next to an antique wooden chair – case proven.

Imagine a marketing campaign for artificial cosmetics as opposed to natural cosmetics. Which one do you think would be the more successful? It’s honest to say that a product is artificial given that it’s manufactured but it’s much more appealing to talk about its natural roots.

A desire to elevate natural content has a historical context. It’s the industrial revolution that provided society with a rich wealth of choice. Trouble is that a legacy image of dark satanic mills[1] and grim-faces of exploited workers is written deep into our culture. The natural world was assaulted and abused by the unstoppable steam roller of the industrial revolution.

It’s reasonable to refer to a complex digital system as an artifact. Not in the way of an archaeological discovery. More like a popular game, chess, checkers or go, in that it’s extant and associated with a set of practices and rules.

Today, AI doesn’t exist in nature. It may be inspired by nature, in terms of analogies with the workings of our brains. Neural networks and memory. Interconnections of circuits and wires and their arrangements are a human creation.

Having written the above, it does make me think; what will happen in 1000 years? A long time for our social structures and organisation but no time at all for any inhabitants of the Earth. Will someone be writing academic tones on the natural history of computers? Humans will be looking at them, and their evolution wondering how and why they got to do what they do. Much as we might now study ravens, rats and rabbits.

Surely AI will evolve. A natural process. Current systems will inevitably have deficiencies and flaws that get corrected in future generations. Experimentation is a human domain. Give it several decades and machines will be doing it for themselves.

The word “artificial” has a big downside. Although I’m having a lot of difficulty in thinking of a better general word. In my long-term scenario, what’s coming is a new branch of evolution. We know, the complexity of human behaviour is largely conditioned by our environment. We adapt. What AI may become, continuity dependent, will likely follow a similar path.

Whenever I visit the Natural History Museum[2] in London I like to look in on our ancestors. Today, our species, Homo sapiens, is the only human living. We once lived amongst our other human ancestors. Homo is the Latin word for “human” and sapiens is derived from a Latin word meaning “wise”.

There’s a story for you. Will AI eventually become Machina sapiens?

[1] “Dark Satanic Mills” is a phrase from William Blake’s poem.

[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html