Could modelling help find the missing airliner?
Engineers can claim a lot of the credit for public safety, but the Malaysia Airlines MH370 disaster of three years ago reminds us there’s always more to do.
Endless media speculation has masked the actual evidence. Raw radar data from Malaysian sources were shown briefly after the loss, but were greatly simplified before publication in the factual information report.
Regrettably, the gathering of radar data and witness reports from further afield was poorly done, and a yachtswoman who reported a low and slow aircraft wasn’t interviewed.
It’s known the crew were told of a humid cargo that could cause spurious fire alarms, but not of the presence of lithium-ion batteries. It’s known the aircraft manufacturer had cautioned airlines to correctly refit the fire-resistant liners in the holds.
The radio log hints that the crew had been disturbed before they made the turn-back. A crisis developed just as the autopilot made a small course change, so the 180° turn didn’t take them back to base.
The radar track soon showed lateral snaking and vertical porpoising, and the aircraft kept flying for nearly seven hours, seemingly uncontrolled but within the limits of the fly-by-wire system. An erratic path would have ended far north of where the search was focused.
Engineers built an aircraft that came so close to surviving a catastrophic event. Perhaps those same engineers could guide us where to search by modelling the progress of that event, and of the subsequent flight.
Richard Lloyd, Coventry
Give us the credit, please
I’m sure I’m not alone in being frequently annoyed by the way that the engineering profession is misrepresented and misunderstood and is often unrecognised or ignored by the media.
A case in point is when the Large Hadron Collider was being brought online. It was reported by the BBC as having been built by many thousands of scientists. The impression given was that engineers played no part in its design and construction. I suspect I quietly fumed but took no action to address this gross misrepresentation.
Recently, I was fuming again when the presenter on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme said that the redesign of a milk carton so that it used less plastic was an example of what can be learned about physics and could be shown to schoolchildren to encourage them to become physicists.
This time I sent them an email. This pointed out that the presenter has a big misconception about what physics is, that he does not recognise the work of engineers and that he shares this misconception with many of his colleagues in the media.
I gave definitions of physics and of engineering. After indicating the aspects of engineering knowledge that would have been applied by an engineer to produce an optimised design of the milk bottle, I pointed out that the essential role that engineers play is hugely misunderstood and under-appreciated in the UK. This situation is not improved when their achievements are attributed to others.
Yes, the economy needs physicists, but it also needs a lot of new engineers so we can continue to innovate and make goods, particularly in the post-Brexit UK.
The BBC must be careful to educate and inform its listeners and viewers to correctly distinguish between engineers and scientists.
My lone voice may not have much impact but if the engineering community was more proactive when misrepresentation was seen or heard it may go some way to improving our standing.
If the text of a suitable template letter was available to members from a website then it would be easy to customise it and use it as required. Perhaps the media would improve their act if they received large numbers of complaints.
If we can improve the understanding of the profession in the media, then this may encourage more pupils to become engineers.
Chris Stanley, Linlithgow, West Lothian
This technology’s no winner
As an engineer with 50 years’ experience in conventional hydropower including two tidal power schemes I believe that tidal-stream technology can never hope to be economic.
Conventional hydropower generates electricity from a continuous one-way flow of fresh water that has been backed up by a weir or dam to provide a head of 1.5m or more that is necessary to generate an economic supply of electricity.
Tidal-stream technology involves trying to generate electricity at a competitive price from a fluctuating two-way flow of water that is corrosive and subject to marine growth. The maximum water velocity is in the region of 3m/s during spring tides and probably half that during neap tides. Slack tide happens twice a day when no power is generated for an hour or more. The effective head is represented by V^2/2g. At 3m/s, this represents a theoretical head of 450mm. In practice, the maximum effective head on the turbine is likely to be 250mm. At 1.5m/s the power output will drop by a factor of four.
Those that promote tidal-stream power want us to believe that it can produce an economic supply of electricity from a head that is at least one third of the lowest economic head for conventional hydropower. If they possess such a revolutionary technology, why isn’t it being aimed at the far more friendly conditions in fast-flowing rivers?
The answer is, of course, that the developers are milking the funding available for marine power and touting it as a new technology because they know they won’t get huge subsidies and grants for conventional hydropower.
Once again, the old lesson comes home: governments cannot pick winners and anything that is subsidised is inherently uneconomic. The iPhone did not need subsidies for R&D or for production.
Bryan Leyland, Auckland, New Zealand
We need proper titles
In your article on the profession (“Culture change,” PE December) you say “the UK has the lowest proportion of engineers in all of Europe”. Why is engineering in the UK so relatively unattractive?
I do not believe it is as simple as low pay. I am convinced that the main reason is that practically all (if not all) our continental equivalents have prefixes to their names, usually Ing or Ir. So is the remedy not obvious? All that is necessary is to move the CEng and IEng from after the name to before, such as CEng J Bloggs.
With several hundred thousand prefixes appearing overnight, the general public will soon learn the difference between a qualified professional engineer and a mechanic.
Are we too modest to make this change? How many of us would consult a GP who was not a Dr? In most cases this is not an academic qualification, it is a prefix bestowed by their professional body.
Is it not time that the IMechE and the other institutions got this ball rolling to distinguish us from “white van man”?
David Reeves, Collingham, Nottinghamshire
Priced out of science jobs
The recent EDF Energy Jobs of the Future report states that Stem jobs will grow twice as fast as other occupations.
This is great news but unfortunately most of the jobs are being created in regions where new graduates cannot afford to live, for example London, Cambridge and Oxford. Until the government stops paying only lip service to the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine – both of which are capable of supporting the science economy along with affordable housing – and actively damps down developments in the South East, such as the Science Vale in Oxford, this situation will only be exacerbated.
Until government actively promotes science where scientists can afford to live, the industry will never reach its true potential but maybe the chief flautist’s horizons don’t reach beyond Watford.
Peter Gore, Oxford
Keep asking tough questions
Throwing out old copies of PE, I came across a letter about why engineers don’t stand for parliament (PE August 2015). The need is greater than ever.
Good engineers will have experience and questioning minds. With a career in the energy sector I often worked abroad and managed projects; I comment on a few of today’s issues.
On diesel emissions, politicians prioritised climate change CO2 above known toxic diesel NOx emissions, now a problem in cities across the world. Before signing high-cost deals with China and EDF for Hinkley Point, there should have been two similar nuclear plants operating, not two under construction and years behind schedule.
EU “free movement of people” required the UK to provide housing, education, healthcare and infrastructure for unknown numbers of migrants. It equates to the taboo of unlimited liability in commercial contracts.
Rather than HS2 developments, should we not be more ambitious – such as magnetic levitation trains?
But technology isn’t everything. Do we really want driver-only or even driverless trains (or planes), however safe the technology? A guard or ticket collector is reassuring to passengers and should be the contact with the driver and police in case of trouble.
Politicians claim we have a housing crisis, an NHS crisis, a schools crisis, a prisons crisis, and a pollution crisis. What we have is a population crisis. The UK, a small, densely populated country, should know in terms of food, water, energy, land and social cohesion how many people we absorb each year. We should also know what population levels will be sustainable a few decades hence when the rise in global population will have increased calls on earth’s resources.
In a world where there’s indoctrination and the insistence of many that others think like them, the importance of questioning and open minds as required in good engineering and science cannot be overstated. Take nobody’s word for it, as the Royal Society motto says. Were the pyramids built to employ young men who if idle might cause problems?
John Allison, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Healthcare system disjointed
In response to the IMechE research that states engineers could save the NHS millions, I thought it may be useful to the discussion to describe how engineers are already being used in the health service.
Engineers in the NHS could be technicians that maintain, repair and prescribe wheelchairs for a rehabilitation service or maintain and repair other medical devices used throughout the trust as part of a medical devices management service.
Engineers in the NHS could also be clinical scientists who specialise in three areas under the Modernising Scientific Careers scheme: medical device management, clinical measurement and rehabilitation.
Different trusts use engineers practising in each of these areas to varying degrees. However there are already trusts with engineers who have a large responsibility for making decisions about medical devices and for the procurement, maintenance and calibration of medical equipment.
With regard to the 65% who think that engineers should have a more hands-on involvement with front-line patient care, engineers (both technicians and clinical scientists) practising within each of the areas mentioned above do already work closely with patients. In fact, clinical scientists working in rehabilitation run their own clinics with patients.
In the document entitled Healthcare: Engineering Solutions to the NHS is the following: “An integrated strategy for the procurement and use of medical equipment alone could generate huge savings. However, this can be achieved only if the NHS has a more consistent and coherent approach to the role of biomedical engineers, the adoption, procurement and use of technologies, and better communication and collaboration between clinical and engineering departments, as well as between trusts.”
In my opinion, one of the problems our healthcare system faces is that it operates differently from trust to trust. The “national” service is actually many local services, each with its own ways of doing things. Some of the services are actually provided by private companies, again each with its own operating procedures.
I feel that the NHS is inherently disjointed right now. Adding to this problem is the separation between healthcare and social care.
So yes, if the NHS had a more consistent and coherent approach to the role of biomedical engineers then many things could be improved. But the service at present does not approach healthcare consistently and coherently.
Ben Marshall, Salisbury
Email your views to pe@caspianmedia.com or write to PE, Unit G4, Harbour Yard, Chelsea Harbour, London SW10 0XD. Please include your name and address