Dr Elizabeth Argyle is a Research Fellow with the Institute for Aerospace Technology (IAT) and is a member of the Human Factors Research Group (HFRG) at the University of Nottingham.  Her recent work on this topic is discussed in more detail in an article in Cognition, Technology & Work, and she can be reached by email or by following her on ResearchGate and LinkedIn.

Background

With over 470,000 flights passing through it in 2016, London Heathrow is the UK’s busiest airport, serving 190 other global airports in 84 countries.  To accommodate increasing flight demand, optimal allocation of airport resources is increasingly critical for ensuring efficient and safe airport operations.  For the past two years, I’ve been part of a team of researchers from the University of Nottingham who are contributing to this goal by developing user-centred, optimization-based decision support products for air traffic controllers engaged in flight scheduling, routing, and resource allocation.  We employ a research framework which grounds system design in an understanding of human behaviour and cognition gathered through real-world observation and laboratory-based experimentation.

Departures Board LHR

Safety Improvements

In recent years, aviation authorities worldwide have been developing systems to support air traffic controller decision making, to improve safety, and to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation.  To date, members of the University’s School of Computer Science and the Institute for Aerospace Technology have led the development of tools that leverage optimization techniques to solve operational issues, including arrival scheduling [1], departure scheduling [2][3][4], and ground movement management [5][6].  Algorithms based on their research have been integrated into the new Collaborative Decision Making system at Heathrow.  This system has resulted in record peak departure rates, improved recovery from disruption, and £2M of fuel savings [7].

Air traffic controllers specialize in particular elements of flight, with some controllers managing flights en-route, others managing flights within the terminal airspace, and others managing an aircraft’s movement through the airport’s taxiways, holding areas, and runway(s).  Our research has primarily focused on the latter—supporting tower controllers in their work related to managing airport traffic and operations.  For more information about the why optimizing airport surface operations is important, I direct the reader to my colleague Christofas’s blog post on that topic.

Aerospace Technology Centre, University of Nottingham.

What are the key benefits?

There are many potential benefits of using optimization-based decision support to manage airport operations.  As in other safety-critical systems, though, considering user requirements during the design process is vital for ensuring effective human-systems integration which can impact safety and system performance.  Understanding human behaviour and factors influencing performance in the workplace can help researchers:

• To identify where technology can best support worker performance and system efficiency
• To help system designers develop solutions that leverage strengths of the users and strengths of the computational system
• To enhance the transparency and design of decision support algorithms and automation

Building upon our INFORMS presentation, we recently published an article describing an investigation into how humans solve a vehicle routing and scheduling optimization problem—our findings indicated that human problem solvers performed better when decision support was provided, which effectively limited the problem space.

2017 Annual INFORMS Meeting

Studying problem solving with an aircraft routing board game

Based on maps of Heathrow’s runway holding areas, we created a board game in which players were responsible for routing a set of aircraft to take off from the runway according to a given schedule.  The game represented an abstract version of the type of tasks tower controllers complete while routing and sequencing departing aircraft.  Thirty participants with no air traffic control experience played two games each in which the goal was to get each aircraft to depart on time from the runway and in the least number of turns possible.  In half of the games, we asked participants to make the aircraft take-off in a specific order.  In the other half of the games, we let the participants decide the take off order, but we specified a due date (turn number) for each flight; any aircraft taking off after this point were considered to be delayed.

Taking part in the board game.

To capture information about how participants’ solved the vehicle routing problems, we video recorded each gameplay session and also kept a recorded of each solution that participants generated.  We were interested in identifying which participants found the optimal solution to each game—that is, completing the game in the fewest number of turns with all the aircraft taking off in the right order or with the least amount of delay.  Eight participants completed one game each with the optimal solution, and interestingly, seven of those solutions were found in the more restrictive games where we specified the take-off sequence.

What did we find?

We wanted to understand what factors helped to improve participant performance, so we conducted a statistical and qualitative analyses on the gameplay data and video recordings.  We found that the odds of a participant solving a game optimally increased as a function of time spent solving the problem and the objective condition (whether the take-off sequence was provided or left to the participant to decide).  In other words, participants were more likely to generate the best solution when they spent more time evaluating the problem and when the problem space was reduced.  Participants employed a number of decision making heuristics to solve the problems and potentially reduce the cognitive demand of the task; this finding concurred with previous studies that observed problem solvers using visuospatial and arithmetic-based techniques.  Finally, when comparing performance between the participants that identified optimal solutions and those that did not, the optimal-solution participants demonstrated a greater degree of future thinking and overall awareness of the situation.

Our findings are interesting both because they help us to better understand human optimization problem solving, but also because they have implications on the design of future decision support systems.  Based on our research, we believe that people responsible for vehicle routing and scheduling decisions—such as tower controllers—may benefit from technology that provides decision support for planning activities.

There is still much that needs to be done to understand the relationship among optimization-based decision support, task performance, and cognition.  Managing factors like situation awareness and workload is important to human performance in many complex sociotechnical systems, including air traffic control.  Our work demonstrates that behavioural research can help us to identify how decision support and other automated systems can be designed to address user cognitive requirements. In turn, this can potentially improve usability and end user acceptance of decision support systems of the future.

Readers interested in reading about the study in greater detail can find the paper published in Cognition, Technology & Work.  It is titled, “Human performance and strategies while solving an aircraft routing and sequencing problem: An experimental approach” and an open access copy is available here.

References

[1] Stergianos C, Atkin JAD, Schittekat P, Nordlander TE, Gerada C, Morvan H (2015) The effects of pushback delays on airport ground movement Journal of Applied Operational Research 7:68-79

[2] Atkin JAD (2008) On-Line Decision Support for Take-Off Runway Scheduling at London Heathrow Airport. The University of Nottingham

[3] De Maere G, Atkin JAD, Burke EK (2017) Pruning Rules for Optimal Runway Sequencing Transportation Science Retrieved from https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/trsc.2016.0733 doi: Advanced online publication. 10.1287/trsc.2016.0733

[4] Stergianos C, Atkin JAD, Schittekat P, Nordlander TE, Gerada C, Morvan H (2016) The importance of considering pushback time and arrivals when routing departures on the ground at airports. In: 8th International Conference on Applied Operational Research (ICAOR 2016), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. pp 41-46

[5] Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Ravizza S The airport ground movement problem: Past and current research and future directions. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), Budapest, Hungary, 2010. pp 131-138

[6] Weiszer M, Chen J, Ravizza S, Atkin JAD, Stewart P A heuristic approach to greener airport ground movement. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 6-11 July 2014 2014. pp 3280-3286. doi:10.1109/CEC.2014.6900372

[7] Eurocontrol A-CDM Impact Assessment: http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/a-cdm-impact-assessment-2016.pdf, page 109-112

The post Supporting Safe and Efficient Airport Operations with Human-Centred System Design By Dr Elizabeth Argyle appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

About Victor Thierry

I joined the University of Nottingham’s Institute for Aerospace Technology in 2016 as part of the Marie Sklodowska Curie PhD programme ‘INNOVATIVE’ to undertake a PhD, the title of which is: The application of advanced and integrated health monitoring systems to complex, composite systems for aerospace for enhanced life cycle and operational capability.

I always enjoyed an international work environment. During my Master Degree, I  spent time in Germany and the USA, I love being surrounded by international people and discovering new cultures.  Nottingham is the perfect city as it is very cosmopolitan and the INNOVATIVE team is composed of students from all over the world with many different backgrounds. Moreover, the INNOVATIVE programme offers a lot of challenges, it has a strong ambition, and I knew this would help develop my career in the aerospace industry, which is my goal for the future.

Safety in aviation

Recently, it was all over the news that 2017 was the safest year in aviation history (BBC, 2018). Aviation safety is not a subject that has ever been taken lightly by the different aviation authorities around the world like the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) in the US, the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) in Europe or the CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) in China etc. As a result, commercial aviation has for long time been the safest way for traveling as shown in many studies like the one provided in 2013 by economist Ian Savage (Savage, 2013) for example (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Motorcycle: 212.57 and Car: 7.28 data were removed for clarity because too high (Savage, 2013)

To comply with the regulations, and for the sake of its customers, the aerospace industry has always tried to make aircrafts as safe and reliable as possible. The list of aviation safety hazards is quite long, it goes from engine failure to pilot fatigue. In this article, I will focus only on hazards that affect the structural integrity of the aircraft, such as ground low-velocity impact (e.g. a dropped tool during maintenance procedure), high-velocity impact (e.g. bird strike) etc. Structural Health Monitoring is one of the existing methods to detect these damages.

 Structural Health Monitoring

Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) is the process of implementing a damage identification strategy (i.e. location, type, size) for engineering structures such as an aircraft or a bridge for example. This process involves the inspection of a structure over time in an automated (continuous or periodically) way.

SHM is associated with online and global damage identification, in contrast with classical NDT (Non Destructive Testing) which is often performed offline and locally. This is done thanks to the integration of sensor networks. There are extensive sensor types used for this application such as fibre optic sensors, piezoelectric sensors or resistance strain gages etc.

Less conventional methods have also been developed such as the Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) method which measure the differential pressure between fine galleries containing alternatively a low vacuum air and an air at atmosphere (see Figure 2). If a crack occurs in the structure, two or more galleries will be connected and the pressure will be an average value, indicating the defect (Speckmann and Henrich, 2004).

Figure 2: Comparative Vacuum Monitoring – credit (Speckmann and Henrich, 2004)

The difference between SHM and NDE is that one is a continuous, global and on-line detection method, while the other is occasional, local and off-line. It appears clearly that SHM has many advantages over NDT. On top of increasing the reliability and the online safety of the passenger, it also saves on cost. Currently an aircraft without an integrated SHM system spend 27% of its lifetime ‘on the ground’ for maintenance (using NDT). Integrating SHM would considerably reduce its ‘on the ground’ maintenance time and thus reduce the cost of operation.

SHM for composite structures

I have made clear in the last paragraphs why SHM is such a strategic concern in today’s research. But that’s not all!
SHM has been an issue for the past decades for integration on aircraft made of traditional materials such as Aluminium alloys for example, but in most cases NDT was good enough to ensure the reliability of the aircraft. You may have noticed how obvious it is to see it when you have  damage on your car door (see Figure 3), well it is quite the same when the aircraft is made of metallic materials.

Figure 3: impact mark in a car door

However, metallic materials are gradually being replaced by composite materials (see Figure 4), in which  damage is in most cases invisible. Also, since composites are relatively new, safety concerns arise as development is still at the beginning. These are two more reasons why SHM is of big interest.

Figure 4: Increase of the weight content of composites in aircraft structures over a 30-year time span – credit (Giurgiutiu, 2015)

You may ask ‘why are composite materials taking over?’ Well the explanation is simple. Composites are really light materials when compared to traditional aerospace materials, and it is well known that weight is a very important factor in the aerospace industry as the lighter an aircraft is, the less fuel it will consume. They are also stronger and thus more reliable. Finally they can be specifically designed to have the desired performances for a given application. The traditional materials sus-mentioned are mostly alloys (such as Aluminium alloys), which have a fairly low weight, but are prone to corrosion and fatigues. This makes them very expensive from the operational point of view.

Damage in composite structures

One remaining question might be ‘why  damage is not easily detected in composite structures?’Aerospace composite materials are made of high strength fibres embedded in a polymeric matrix (e.g. Glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP), and Kevlar-fibre-reinforced polymer (KFRP) are among the most common aerospace composite materials) (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Composition of composites -credit: State University of Montana

These multiphase materials exhibit strongly anisotropic properties and their failure modes are thus very complex. For example, a high energy impact (e.g. bird strikes, hail) might create a small total penetration in composites, while low or medium energy impact are prone to create matrix crack or delamination (Cai et al.), which cannot be detected with a visual inspection as they are often internal (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Damages in composites – credit: http://kevinrhart/research/

For all those reasons, it is of the upmost importance that research in SHM continues. One day we can imagine that our aircrafts will need next to zero maintenance as they will automatically detect any damage and maybe self-repair, but that’s another subject.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by tempering my statements. The different aviation authorities, and the scientific progress made in SHM are of course not the only factors for a safe flight.  Human factors (e.g. well trained pilots etc.) for example are also very important to provide reliability (as well as the very strict policy of Donald J. Trump toward Commercial Aviation in the US (see Figure 7)).

Figure 7: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/948195478428102657

Stay in touch

If you want to learn more about the work of the Institute for Aerospace Technology and to follow Victor Thierry throughout his PhD link up with us at:

www.nottingham.ac.uk/aerospace

@UoNAerospace

@UoNINNOVATIVE

E-mail: victor.thierry@nottingham.ac.uk

Twitter: @IAT_Victor

Linkedin: victorthierry

References

BBC, N. 2018. 2017 safest year for air travel as fatalities fall [Online]. BBC News. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42538053 [Accessed].

CAI, J., QIU, L., YUAN, S., SHI, L., LIU, P. & LIANG, D. 2012. Structural Health Monitoring for Composite Materials. In: HU, N. (ed.) Composites and Their Applications. Rijeka: InTech.

GIURGIUTIU, V. 2015. Structural Health Monitoring of Aerospace Composites, Academic Press.

SAVAGE, I. 2013. Comparing the fatality risks in United States transportation across modes and over time. Research in Transportation Economics, 43, 9-22.

SPECKMANN, H. & HENRICH, R. Structural health monitoring (SHM)–overview on technologies under development.  Proc. of the World Conference on NDT, Montreal-Canada, 2004.

The post Victor Thierry – The need for Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) for composite structures appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

A little about me

I’m Dr Elizabeth Argyle, Research Fellow in the Institute for Aerospace Technology University of Nottingham.  Last October I had the opportunity to take my groups work on the road and travel to Houston, Texas in the United States to speak at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS).

The conference drew over 5,800 practitioners and researchers in operations research, analytics, and management science from around the world.  I had the pleasure of giving a talk titled, “Decision Support for Airport Surface Operations: A Sociotechnical Systems Approach” during which I summarized our group’s on-going collaboration and its focus on the human-centered development of decision support tools for tower controllers.

Where it all started

When the call for papers was released in Spring 2017, I knew the meeting would be a great opportunity to share our work with other experts in the field of operations research.

I worked with my collaborators (from the Human Factors Research Group, Automated Scheduling Optimisation and Planning (ASAP) Research Group and the NGI – Nottingham Geospatial Institute) to put together a short abstract covering what we wanted to share in the talk.  Once the abstract was submitted, we waited with anticipation for a decision, and we were very pleased when we found out several months later that it had been accepted as an oral presentation in the Behavioral Operations track.  We got down to business and began organizing the presentation, including deciding which aspects of our research we wanted to highlight.  After much deliberation, we decided to highlight two solutions that members of our group had developed for managing aircraft scheduling and their impact on airport operations, then finishing by discussing our sociotechnical systems approach for informing systems design.

Houston, Texas hosted the conference – home to NASA’s Johnson Space Center and the Houston Astros (2017 World Series Champions)

Presentation preparation

After weeks of discussions, presentation making, and practice, October rolled around and I found myself jetting across the Atlantic ready for the big day. My talk was on the second day of the conference, so I was able to get into the spirit of the event on the first day by attending a keynote lecture, networking with other attendees, and seeing a number of interesting talks on topics ranging from aviation to queuing theory to predicting human behavior and characteristics from big data.

On the Day

My talk was scheduled first thing in the morning on the second day of the conference. I was ready, bright and early, to tell the world about our sociotechnical systems approach for solving problems related to airport operations management.

I told attendees about a tower control solution that my group had developed: an algorithm to support tower controller decision making related to determining the best time for flights to start their engines and also push back from their gates.

After summarizing successes to date, I was excited to discuss a topic close to my heart—human factors research.

I described an experiment that investigated strategies that human problem solvers used to complete a task that simulated sequencing flights for take-off from an airport’s runway. In addition to strategic thinking patterns, we also looked at how the complexity of the holding area network and the problem solving objective affected task performance.

I’ll save going into detail about the results for another blog post, but we found that participants were more likely to identify the optimal solution to each aircraft sequencing problem when they spent longer considering the problem and when the problem space was reduced, e.g. when the participants received requests for aircraft to take off in a particular order.

The conference was held in the George R. Brown Convention Center in Downtown Houston.

George R. Brown Convention Center in Downtown Houston.

From speaker to attendee

Once the excitement of giving the presentation was over, I was free to enjoy the rest of the conference, which involved many interesting talks, numerous opportunities to network with other researchers and industry practitioners during the coffee breaks, and an especially thought-provoking plenary talk about how Uber uses data analytics to manage their ride-sharing marketplace.

Overall, my first INFORMS conference was a great experience, and I would encourage anyone interested in operations research, data analytics, and management science to attend in the future.

Our Research

If you are interested in learning more about our work, please read one papers that was recently published in Cognition, Technology & Work.  It discusses the behavioural research in greater detail: Human performance and strategies while solving an aircraft routing and sequencing problem: an experimental approach

Dr Elizabeth Argyle is a Research Fellow with the Institute for Aerospace Technology (IAT) and is a member of the Human Factors Research Group (HFRG) at the University of Nottingham.  Her recent work on this topic is discussed in more detail in an article in Cognition, Technology & Work, and she can be reached by email or by following her on ResearchGate and LinkedIn.

The post Dr Elizabeth Argyle – First time speaker at the INFORMS Annual Meeting 2017 appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

Prof Herve Morvan offers his insights and discusses some of the broader ideas raised by key players at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Propulsion and Energy Conference in Atlanta, USA held 10^th to 12^th July 2017.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics hosted the Propulsion and Energy Forum  and it turned out to be a great event. Most of the heavyweights are in attendance from national labs and funding bodies, to new entrants with a particular interest in electrification and the many disruptive processes around it. The event has seen a wide range of people who have brought their unique perspectives and experiences to this forum.

The plenary session: Safran, GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce offer their outlook on the future of propulsion.

The session was interesting for the consensus it brought, but there was little that was new in the text.

Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney however, played the game of the exam question well. Alan Epstein, Vice President – Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney approached the question from an interesting angle. He started by asking the audience to ‘show him the money.’ That of course, was clearly meant to be provocative. The way he then tackled what the future may look like, as a result of:

1. A linear, business as usual future or, in contrast, as
2. A disrupted, non-linear future

was good for the way it categorised things.

The ‘show me the money’ statement is also very tangible of course for large and established businesses. His point was clear and honest – such enterprises have a large existing market and do not possess the agility that new entrants do. This includes agility in terms of size, opportunities (new markets) and also of mission (more on this later).

Another of Epstein’s revealing statements looked at the future blended wing type designs.  Here, ‘the environment trumps economics’ – the nature of our transport futures depends on and may require non-economic drivers and incentives. Environmental policies, and social pressures and needs will play a key role here; as do measures such as the ACARE targets, starting nearly two decades ago, naturally.

At present, airliners are large, subsonic aircraft. A linear future would be one where this continues to be true. Alternative futures here, in Dr Epstein’s ‘flowchart’ include:

• Supersonics, which we now see coming back in force with BOOM for example, or
• Personal mobility through Uber for instance or the vision put forth by Paul Eremenko and his A3 colleagues, in the Airbus Silicon Valley outpost, as another extreme.

These examples represent very different markets compared with the core airline one, with (1b) being the real novelty. According to Dr Epstein, a middle ground between such extremes is a blended wing design, which is made real through environmental policy drivers; a vehicle with a ‘zero noise’ signature. This seems to be the natural extension of what businesses su

Participants in the panel discussion, “Aircraft Propulsion — What Does the Future Bring?” July 10 during the 2017 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum in Atlanta.

ch as Pratt & Whitney are pursuing now on commercial airliners, including hybridisation and boundary layer ingestion

How does this get achieved? Dr Epstein points out that, even if batteries were available, we may not want to go down that route (for medium to long haul flights). In countries such as the USA or China, this would have severe implications on the climate due to the way energy gets generated and this may be worse than a Jet A fuel powered gas turbines, he stated. Hybrid solutions offer a better way forward for medium and long haul airliners.

The point on pure-battery-powered aircraft was also made by Safran even assuming 1,000 Wh/kg batteries an A320 class on battery would require a 170T battery pack, notes Mr Stephane Cueille, the Senior Executive Vice President of R&T and Innovation, Safran CTO and we learned from  Dr Venkat

Srinivasan the Argonne Lab speaker, later on Tuesday, that 750 Wh/kg was a ‘big number’ for batteries, with packaging needs seriously limiting the full potential of technologies such as Lithium-Air batteries (5,200 Wh/kg theoretical potential) to 10% for example.

Delegates during the 2017 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum in Atlanta.

Scale and range come into play, for reasons including engine efficiencies as well (for small GT engines are comparatively less effective than their large counterparts) as well as mission and use. In other words, personal mobility is the real disrupter in transport, not one that challenges commercial flight, but one that may take on the automotive market for example; and with the potential to embrace full electric. The boundary between this new ‘mobility’ market and existing ones is still blurred, as is the extent that this revolution presents an opportunity for established large players or a threat. At present, Airbus has entered the fray with A3 but the Uber project has also recruited the likes of Embraer and Bell Helicopter. On aviation training and thin-haul markets, we are seeing precursors arriving on the market with for instance, Pipistrel and its recent success in Fresno Co, USA. This may well be the interface between existing and new.

In the defence sector, similar paradigms exist about the future, between (2a) hypersonics and (2b) recourse to a large number of cheap and ‘attritable’ small aircraft, at the other end of the cost and technology spectrum. This outlook is essentially similar to that of commercial transport (minus attrition on personal mobility, of course!). For (2b), as for (1b), autonomy and artificial intelligence bring opportunities and challenges here too; and public perception of such technologies will also affect their future.

Alan Newby, Director of Aerospace Technology and Future Programmes at Rolls-Royce, asked a good question about pace.

Will evolutionary changes be sufficient to meet environmental and societal targets? There is a need to think beyond pedigree. Newby presented an outlook that rethinks how we integrate a range of new technologies. The gas turbine however, is not dead and many make that point, including that it is not even plateauing in a performance sense. Instead, it is ready to be redeployed and perhaps reinvented using additive manufacturing for instance, a point made by GE and NASA, with significant gains and new opportunities that can come with resizing. Back to Alan Newby’s point however, it rapidly becomes clear in this model that those who master energy storage, as a part of a greater system, including gas turbines, will have a clear advantage – here we can see the focus of new entrants and businesses such as Tesla once again. This is the new (starting at least) paradigm, illustrated below in a slide that presents the current status of what the future holds for businesses like Rolls-Royce.

As NASA pointed out in its Tuesday morning plenary, having a clear mission is the key to success. This is exemplified by Tesla’s success according to Dr Jaiwon Shin, the NASA Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. And maybe the ‘new dawn’ of aviation, and transport in fact, that we are seeing brings such change that a new order of things, new roles and new missions are yet to be defined; including new ways to move. At present, the landscape is unclear, as is the market and mission held by each player. As a new entrant and a disrupter, Tesla, for example, is not an automotive company and is not trying to present itself as such – it is very active on energy storage for homes (power walls and solar roofs) and for the grid. According to Elon Musk, Tesla’s mission is indeed to ‘accelerate the advent of sustainable energy.’

Professor Herve Morvan is the Director of the IAT and an aeroengine propulsion specialist in charge of G2TRC.  He is one of the six Directors for the ‘Propulsion Futures’ beacon programme and looks after industry activities and the programme flying demonstrator.

University of Nottingham’s Propulsion Futures beacon is driving the discovery and translation of new materials, components and technologies to drive innovative electrified propulsion systems in a new age of sustainable transport. The beacons will drive significant inward investment to our internationally renowned research areas, and support our ambitious vision by increasing collaboration, strengthening networks and partnerships, attracting diverse funding, and raising the reputation of our world-changing research.

Image credits:

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics hosted the Propulsion and Energy Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

The post Prof Herve Morvan from the 2017 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

Professor Herve Morvan, Director for the Institute of Aerospace Technology (IAT), discusses the concerns surrounding Brexit and suggests how the aerospace industry can navigate the way ahead by maximising opportunities in Asia and participating in key programs and networks to shape the debate and direction of travel to benefit the UK.

Lord Ahmad, the Aviation Minister, recently gave a speech on the need for the UK to have a strong aviation industry at the Airport Operators Association annual dinner. He acknowledged the concerns surrounding Brexit, particularly the uncertainties the aerospace and aviation industries will face, in the wake of an exit from the common market.

For the aviation sector, concern revolves around access to a single European aviation market and the disruption and loss of market access that could follow a hard exit. As the first European aerospace economy, the UK is a major employer and exporter in aerospace naturally, but its aviation sector is also a big industry in its own right. A recent report by Deloitte cited figures from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which show the UK is among the largest aviation markets in the world, with its airports carrying 200 million passengers annually. Connectivity to the rest of the world is central to a modern and vibrant economy, and in the context of the UK, the connections afforded by its aviation sector are particularly important. It is clear that with Brexit the country is looking beyond its European horizons to forge and grow new commercial and collaboration agreements.

 Asia: The next frontier of flight

In his speech, Lord Ahmad noted the relatively good performance of the UK economy since the Brexit vote. Looking forward, he reassured the audience that the government is aware of their concerns and that it is working to deliver on new deals effectively. This is where he pointed to new horizons in China and India. He wants to show that the government, while determined to honour its mandate on Brexit, will do all it can to support growth and/or offer alternative accesses to markets.

The University of Nottingham has long noted the potential for collaboration in Asia, having actively engaged in the region for over 10 years now. In aerospace, we have forged key collaborations with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), the republic’s state-owned aerospace and defence company, and the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC), the state-owned aerospace manufacturer. China is set to play a greater role in key activities such as electric propulsion, as it aims to take on environmental challenges. The IAT will be working with colleagues at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China (UNNC) on this grand challenge, at a time when a revolution in aerospace is looming.

Modernising the UK’s aviation and transport infrastructure

A similar step change is required in the aviation sector to deliver suitable infrastructure in Asia and all over the world, including at home. While the increase in air travel and flight numbers represents a manufacturing and commercial opportunity, is also places serious stress on the infrastructure that supports the exploitation of the airspace.

In the drive to deliver greener aviation, we are developing more environmentally friendly aircraft, but these developments will only deliver their potential if we can reduce CO2 production due to network inefficiencies. Figures in the 2016 European Aviation Environment Report (Section 4, pp. 41 to 54) show a 5 per cent horizontal inefficiency in filed flight plans – aircraft are flying further and longer than they ought to. This inefficiency reduces to 3 per cent in actual flight trajectories, but this still adds up to 274 million extra miles (438 million km) flown every year!

Lord Ahmad pointed out that the UK airspace is a ‘critical piece of national infrastructure.’ Its modernisation is long overdue and to enable it to accommodate the necessary capacity, we must do so in a responsible manner.

This presents a great opportunity for the UK’s research and innovation ecosystem, e.g. in satellite, navigation and positioning technologies and the routing of aircraft on the ground and in the air. This includes the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) and in the area of scheduling and optimisation, it involves the Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Group (ASAP), both of which are affiliated to the IAT.

Here, it will be important to retain our participation in essential programs and networks such as the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) program, as well as our ability to influence the debate and direction of travel to benefit the UK. These are all significant – airspaces are obviously connected.

The University is also engaged in a Transport Innovation Accelerator (TIA) proposal as part of the Midlands Engine for Growth, a key part of which is on modernising the UK transport infrastructure.

The airport of the future

Beyond the airspace, we also need to look at the airport of the future. The UK has a lot to offer on this front. Cranfield University is the only university in Europe with its own airfield, which could contribute to such research by offering a unique test platform, while the University of Nottingham has played a crucial role in delivering key technologies in electrification to make airport operations greener. Our green taxi electrical wheel system for example, grew from a collaboration with the SAFRAN group, the supplier of systems and equipment for aerospace, defence and security.

We can therefore support, nationally, such ambition. The aerospace and aviation sectors, of which we are a partner, are certainly keen to play their part in delivering greater connectivity and green solutions to the UK, to support Lord Ahmad’s positive message and new economic opportunities for the country.

Image source: pixabay.com

The post Brexit and UK Aviation appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

So, this is it. We know that Britain will be voting on staying or leaving the EU on the 23rd June this year.

The debate has rapidly ramped up this weekend as a consequence of this date being set. However, to date the debate seems to have focused primarily on the incidental – for example on which politician was going to join which camp – not on the pros and cons of each position. In truth, very few facts have been aired. It is not that these facts are unavailable; the aerospace industry, universities and the science sector for example have published figures and used these to determine their respective positions,  which could form part of the debate. These figures highlight two things: (1) the key role played in the UK economy by the aerospace and defence sector and (2) the benefits to the UK of remaining in the EU.

Naturally, there are two sides to the argument involved ahead of the forthcoming EU referendum, political and economic. This post is choosing to focus on the economic case rather than the political.

Being Part of the European Network

Most aerospace companies trade in Europe, work across several European countries and benefit from research funding for the sector. Being in Europe means that the UK companies are part of a strong network and can influence the political and economic agendas –Ric Parker, Rolls-Royce CTO, for example, is chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board. With the UK being the second largest aerospace economy in the world, being well connected and part of a simple, free trading Europe is very important to the industry in terms of sustaining this position. Giants such as Airbus and Rolls-Royce are therefore strongly behind the IN campaign.

At a time where no company is able to build an aircraft or engine single handedly, being part of such a network is a key strength. One potential area of concern for British companies is the lack of influence (and connectivity) they would have should Britain leave the EU, not to mention the risk of fast becoming isolated. This, besides the funding and some of the other practical considerations perhaps, is what is central to their view. The same is true for academia, for which shaping the agenda, sharing knowledge and being part of a rich network is vital too.

R&D Investment and Skills

Figures exist here too to make this case, viz. The Royal Society overview issued in December 2015. Britain attracts over 50% more in EU monies to support research than it invests in the EU –Universities UK have come out strongly to make this case and to support Britain remaining in the EU. On the training front, Britain also receives over 25% of all the Marie Curie funding that is allocated, which means two things: (1) we can attract the very best of talent to study within our networks and work on projects we have defined; (2) a lot of this talent stays in the UK and, where it doesn’t, the UK can still project its ways of thinking and culture onto the rest of the world –influencing the agenda and making the UK a pivotal place.

Local Jobs

We see here that a factual economic argument demonstrates the benefits for the UK and UK industry of staying in Europe. This argument extends beyond the large OEMs and academia too; the local supply chain is a benefactor of the investment made by the likes of Airbus in the UK for example. Another clear illustration here was given last week by the president of Boeing UK, Sir Michael Arthur at a NATEP event at which he stated that up to 65% of an aircraft was made in the supply chain. Having strong and active large players on-shore benefits the local economy, and being in Europe is a determining factor too in this instance, as it provides stability which more readily enables inward investment to support the local production tool and, in turn, leads to the creation of jobs in the broader local network.

The next few months will be interesting. One must expect that the debate will progress onto the more concrete and factual. On balance, it is my view that, for science, research & technology and the continuous delivery of innovation to the aerospace sector, across the manufacturing tiers, with associated productivity gains and jobs creation, the benefits are greater in Europe than out.

Source of the featured image: www.tes.com

The post Britain in the EU: Research and Technology, Aerospace and the Supply Chain appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

Tuesday 12th January 2016 marked the beginning of the celebrations in honour of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s (RAeS) 150th Anniversary. The festivities started in style, with a lively dinner and debate held at RAeS HQ at 4 Hamilton Place in London Mayfair.

The motion for the evening was ’there will be no need for pilots in 40 years from now’.

Opposing the motion were Andrew Haines, Chief Executive for the CAA; Jim Mc Auslan, General Secretary for BALPA, the pilots association; and Chris Browne COO for the TUI Group.

Supporting the motion were Andrew Tyler, Chief Executive UK & Europe for Northrop Grumman; Tom Captain, Principal -Aerospace & Defence, Deloitte LLP; and Chris Allam, Engineering and Programme Management Director at BAE Systems.

[Note that I have not followed strictly the chronology of the debate in my account below, but structured the argument around 4 main points].

1. Economics & Social Responsibility

The debate started with the supporters of the motion, led by Tom Captain, noting that labour costs account for 25% of airline operational costs, with pilots representing a significant proportion of those. Opposing the motion Chris Browne and team promptly retorted that the cost of a crew could be as little as £4 per passenger for a low-cost airline, representing value for money per passenger. The economics stance of the proposers seemed therefore to be rapidly undermined, taken at face value. It is likely however that the labour costs between low cost and traditional carriers are very different and the argument is therefore inconclusive without further examination of the data; also worthy of note here is the fact that no low cost airline operates regular international routes for example.

It is also important not to overlook the social and economic implications of employment and the whole operational side of air transport in this debate either; and the consequences of making the job of pilot obsolete. Tube trains in London still have drivers today for example. Change even if technologically possible is not always possible on socio-economics grounds, at least not quickly. Transition takes time and the economics alone does not and cannot justify all changes.

2. Technological Progress & Capability

Another reason to support the motion, according to Captain, is on the ground of technological progress. Looking at the acceleration of technological innovation in aerospace, as noted by Turcat in relation to Concorde in the 1970s, we are probably at the turning point of another such technological acceleration, not least with the electrification and indeed the automation happening in aerospace and in the broader transport sector. More and more pilots are playing the role of a systems manager, a thought supported by a veteran pilot of 12,500 flying hours in the audience on Tuesday night, who stated that he had often been ‘bored’ in the cockpit.

The issue of loss of attention is one that is also faced by other sectors in transport; with substantive attention given to this in current Human Factor research which aims to address attention deficit and fatigue among rail operatives or air traffic controllers for example. Does this possibility therefore not undermine the prominent ‘guardian angel’ role attributed to the pilot (notably by Chris Browne during the debate)? This was to prove a contentious issue throughout the evening…

In support of the motion, Chris Allam pointed out the relative meagre computing capacity of humans compared to current and future computers, making the case for Artificial Intelligence (AI) –such systems will have the ability to examine all opportunities and compare against all past lessons well inside the 5 seconds it took the pilot, Chelsey Sullenberger,  to decide to ditch the stricken US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River in the now famous 2009 incident; therefore dismissing the need for a heroic pilot dear to the compere for the night, Jeremy Vine.

Andrew Tyler accelerated the pace of the argument with a bold statement. ’Why are we waiting 40 years?!’ he started. Taking the example of the U2 spy plane (manned) versus his own Northrop Grumann Global Hawk UAS, he noted that already today an air force could get twice the flying hours for half the cost, without the limitations tied to having a human being in the cockpit; as well as all the design and safety constraints that came with it.

3. Risk and Reliability

In favour of the motion Tom Captain also reported that 50% of accidents were indeed attributed to pilot errors. Crews are arguably getting into a routine and becoming more reliant on automation are not necessarily able to fulfil the ultimate safety function attributed to them by Chris Browne and her team.

However, automation is not a sinecure and a member of the audience challenged Captain’s assessment here, pointing out that research figures from the US MoD could be read as indicating a 300% increase in errors brought up by automation on UAVs for example (Note: if I heard the figure well).

4. Customer Demand

At this point in the debate, Chris Browne, responded for the opposition, arguing that we were trying to fix a problem that simply did not exist as she developed a more ’emotional’ argument. She insisted that the guardian angel role (see above) played by pilots was vital and asked the audience to consider the number of cases in which crews had actually saved an aircraft and the passengers it carried. She stated: ‘the reliability of humans is pretty amazing!’.

Emphasising the point made by Browne, Jim McAuslan noted that pilots are a reassuring presence to passengers and also to crews, before stating that ’Even George Lucas made the Millennium Flacon a two crew spaceship!’, adding, ‘…even if the second one was an ape!’.

Will this customer expectation always remain however? There is a ‘generational’ element to this debate, I felt, as did other members of the audience. Future generations will probably take a very different view here…

Closing the pitches for the evening for the opposition, Andrew Haines emphasised that the supporters of the motion had got it wrong –on economics grounds alone for example, if customers demanded a pilot, the business model was simple. He also noted that the team in favour of the motion had done a fatal error in not addressing the ‘exam question’. He is partially right here in my opinion for the motion does not mention that the pilot will actually be on board the aircraft for example!

We could therefore imagine a control room with ‘pilots’ monitoring unmanned airliners. Could this offer the right compromise, I wondered?

One very strong point made by Chris Browne at the end of the debate is that we humans are sociable creatures and a crew, in particular the captain, play an important commercial role as part of the experience and service provided to passengers. This should not be neglected.

5. Conclusion

The debate was certainly thought-provoking and lively, and it made for a very pleasant evening. It left me with a number of questions, among which:-

• How will computers make conflictual decisions in a way humans can, with emotion and morality, as well as logic?
• What would be the cost of such technology and is it likely to offset the cost of crews? How does the economics stack up for unmanned aircraft and how does it compared to the costs of pilots as part of an airline operation for example?
• How will we provide the safeguards to validate all those automated systems?
• How will insurance be computed and made available? Whose responsibility flying and operating such an aircraft will be?
• How will we provide security against cyber attacks or to deal with terrorism?
• In a future such as this what would be the role of humans in aviation?

Summing up for their teams, Chris Browne emphasised that human interaction was a critical part of the human condition and of commercial service while Tom Captain noted that it was difficult to imagine what the world would look like 40 years for now.

In the end the supporters of the motion won the night. I was one of those that voted in favour of the motion too, I admit, and a poll run online by Tim Robinson for the RAeS showed a 90% vote in support of the motion the following day.

We may well be flying without pilots on board in 40 years from now. On the eve of its anniversary the RAeS provided a lively evening to remind itself and us all of why such societies remain as relevant as ever 150 years after their inception.

Note: featured image of the hot air ballon, above.  from Tim Robinson, RAeS, and image of Airplane! (below) from Google. The text has benefited from great editing by Victoria Macfarlane at the IAT.

The post There will be no need for pilots in 40 years from now: The RAeS 150th Anniversary debate, 12 Jan 2016 appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

Herve Morvan, University of Nottingham

Last year it was reported that a design for a successor to Concorde, which would fly between London and New York in one hour at more than 4.5 times the speed of sound, had been patented by Airbus. This would have been thrilling news to French test pilot André Turcat, the man who first took Concorde supersonic in the 1960s – and who recently passed away at the age of 94…

Turcat, who served in the French air force as a transport pilot and later as a test pilot, is perhaps the airman most identified with the 100-seater supersonic jet. He was a graduate of the prestigious Ecole Polytechnique, the most selective French Grande Ecole (though his grades limited his options when he left the school and he “accidentally” opted for a career in the Air Force).

Towards the end of World War II, Turcat joined the (Free) French Air Force and, in 1947, became certified as a pilot. He was quickly noticed for his flying abilities, notably on board the Dakota C-47. After serving in the Indochina War, he graduated as a test pilot in 1951, tested for the Air Force and later for Nord-Aviation, flying the Nord 1500 Griffon II (a supersonic scram-jet aircraft) and later winning the Harmon Trophy for his feats in 1958 with that aircraft.

In 1962, as the Concorde programme was starting, Turcat joined the state-owned Sud-Aviation. He went on to become Concorde’s first test pilot as well as the company director of flight testing. On March 2 1969 he flew Concorde on her maiden flight and on October 1 1969, he took her supersonic for the first time.

Flying high

This was the beginning of a great era for Turcat (who instantly became a household name in France) and for the European aerospace industry more generally as Concorde was developed out of the Anglo-French collaboration between Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC).

Concorde demonstrated significant technological progress, on wing design notably and also on engines, flight controls and avionics. Air compression at Concorde’s high speeds of travel also posed material and structural challenges leading to potential fatigue issues and to the expansion of the aircraft body and structures, which needed to be addressed. At take-off, the rotation from flat to a steep 18 degrees also meant significant stress on the wing structure and on the landing gears.

The aerospace industry made a monumental leap forward with this aircraft. Speaking in 2009, Turcat said his March 2 1969 flight marked “a significant acceleration in the history of (civil) aerospace”. The interest of other nations, in particular America and Russia, was piqued by this early European technological success – it challenged them, as did the emergence of Airbus in later years.

Sadly the technical success that was Concorde did not translate into commercial success, though it laid some of the groundwork for the establishment of the modern industrial giant Airbus, through Aérospatiale notably, which had worked alongside BAC to build Concorde. Aérospatiale was also engaged with Deutsche Airbus, which eventually led to the constitution of the “Airbus economic interest group”, with Hawker Siddeley and Fokker, in 1970.

Concorde’s economics were also problematic, making assumptions on fuel costs that were later dispelled by the 1973 oil crisis. A supersonic Concorde consumed more fuel but could also fly more sorties; this economic model was viable only while fuel costs were a smaller component of the overall operational costs. Concorde’s first operational flight took place in 1976 (certification was granted on December 4 1975) but by February 1973, most airlines who had expressed an interest in acquiring it had cancelled their orders.

In the end British Airways and Air France were the only two airlines to take them on – and then only with government subsidies. The Americans also objected to the aircraft – mainly on environmental grounds. As a result Concorde had a limited, if prestigious, career. On April 10 2003 Air France and British Airways announced Concorde’s retirement and the great supersonic aircraft completed its final commercial flight on October 24 2003.

Feet on the ground

As Concorde started its career in 1976, Turcat was in the process of writing his first book: Concorde: Essais et Batailles and ending his flying career. He was also preparing for his future as a politician, in local government in Toulouse and, as an MEP in Europe. Following his retirement from the aviation sector, he went back to university, obtaining a PhD on Christian art in 1990.

In his later years, Turcat was always keen to talk about Concorde and came out of retirement to defend the aircraft and its designers after the 2000 crash in Gonesse, France, but he was also personally very shaken by the accident and the loss of the aircraft – and depressed at the outcome of the inquiry.

It is undeniable that the life of André Turcat and the technological history and prowess of Concorde are closely intertwined. It is also clear that his passion for technology and Concorde echoes that experienced during the formative years of the programme in France and in Britain, with the renewed pride and heritage that came with it.

Herve Morvan, Professor in Applied Fluid Mechanics and Director, Institute for Aerospace Technology, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Source: The featured picture is taken from www.leJDD.fr.

For a trip back to 1969 do watch this Pathe newsreel. (HPM)

The post André Turcat: the test pilot who took Concorde supersonic appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

Demand for the Airbus A380 appears to have stalled, but it’s still the best Very Large Aircraft out there…

The Airbus A380 is a marvel of technology; a majestic aircraft. It is beloved by passengers and it also is an environmental asset for airlines operating out of airports in built-up areas such as Heathrow with its low noise signature. But no new A380 order was taken in 2015 – and the current order book stands at 317 units, with the cost break-even point for Airbus now believed to be standing at as high as 420 units (from 270 initially) as a result of delays in production and detrimental currency fluctuations between the euro and the US dollar.

The A380 is heir and rival to the Boeing 747 jumbo jet in the so-called Very Large Aircraft (VLA) family, for which the maximum combined market size is believed to be between 700 and 1,700 aircraft. This aircraft is built to capitalise on an air transport model that is based on large “hub” airports.

In such a model it is expected that aircraft such as the A380 would ferry a large number of customers at once thereby helping reduce airport congestion in the process. But the dispersion of routes and traffic and greater competition between carriers means the so called “point-to-point” model of air travel is growing more rapidly, at the expense of the hub-and-spoke model.

This also poses the issue of capacity on some routes. Though large carriers such as British Airways have been able to replace three daily Boeing 777 flights from London to Los Angeles with two A380 flights, some destinations simply do not carry the capacity required to successfully deploy the A380. Combined with the dispersion of the routes, this challenges the raison d’être of the aircraft.

Where the A380 was meant to deliver a significant reduction in fuel burn and cost efficiency, the figures that are reached – while nearly half that for the 747 – are on a par with those of the most successful twin-engine airliners currently on the market. More twin-engine aircraft also provide greater flexibility for airlines. The Boeing 777, and the 777-300ER in particular, have proven particularly successful and this trend is being continued by the 787 Dreamliner.

Perversely maybe, the current low cost of fuel means that in spite of ever greater appetite to fly and a need for competitive ticket pricing, it is currently economical to keep using older aircraft, when taking the cost of acquisition or leasing into account. Air France is only just retiring old Boeing 747s now (the last scheduled flight, AF747, takes place in January 2016).

As most of its 42 747-400s were built in the early 1990s, British Airways still seems to plan a further ten-year service life before retiring them. British Airways has 11 A380s in service today, from a total order book of 12 to date.

Airbus is refreshing its twin-engine offering and compete very seriously against Boeing and its ground-breaking 777 and more recent 787, with the new A350. The aircraft appears to be very competitive and is already taking on the 787. As of end of November 2015 the order book for the A350 showed 775 orders. Based on figures updated in early December 2015, the orders for the 787 Dreamliner stand at 1,142.

Both A350 and 787 are technologically more advanced than the A380 – one indicator can be taken to be the amount of electrical power on the Dreamliner. This shows a step change in aircraft design and the move towards a More Electric Aircraft (MEA), with the flexibility and economy that this offers in service.

Is it therefore possibly the case that the A380 missed its window and came too late or was designed to satisfy a market that is small and an air travel model that has shifted?

Fighting the naysayers

The A380 still has its champions; starting with Emirates and its CEO and president, Tim Clark. Emirates is bringing the A380 to a number of so-called secondary and tertiary airports and routes. Clark is fighting the nay-sayers and showing that the A380 works for his company and should be attractive to others. This clearly indicates that the issue is complex and not simply technological but probably financial and commercial too.

While Emirates owns the largest fleet of A380s in the world (it has 67 and is committed to acquiring a further 73) it has also cancelled its order for 70 A350s and Clark has been a vocal proponent for a re-engining of the A380, inviting others, including Qatar Airways and Singapore Airlines, to get behind an A380neo (new engine option). The case for an A380neo is heavily disputed, not least because reliance on one customer (Emirates), even for 100 new aircraft, does not make for the strongest business case in light of the investment required.

However, it seems that such support may have rekindled Airbus’ spirits to continue with the A380, when it may have been considering the aircraft’s future. Clark sees it as a moneymaking plane and hopes for a further reduction in operational costs of up to 10% with the neo. For him the A380 is a serious and competitive proposition.

With the successful entry-into-service of the A350, the commercial achievements of other aircraft such as the A330 and the commitments of customers such as Emirates to the A380, Airbus may well be sitting on a unique product for the future. Some airlines, such as Virgin Atlantic, are still deferring their decision on the A380 but, should they consider a new very large aircraft in the future, to replace its 747 fleet for example, Airbus would be in a unique position of strength.

The A380 remains a magnificent technological and environmental achievement, the full commercial value of which is yet unclear but is far from written off. And I, personally, remain excited as ever when I see a low flying A380 – such a gentle, quiet and agile giant.

Herve Morvan, Professor in Applied Fluid Mechanics and Director, Institute for Aerospace Technology, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Big is beautiful: why the A380 could still have a bright future appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.

• January

2015 started with a boom for Aerospace at Nottingham –the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI) sent the conditional offer letter for funding to establish a 2-Shaft Test Facility on the eve of the Christmas holidays. On 1^st April 2015 the project kicked off. The new facility to host the test cells is currently shaping up nicely with the moving in of personnel due at the end of Q1 2016.

Sketch of the proposed 2-Shaft Test Facility

• February

In February 2015, the IAT and INNOVATE researchers attended the More Electric Aircraft (MEA) conference en masse in Toulouse and I was a panellist in the closing session. This highlighted the strength of activity in the field at Nottingham. INNOVATE presented several posters on their MEA work in particular.

Dr Michael Galea, Deputy Director of the IAT, working on a More Electric Aircraft test platform

• March

This year the IAT has also worked hard to develop collaborative activities, hosting a number of UK and international delegations and visits. International engagement started with our good friends at Ohio State University (OSU) in early March. We were also delighted to host various colleagues from Canadian National Research Council (NRC) on three separate visits as we look to build the relationship with them and submit two project ideas developed this year in 2016 for funding. In the summer we also hosted Virginia Tech students on summer placements in our gas turbine and power electronics labs.

March also saw me invited to give a local TEDx talk reflecting on innovation in aerospace, which was a great experience. A dedicated blog entry was written on this event earlier in the year.

Talking at the Nottingham TEDx earlier in the year

• April

In April we launched our forward-looking programme, MARCh, the Multidisciplinary Aerospace Research Challenge, as reported here, which saw participation from 37 PhD students and research colleagues from across The University of Nottingham. Participants took on seven key challenges currently facing the wider aerospace industry and developed a series of innovative and interdisciplinary projects to address these. On the back of this event we hosted a Dragons’ Den event at which the best project ideas were put to the IAT Industrial Advisory Group for selection. Four projects were selected for funding and are currently in progress. These include projects looking at fatigue and mental health of pilots with the School of Psychology; using UAVs for precision farming with colleagues in the Schools of Bioscience and Computer Science; and novel insulating coatings for electrical wiring between research groups within the Faculty of Engineering.

Team building ahead of the MARCh event

The event was a resounding success and will be followed up with a second event, MARCh2: Space. This will take place in March 16, with support from the EPSRC, and will focus on material sciences, big data and positioning for the UK Space sector (for more details contact m.smith@nottingham.ac.uk) .

• May

Postgraduate training also received a boost this year, with the award by the European Commission of our second Marie Curie programme, INNOVATIVE. This project will start in March 2016 and will follow on from the ground breaking INNOVATE project, which is due to finish in 2017. The exciting implication for this is that 2016 should see us welcome twelve early career researchers through INNOVATIVE and see seven technology demonstrators come together from INNOVATE –so, watch this space!

UAV developed and flown by the INNOVATE PhD researchers based at the IAT

We are also delighted to announce that the University is making great progress on the development of the new undergraduate Aerospace Engineering course, which will launch next October. These capitalise on the research excellence and heritage we have developed at Nottingham in Aerospace over the years. We cannot wait to welcome the first students in October 2016.

Aerospace research students at the ATC, the IAT main facilities

• June

June was very busy, with the IAT exhibiting at the Paris Airshow. This was a key success for us and provided a great opportunity for us to meet with our partners and the wider aerospace community at this great annual celebration for the sector.

Airbus A380 in flight at the Farnborough Airshow in 2014

June also meant, for me and for the guys in my group, attending and presenting at the ASME Turbo Expo conference in Montreal, followed by an IAT research development trip on the East Coast of Canada, with fantastic support from the FCO and UKTI. The links to the NRC and others grew stronger from there on. As a result of these interactions I should be talking at the Aerospace Innovation Forum in Montreal next April, as we continue to cement some of those links.

• July

In July, and just before the summer break, we also ran our first Aerospace Summer School, linked to INNOVATE, with external speakers and teachers from a range of key organisations including e.g. NAFEMS and Cenaero.

July also saw the arrival of our new programme manager, Victoria Macfarlane, in charge of managing the IAT Team and the formulation of the IAT strategy. Earlier this year, Fran Houldsworth also joined us to manage the INNOVATE programme, as did Rebecca Wicks.

• August

August was quieter. It marked one year in the Director’s job for me and provided an opportunity to reflect. We also hosted an ATI visit and provided work placement for  a young aspiring aerospace engineer who helped build our small flight simulator.

• September

In September I was delighted to chair a fireside chat with representatives from Rolls-Royce, EPSRC, the DfT and INNOVATE UK to discuss about innovation (the successful exploitation of science and technology) as part of an EPSRC-funded event organised at Nottingham to talk about impact (the impact of research).

Late September also saw the first ATI Specialist Advisory Group (SAG) meeting for Propulsion take place in London, on which I represent academia with two other colleagues from Oxford and Bath.

• October

October saw the UK hosts Aerodays in London, for the first time. The IAT had a strong presence throughout, taking part in meetings and having demonstrators and activities on display. Dr Serhiy Bozhko presented on the Power Electronics Group work in Europe during one Clean Sky session and various projects funded through the European Commission, such as FP7 E-BREAK which my group leads for Nottingham with Rolls-Royce, had a booth.

• November

November was very busy. First, we had our Annual Showcase Event on the 5^th at which we took stock of an incredible year, celebrating our successes in Europe, with two Core Partnerships in Clean Sky 2 achieved this year, and also our growing collaboration with the ATI and the supply chain.

We noted the award of the ATI-funded HEATSSIM contract led by Romax and announced our plans for the next few years, starting with the publication of our Strategy Refresh due in 2016. HEATSSIM also launched formally this month and we also hosted a visit from The University of Nottingham Chancellor, Sir Andrew Witty.

In November we also hosted Ann Soubry as the Government formally announced the 2-Shaft Test Facility award as well as celebrated the opening of our new Aircraft Electrical Power Systems Innovations Laboratory, led by Dr Serhiy Bozhko, on 25^th November.

Opening of the AEPSI Laboratory at the ATC on 25th Nov. 2015

November also saw confirmation of the government strong support for the sector as part of the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The ATI received a strong vote of confidence with an additional £900M committed to aerospace R&D, which is extremely valuable to the future development of the sector.

Anna Soubry visiting the ATC on 9th Nov. 2015

• December

As 2015 draws to a close, it is satisfying to sit back a bit and realise what we have accomplished; especially as this is the tip of the iceberg in many ways. We are very much looking forward to 2016 and we wish you all, our colleagues, friends and partners the very best for the festive season and the New Year to come.

IAT Team and 3 of our INNOVATE researchers at a Christmas function, 11th Dec. 2015

The post 2015: The Year of the IAT appeared first on Aerospace @ Nottingham.