Defining 'Accessibility' and 'Inclusivity' in the context of Future Flight

[Phil Vigor]

As part of the HEART Phase 3 study Mott MacDonald are working closely with Edinburgh Napier University to ensure that accessibility and inclusivity are at the heart of the design (no pun intended). 

We have looked to find a comprehensive definition of this but have found inconsistencies with how these terms and the term 'disabled' are defined by various organisations and industry bodies, including IATA, ICAO and CAA.

Is there the opportunity for this group to consider a 'universal' definition of these terms at least for use in our study, but ideally would be industry agnostic?

Happy to hear the thoughts and views of others.

[Sasha]

Hi @Phil Vigor, many thanks for your question - I'm highlighting this to @Anthony Venetz and @Chris Gee who are closely involved with the development of the BSI Flex Vocabulary, alongside a welcome of thoughts from the wider community. 

[Chris Gee]

Hi @Phil Vigor as you mention, it feels like these definitions need to be transport sector, if not industry agnostic rather than defined in a Future Flight vocabulary. Coventry University is running a large programme of work to improve transport for people with disabilities - https://www.coventry.ac.uk/news/2023/awarded-20-million-to-improve-transport-for-people-with-disabilities/#:~:text=Coventry University awarded £20 million to improve transport for people with disabilities,-The £20&text=Coventry University has been tasked,for accessible and inclusive transport.

I think this would be a good discussion to have with the team at Coventry. I have a couple of contacts there if you would like me to introduce you?

[Aleks Kowalski]

What about the use of unmanned, uncrewed etc  EASA and ICAO still use the former and have not indicated any plans yet to change this.  What is the wider BSI philosophy around alignment versus going it alone?

KR

Aleks

 

[Jon]

Good question @Aleks Kowalski, thanks for posting it.  I've asked the good folks at BSI's knowledge centre for the wider view on how vocabulary may or may not prioritize accessibility and inclusion in standards, and will report back in due course. 

It'd be interesting to hear more views on how best to align (if at all) from others in the community as well. 

[Aleks Kowalski]

The FFIG are using uncrewed and advanced air mobility as the 2 key phrases, so it makes sense that they are the ones the BSI looks to ape.

[Anthony Venetz]

22 minutes ago, Aleks Kowalski said:

The FFIG are using uncrewed and advanced air mobility as the 2 key phrases, so it makes sense that they are the ones the BSI looks to ape.

Hi Alex, speaking from the perspective of the Vocabulary FLEX which is currently under development, the working terminology is uncrewed, so it sounds like we are aligned on this.

[Sasha]

On 03/07/2023 at 17:04, Aleks Kowalski said:

What about the use of unmanned, uncrewed etc  EASA and ICAO still use the former and have not indicated any plans yet to change this.  What is the wider BSI philosophy around alignment versus going it alone?

KR

Aleks

 

Hi @Aleks Kowalski and @Phil Vigor

Just to circle back to this on the BSI Philosophy we always strive to ensure all standards are inclusive of all potential users of the standard as well as all those potentially affected (directly or indirectly) by the use of the standard and that would include ensuring language is inclusive. There is an ISO/IEC Joint Advisory Group (of which we are a member)  which is currently developing a guide on inclusive language which will have a list of terms which should no longer be used, why and suggested alternatives - so I think taking this step for us looking to lead by example rather than going it alone. 

As Anthony has already mentioned working with uncrewed on this. Also to highlght we are planning to have the Vocabulary document ready for release in early September for public consulation which will be a great opportunity to share any further thoughts and comments.