Cycle Law Blog

Archive for the ‘Motor Cycle Law’ Category

Can a Canadian citizen purchase a used 2 cycle boat motor and bring it into Canada or is there a law against 2 cycle motors in Canada?

There is no law against two cycle outboards in Canada per se. There is legislation on the emissions from outboards in Canada and the US. This applies equally to 2 cycle and 4 cycle motors. The proposed maximum allowable emission limits for marine engines and recreational vehicles are up to 96% lower than typical unregulated emission levels. There is not a commercially available 2 stroke outboard that will meet these new emission standards, so the only acceptable outboard is the 4 cycle.

The new legislation is there to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to improve the air quality for all Canadians. It’s not any more acceptable for individuals to pollute than it is for corporations. Make a responsible choice. Do your part for present and future generations. Get a cleaner burning 4 cycle motor!

This is the first edition of Legal Briefs on Motorcycle Law, hosted by Stark & Stark Shareholder and Motorcycle Group Chair, Christopher M. Pyne. In this edition of Legal Briefs on Motorcycle Law, Mr. Pyne introduces the Stark & Stark Motorcycle Group and discusses the various areas of motorcycle law the attorneys of Stark & Stark are frequently involved in.

For additional information on this edition of Legal Briefs on Motorcycle Law, contact Mr. Pyne at 1.800.53.LEGAL, or by email at cpyne@stark-stark.com.

Duration : 0:3:25

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: attorney, law, law firm, lawyer, Motorcycle, motorcycle attorney, motorcycle injury, motorcycle lawyer, new jersey

Attorney Fran Haasch is your motorcycle injury attorney that rides! She handles motorcycle cases throughout the state of Florida. If you’ve been injured in a motorcycle accident contact Fran today! 1-866-LAW-FRAN – Motorcycle Accidents Get My Personal Attention – FRAN M. HAASCH www.LawFran.com

Florida Motorcycle Accident Attorney Fran Haasch – Your attorney that rides!

Being involved in a motorcycle accident can be a very stressful time filled with many unanswered questions. I’ve dedicated my career to helping accident victims and their loved ones.

My goal is to provide you with competent legal counsel with heavy experience in representing the injured motorcycle riders from all across the state of Florida.

If you have been injured in a motorcycle accident please call me 24/7 @ 1-866-LAW-FRAN for a FREE case evaluation and advice on getting your bike fixed and you back on the road sooner!

I’d suggest that you all sign up for my free motorcycle newsletter which is published monthly click here to sign up for our monthly motorcycle newsletter. You can find the latest about Florida motorcycle news, events and gatherings as well as links to the latest photographs from local Florida motorcycle events!

Who is Attorney Fran Haasch? Find out More about Motorcycle & Auto Accident Injury Attorney Fran M. Haasch here!

Duration : 0:0:32

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: motorcycle accident help, motorcycle accidents

i am wondering how much human weight it can hold. The reason I am asking is because my brother in law has a motorcycle and it’s awesome and I would love to ride on the back of it because I’ve never been on one before. I am afraid that it may not hold my weight.

It depends on the type of bike. A cruiser will usually handle 500-600 lbs with no problem. It may bottom out the springs for a sec on some larger bumps, but it will still ride just fine.

On a standard or sport bike, it’s a little less, 400-500 lbs max, but really that’s more of a matter of center of gravity vs. capacity. (It gets more difficult to control with all that weight above its center of gravity.)

If it’s a sport bike you plan on going two-up on and you’re overweight, I’d advise against it. You’ll be making it difficult for him to handle the bike, and you could both go down.

Larger bikes, 1000cc and up, are usually meant to handle two-up anyway, so they can sometimes handle 600-800 lbs (passengers AND luggage/gear, etc.) with no problem. Of course, those bikes weigh a ton or more themselves!

Every motorcycle has an operator’s manual that tells the recommended weight limit. But they usually run about 100-150 less than what you can really do, for legal reasons.

ABOVE ALL, make sure you wear good safety gear!!! A full-faced helmet, a leather jacket, at least denim pants, and good motorcycle or over-the-heel boots. Whatever you do, don’t hop on with a T-shirt and flip-flops and a salad bowl helmet. Even if HE doesn’t mind taking that risk, you should not. And make sure you discuss how to LEAN with the turns.

Scott Kleeb challenges opponent to discuss weak record.

Duration : 0:0:39

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: campaign, commercial, congress, congressional, cowboy, house, kleeb, nebraska, scott

A quick look at our Club.

Duration : 0:5:6

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: enforcement, law, lemc, Motorcycle, wheelmen

Yes, you do, when you’re driving in one of those states.

In general, you always have to follow the local laws.

Lemon Law Advocate Craig Kimmel explains the protections that motorcycle owners currently have under federal and some state Lemon Laws. With an increase in motorcycle sales, it’s more important than ever to ensure that your motorcycle is safe and that you are not left out of pocket if you do discover your motorbike is a lemon.

Head to http://www.lemonlaw.com for more information or call 1800-LEMON-LAW.

Duration : 0:4:34

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: law, Laws, lemon, motorbike, Motorcycle, motorcycles

In modern times it is useful to learn the travails of the past. Churchill at war, is a perfect example of someone defending the Anglo-Saxon heritage of freedom, division of powers, open markets, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Only Bush, Blair, Brown it is alleged, and some other leaders understand Islam’s threat to Western Civilisation. It is very similar to the universal designs that predatory Nazism and corrupt Communism had upon unsupspecting states.
=====

In his own recorded history of the First World War Churchill charges that, like the Second World War, the first was completely unnecessary and could have been prevented if wiser counsels and less weak and pathetically Byzantine alliances were in existence. Britain through covert arrangements finalised before 1914, had committed itself to the French-Russian side of the European chess board though it was never spelled out why or how Britain could or should support either France or Russia in a general engagement against Germany – the predetermined enemy. It was generally agreed in the 3 or 4 years preceding 1914 that Germany would strike for pan-European mastery when her fighting strength was able to contain two fronts – one on the east with Russia and the second in the west with France. The German army was by most accounts superior to the French and her fleet though not nearly as large as the British could still cause deep anxiety at the British admiralty. In fact there never was a decisive engagement between the British and German navies during the First World War, the only notable tangle being the battle of Jutland which gave neither navy an increase in fighting reputation.

It was obvious that pre-1914 Britain could bring little influence to bear on the Continent and its small volunteer force was tiny compared to the great conscript armies of Europe. Whether the Liberal government in power in 1914 would have entered the war at all without Germany invading Belgium is open to question. However with typical arrogance Germany ignored the usual British concern over the strategic importance of the Low Countries smashing the Belgian defences and forcing the British to intervene. Unlike their Teutonic cousins the British are not a warrior race and the unpreparedness of British war capacity both in 1914 and 1939 well illustrate this point. British success in the world was premised on free trade and peace and not upon martial prowess and in both world wars the British nation was psychologically unprepared for the conflict.

Besides the pending Armageddon in Europe the maintenance of the empire in 1914 was a full task in itself. In 1914 there were 200.000 men under arms in Ireland where a revolt over Home Rule seemed inevitable; in England the miners, the railwaymen and the transport workers were each claiming union recognition for the railwaymen who had thus far been excluded from the TU; and all workers were appealing for a 48 hour work week. As well British forces had to face nationalist troubles in Egypt and India and not to mention in August 1914 the armed and deranged power of a grasping degenerate Germany.

The British in short were being racked by the evolutionary and even Darwinian strains of liberalism which its democratic institutions could barely contain and affront. Thankfully for the British war effort many of the domestic squabbles were delayed while the death dance with Germany played on. Domestic problems were sidelined due to the early misfortunes in the war for the British and French forces. The Allies suffered many military reverses and only a stubborn French resistance at the Marne in late 1914 prevented a quick German victory. In fact in 1911 Churchill had predicted this very occurrence in the advent of a Continental war. Churchill had predicted that on the 40th day of the German attack the German line would be thrown back due to Allied resistance and logistical difficulties. On day 41 the French won the battle of the Marne preserving Paris and French freedom. After the battle of the Marne the British nation settled in for a long war.

At the outbreak of the hostilities the Navy was more than ready. It transported the British army to France without loss of life and under Churchill’s constant prodding attacked the island of Sylt off the north coast of Germany, sinking a destroyer, a cruiser and crippling five more ships. Churchill at the request of the Secretary of State for War Lord Kitchen, undertook the air defence of the British Isles and dubbed this airfleet the Royal Naval Air Service. He also sponsored the development of the tank, and thanks to his efforts the British were able to use the land carrier with devastating success in the final two years of the war. Without Churchill’s innovative demands and constant championing of the tank concept it may never have seen the battlefield, and may never have played such a decisive part in the fall of Germany in 1918.

Churchill began the war as Asquith’s golden boy. But his triumphs were short lived. The first cause for concern was something called the ‘Dunkirk’ Circus. This project was conceived from the trepidation’s that the Huns might capture the channel ports. The French requested assistance in the defence of the Dunkirk perimeter. Kitchen asked Churchill’s help and Winston sent across the channel his naval marines replete with 50 motor omnibuses from London to give them the requisite mobility. The Dunkirk Circus appeared in various towns in the area, giving the Germans the impression that a large force of British regulars was co-operating with the French in the area. It was successful and Churchill spent a good deal of time in France with his marines, much to the chagrin and anger of his colleagues, the Conservatives and the press, who wondered in scathing public rebukes why the First Lord was not at his desk in London doing his job ? The Prime Minister Asquith was not amused with his Alcibiades.

Then in late September 1914 Churchill delivered a flamboyant and damning speech in which he made a very unwise observation that soiled his name for years to come, “So far as the Navy is concerned we cannot fight while the enemy remains in port….If they do not come out and fight they will be dug out like rats from a hole.” Well, the very next day three British ships were torpedoed off the Dutch coast and sunk. This was a ‘bait’ squadron which had been ordered 3 days previously to return to England. If this order had been immediately obeyed the loss would have been avoided. His speech posed him in a ridiculous light and coupled with the Dunkirk Circus gave his enemies plenty to hurl his way. The next step of mishappenstance, though again not the direct fault or cause of Churchill, was the fall of Antwerp.

In 1914 war tidings were grim. The early German successes in the war in 1914 led Churchill to cross the channel to Antwerp to stiffen the Belgian and Allied defence of the city so crucial for the control of the Channel ports and the north western European coast and indeed in some respects for the safety of Britain, which would lie imperilled if the seaboard was controlled by a violent foe. The Antwerp escapade though it ultimately did not prevent the Germans from taking the city was crucial for defence of the coast since it delayed the German advance down the coast by 3 or 4 vital days allowing the British and French to re-deploy and organise their defences to hold the key channel ports. But this very sound decision of Churchill to lead the defence of Antwerp was vitiated by his clumsy offer to Asquith and the Cabinet to resign and take field duty if he were given the command of sufficient forces to satiate his military ambition. It was a very rash and improbable communication much hailed by his critics as an example of his unreliability.

Churchill was forced then to keep himself close to the rudder and he forced himself to remain in London. In so doing came to rely on the productivity and innovation casted off by his relationship with the brilliant old sea dog Jackie Fisher. The Fisher – Churchill combination continued to work at a frenetic rate, Churchill’s political diminishment notwithstanding. After a sharp defeat of a British naval squadron off the coast of Chile, spirit and prestige was revived when the German admiral Von Spee was killed off the Falkland Islands with the loss of his whole squadron. It was a smashing victory and redemption for the Churchill-Fisher combination. Then suddenly Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany, and Russia demanded that the Allies take action in the Middle East to draw off some Turkish pressure on Russian forces. Churchill at once seized upon the idea – offered on many occasions – of forcing the fortresses that flanked the narrow straits of the Dardanelles by a naval operation alone that would allow the Allies to capture Constantinople and push Turkey out of the war.

The attack was given Cabinet approval and went ahead at first as a naval operation. On February 19 the fleet opened up the bombardment of the straits. Kitchen a short while later promised troops. For the first 10 days the attack went well with the outer fortresses falling. Then suddenly the progress stopped. Turkish resistance was much stiffer than anticipated and sea mines were causing damage and anxiety to the British and French navies. On March 18th 1915 the Allied navy massed for a decisive attack and blasted the shores with such a cannonade that most of the defences were swept away. The navy steamed on to what seemed to be victory when the vessels struck a row of mines sinking 3 older ships and crippling four more. The attack was called off and the naval officers after some deliberation refused to continue the attack unless the army intervened and commenced a land campaign.

Churchill was apoplectic. He felt that victory was in sight but he could not force his naval commanders to reengage. Local commanders had ultimate authority and direction at the scene and the military command in London which was not organised properly to enact final decisions or reach a connected vision of strategy, could do little to impress its views on men thousand of miles away. Five long precious weeks were wasted until the French, Anzac and British troops stormed the Gallipoli shores. Surprise as a variable was cast away, the Turks and their German allies had mounted an intricate and obdurate system of defences and German submarines began to appear in the domain complicating the operation. Gradually the Navy pulled out and left the whole task to Kitchener’s army which straggled and floundered on the rocky shores locked in strife with a desperate enemy in control of the high points of the landscape. In December 1915 Gallipoli was evacuated with well over a quarter of a million French, British and Anzac casualties.

Churchill supported by later historians and enemy documents makes a very convincing argument for himself and the Gallipoli attack in his fascinating book on World War One, The World Crisis. It is known that the Turkish gunners during the last naval assault of March 18 had only enough ammunition to fight one more such action. The Turkish and German defenders were astonished that the British had not pushed forward. In fact the German naval gunners had already determined that the Navy would win and that holding out much longer was hopeless. Most experts agree that a combined land-sea operation would have succeeded. Churchill should be faulted for not being patient enough to wait until the army was ready for such a combined assault. He was too enamoured of a naval-only success. However, in his defence it is certain that the amateurish, haphazard decision making around the operation, with no clear cut authority and overall plan was not his fault. Remarkably no machinery of consultation existed between the naval and army departments and consequently Churchill’s power to persuade and help control complex co-ordinated operations was severely limited. This was not helped by the absolute dominance of the war lord, Kitchener. He was not just a hero, but a god, a famous general with great successes recorded in Egypt, the Sudan and South Africa. If the government had been better organised and more cohesive the war could have conceivably ended in 1915, with Turkey knocked out of the war, the Russian armies fighting the Turks in the Caucasus liberated to direct their fury against the Germans, the Balkans enlisted on the side of the Allies and Allied armies pouring into the soft, unprotected ‘underbelly’ of Germany. If successful Gallipoli could have saved millions of lives.

However Fisher resigned over the Dardanelles fiasco and this coupled with Antwerp, the Dunkirk circus, the apparent loss of paramount naval supremity and Gallipoli all forced Churchill to resign. Ten months earlier he was one of the most powerful men in England. Gallant, brave, an accomplished writer and orator, blessed with boundless energy and close relationships with key politico’s, his star’s lustre was dazzling and its light appeared to shine far into the future. Yet by 1915 though he was only 40 it appeared to many that his career was finished. He still had a quality of immaturity possessed of great ideas but with no real or stable sense of proportion. The relinquishment of power was bitter as Churchill wrote “I knew everything but could do nothing.” Little else can describe the painful forfeiture of power better. What brought about this rapid de-elevation ?

The answer lies in his personality. Much of the blame was unfair. He was the most important and vital minister in Britain during this period and had rendered valuable service in the cause of freedom. His small but gallant Naval Air Force was scouting German Zeppelins with increasing success, the Dunkirk Circus had fooled the Germans into believing that forty thousand British regulars threatened their flank and forced them into retreat, and the prolongation of the Antwerp defence had saved the channel ports from Hunnish occupation. It was more the flamboyance and self-assuredness of the First Lord that aroused suspicions and opposition. Churchill forgot that he was a politician and therefore had to tie either the Conservatives or Liberals to his tail to create a following. Not doing so appointed the day for his expulsion from the government when the vicissitudes of fate came calling.

The Conservatives still hated him and some of his Liberal colleagues were overwhelmed by the man’s ambition and capacity. From most accounts it is safe to say that Churchill was not a well liked fellow in either a political or personal sense. His parliamentary colleagues recognised his genius but he offended their amour-propre. People did not interest Churchill but ideas. His absorption in his own affairs illuminated a vanity that was hard for some to accept. Churchill’s incisive, compelling monologues tended to disregard the feelings and opinions of his audience and created the aura of gross insensibility which is a determined flaw in a democratic statesman who must not only expand ideas but impel others to accept them.

To assuage his sorrow Churchill headed to the front lines in 1915 in command of a brigade and experienced life and very nearly death in the trenches. Though it was a political difficulty, his scope of power was increased to that of a battalion commander in Belgium, though Churchill knew that a substantial military career was not to be his. His battalion – the Royal Scots Fusiliers – were nonplussed that a politician had been thrusted into their midst. On his second day with the group Churchill won over his men by gathering the officers together and announcing solemnly; “War is declared, gentlemen, on the lice.” This was followed by an erudite and expanded lecture on the origin, growth, and nature of the louse, with particular emphasis on its decisive role in the history of warfare. The officers were not only amused and shocked, but fascinated.

With the spectacle of a great and creative mind bursting with hard work and focused on the comparatively small needs of a battalion, excitement and activity was assured. Churchill especially impressed his men by his coolness under fire and the complete lack of nervousness with bullets spluttering about as he would almost recklessly expose himself to enemy fire. By all accounts he was a trusted and quite effective Leader – interested in all details of the men, their methods and wants, the operations and the enforcement of military discipline and fairness. Though only at the front for over four months it gave Churchill a comprehensive experience of the horrors and follies of war and the undeniable bestial conditions that the men at the front fought, lived and died in.

Churchill was however a Leader and a statesman and not a warrior at the core of his being. When the combination of battalions ended his military career he took the opportunity to race back to London to participate in political opposition and await the detailed investigation of the Dardanelles event by a special commission. Churchill was anxious that his character and public career should receive a fair hearing. The Dardanelles report was published in 1917 and gave Churchill a rather favourable press, severely criticising the Prime Minister Asquith, for his handling of the War Cabinet and for Kitchen who as Secretary of War did not send troops sooner. Churchill was not exonerated but importantly for him not crucified by the commission. A resuscitation of his political career was now possible.

In 1916 Lloyd George claiming a liberal-democratic war, based on crusading moral principles and responsibilities, became Prime Minister and was masterful in his management of the British war effort. Indeed many historians have suggested that without his leadership of Britain during the war, victory may have come later if at all. Domestic disputes were still quiescent though less so after the 1917 Russian revolution, where Russia was ripped open by the wolfish, bloodthirsty Bolsheviks which knocked it out of the war and gave Europe the misguided but enthusiastically received messianic appeal of bolshevism in its war weary nations. This dulled the appetite of Britain and France to fight on.

Men of mettle. intelligence and dedicated to ultimate victory were therefore needed and George wanted Churchill’s energies and imagination and great leadership capacity working for the government and not skulking on the opposition benches tearing holes in government policy. Though the opposition to Churchill was extremely intense especially in Conservative circles, Churchill was appointed as Minister of Munitions in 1917. The noise against his appointment was deafening especially astonishing Churchill who was deeply unaware at the amount of hostility that he had created in political circles. Since Churchill was officially an independent candidate and not a member of either the Liberal or Conservative Party he was not included in the War Cabinet which curtailed his activities probably to his own benefit. As George recorded in his memoirs, “Unfortunately genius always provides its critics with material for censure — it always has and always will. Churchill is certainly no exception to this rule.”

At the Ministry of Munitions Churchill took over the control of a huge organisation composed of 12000 civil servants in 50 departments. Churchill combined the 50 groups into less than a dozen new ones and he set up a Council of business men somewhat like the Board of Admiralty and over the business men he put a clamping committee, small and powerful to direct affairs. The organisation was a triumph. This Ministry covered an enormous field – it was not only responsible for guns and shells but for all sorts of rolling stock and the design and production of aircraft as well. Churchill had to appreciably increase the munitions for the tank and machine gun corps which he did extraordinarily quickly and also to supply the American military with supplies until the USA could bring their factories onto a war footing. He in effect made a gentlemen’s agreement by which the UK promised not to make a profit and the USA promised to make good a loss. The deal worked spectacularly. Winston established extremely cordial relations with his counterpart in Washington – Bernard Baruch – who was to become indispensable for Britain in its World War Two efforts to receive American armaments during the dark days of 1940 and 1941.

The appalling and senseless First World War sank deep into consciousness of the British nation and explains why bolshevism was granted receptive audiences throughout Europe and why the nations of Europe were eager to appease Hitler 20 years later. At the Battle of the Somme a British offensive in 1916 claimed 420.000 British casualties in one month. From August to September 1917 at Paaschendaele Belgium, 300.000 Empire soldiers were wounded or killed in a campaign to claim a few square miles of territory with many of the victims drowned in torrential rains. Even after the successful conclusion of the war with the dramatic and sudden German disintegration in the early summer of 1918 the British and French populace could never erase the carnage and mindless mutilation of 4 years of war and became profoundly anti-war and pro-pacifist.

This pacifist feeling and urge to rebuild a better world was manifest in the 1918 election where Lloyd George and his coalition government retained power. At this juncture the Liberal party, once the prime mover in all that was progressive and enlightened, was all but finished, weak, divided and without firm mass support. The Conservatives took the urban vote, and the Labour party the worker vote. The Trade Unions on which Labour depended became enormously strengthened by the war experience and their membership doubled to roughly over 8 million by 1919. Given the voting reforms in 1918 this power became effectively used as the electorate was extended from about 8 million in 1914, to over 21 million in 1918.

After the successful close of the First World War the Imperial mystique was powerful and even enhanced. British possessions in the Middle East and Africa grew, with concomitant increases in raw material resource including oil. It appeared that British economic strength given the severity of the peace reprisals hoisted upon Germany and the minimisation of her once severe economic threat, could enjoy something of a comeback. In the 1920’s under Lloyd George all major industries were returned to private hands. The Government also began trumpeting a consistent financial policy to ensure an eventual return to the Gold Standard, meaning that the City of London, the British class system, and private capitalism all appeared to continue unchallenged.

However fiscal reality overshadowed the blissful feeling of Empire grandeur. Financial and military constraints to manage the Empire were severe and India with its growing nationalism was becoming ever more of a moral and financial burden. There was a huge increase from the war effort in national debt and the subsequent loss of foreign markets especially in Germany and France. Lloyd George had also committed his government to the necessary but costly endeavour of building 200.000 houses for immediate public purchase in 1919. Massive post-war unemployment was fast becoming a crippling political problem for the British government, as was the realisation that perhaps the greatest threat to international stability was the narrow minded, nescient Versailles Peace Treaty effected in 1919. Covert, secret treaties concluded during the war between Britain and its allies, with unjust terms for financial reparations from Germany as described by J.M. Keynes’ ‘Economic Consequences of the Peace’ written in 1919, showed conclusively that the reparations imposed on Germany would lead to its financial ruin and thereby to the permanent weakening of the European economy. Keynes also devoted eloquent, penetrating prose, in describing the corrupt atmosphere of the Versailles arrangement and in particular Lloyd George’s debasing and unstatesmanlike conduct.

Churchill though he was the most visible advocate of better social conditions was assigned by George as the Secretary of State for War and Air. This was a key position in post war Europe, a Continent which was far from stable and where, the insipidity of Bolshevism was threatening to take over Germany. Churchill and others promulgated that given these internal disruptions a certain magnanimity towards Germany would be prudent since she was and is the central player in the concert of Europe. In fact the Bolshevist menace occupied a great deal of Churchill’s energies in 1919 and 1920. He firmly believed that if enough Western material and support were offered to the non-Bolshie forces in Russia, Lenin’s precarious revolution which during these years was in great danger of being eclipsed by military forces loyal to the Russian monarchy and to a lesser degree supportive of democracy could be eradicated.

That Bolshevism was foul baboonery was obvious to any but the most ardent and simple socialist utopian. Lloyd George however considered that the Russian anti-Bolshevist generals were not liberal democrats and that foreign intervention counter-productive and expensive. And though Churchill was right about Bolshevism being imposed by force, Britain was too exhausted by the Great War to intervene militarily or even spiritually. The prospect of another conflict was too horrifying to consider and most of the volunteers in the army were clamouring to be disbanded. Thus in part through Western weakness the irrationality of Bolshevism laid its clawed hand on the heart of Russia. A tragedy still apparent in the mindset, lost integrity and general disarray of the Russian people and nation today.

After dispensing with his duties as Secretary of War, Churchill was directed by George to sort out painful and essential problems in the Colonial Office. In the brief 18 months of 1921-22 when Winston was Secretary for the Colonies he justly claimed the mantle of peace maker. He enacted two very important settlements. The first was in the Middle East. Churchill still carried the great hope that Britain would conduct itself in a pure manner regarding native or colonial populations and government. His experience taught him that democracy was not applicable at all times in all locations to all peoples, yet fair government rested not on military power but on moral law. Churchill in effect cut military deployment and largess in the colonies especially in the newly acquired territories in the Middle East where Air power was substituted in some measure for troops to garrison the Empire. It was in this quarter as well that Churchill strove gamely within the British protectorate of Palestine to broker peace between the Jews and Arabs, and to push the idea of a Jewish state in the region in accordance with the Balfour declaration of 1917 which stated that the Jews were to be accorded a national home in the Middle East. Churchill was convinced that Zionism would bring with it prosperity if only peace could be arranged between the implacable parties.

He called upon the aid of the amazing Englishman Lawrence of Arabia, and settled in Cairo during a conference, the grievances of all concerned parties. The proposals were sent to Cabinet. First, the British must appease Arab emotion by placing the Emir Feisal on the throne of Iraq and transfer to his brother the Emir Abdulla the government of the Transjordan. Secondly, British troops must be withdrawn from Iraq and order maintained via the Air Force. Thirdly, adjustments must be made between the Arabs and Jews that would serve as a sure foundation for peace. In sum it was a proper and practicable arrangement and with it the acceptance of the proposals, tension in the Middle East declined dramatically.

At this time Ireland also raised itself after the war eager for Home Rule and a resolution to its problems. It was a violent land with Sinn Fein outside of Northern Ireland dominant and using force to implement its rule. Churchill as Colonial Secretary in 1921 was entrusted to keep military control and internal peace until proper democratic procedures could be enacted to appease the demands of the Catholic South. To restore the military balance on the island Churchill recruited Ulster men to patrol Ireland and to meet violence with violence. Though clashes ensued both sides and the British government could find enough common ground to effect the transfer of power to Southern Ireland as a dominion, effective December 6 1922. Churchill’s part as a conciliatory statesman, ignoring the clamour of extremists from both sides and unbowed by military threats was crucial and leading. The world seldom thinks of Churchill as a conciliator but in this case he worked tirelessly and sagaciously to defuse an intricate and maddeningly emotional dispute. He handled innumerable situations with tact, writing repeatedly to the leaders involved, smoothing away misunderstandings, emphasising goodwill, minimalising petty conduct, praising, extolling and suggesting. In the end the tragedy of Ireland final settled down to peace.

In the fall of 1922 a national election transpired which effectively destroyed the Liberal party and forced Churchill to make his way towards the Conservatives. Public disapproval and weariness with the coalition or ‘national’ government of Lloyd George had reached new heights of fervent expression. Since 1916 George had sat upon the pinnacle of British public duty. However George’s persistent womanising and remote, Olympian and not entirely trust worthy character had defaced to some degree the validity of his rule. Public disgruntlement at its Leadership became irreversibly hardened in 1922 when Britain was on the verge of war with Turkey over the defence of the Greek position in Asia minor and the protection of the Dardanelle straits. War did not erupt, but Lloyd George and his government including Churchill were tossed from office and Ramsay MacDonald, the utopian Leader of the leftist Labour party became Prime Minister. Macdonald was challenged by the stable and peaceful Stanley Baldwin the Conservative Leader, Prime Minister in 1923-24, 1924-1929, and 1935-7. Both Macdonald and Baldwin were appropriate shepherds for a country that desperately wanted peace and safety and to escape the horrors of war.

Churchill also lost his working class seat in Dundee Scotland and was banished into exile for 2 years. It is peculiar that an aristocrat would have as his political base a blue collar, sweated town such as Dundee which had absolutely nothing in common with an Oxfordshire squire. Barred from public duty by the election result Churchill spent most if his time with the family, writing, painting and patiently biding time until the political scene cleared and opportunity would be revealed. In this period Churchill began his massive history of the First World War. The five volumes of the “World Crisis” as it was called, were published between 1923 and 1931. It is a truly significant work about national, international and personal power. It is not so much a history as a colourful drama, with Churchill never far from the centre stage. It was a eulogy to the decaying grasp of British domination of the world scene, with 1922 revealing the spread of socialism engulfing Europe, with Ireland and Egypt lost as independents from the Empire and the first ever Labour Party in power. Much had changed and much was still in train to be altered since Churchill had first entered Parliament 21 years earlier. Across the globe peaceful hopes were supreme. Martial glory was dreaded.

The new doctrinaire of peace and rebuilding was reflected in British arts represented by the literary Bloomsbury group — a creative association that included Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster, both intimating through their novels a decline of Western liberal self confidence in the face of rising competition and corruption. In the mid 1920’s Britain was a society rapidly changing and transmuting. Large proportions of the population had emerged from the war with middle class aspirations; home ownership, a quiet contented family, leisure, domestic comforts and employment security. There was a gradual erosion of church and puritan values with ‘smart young things’ wearing less restrictive and dour costumes and fewer young people openly religious. The rural population declined steadily as unemployment in the non-urban areas grew and families migrated to the city to locate work.

In 1923 an event occurred which proved extremely advantageous for the career of Churchill. Bonar Law the Conservative Prime Minister and Winston’s intractable political opponent resigned and soon afterwards died, leaving Stanley Baldwin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Prime Minister. Baldwin was a stolid, pipe smoking, shrewd English politician dedicated to eradicating unemployment which at that time hovered around the one million mark. He was a protectionist, an advocate of high tariffs to stimulate economic growth and employment. But since Bonar Law had pledged in the 1922 election to do exactly the opposite, Baldwin needed a mandate from the public to initiate such reform.

Baldwin thus picked the only issue capable of uniting all Liberals into one unit. Churchill fought as a Liberal Free Trader at West Leicester, noisy and excited. His violent denunciations of the Labour party and of socialism, drew packed houses and infuriated his opponents, who pitched any and all recriminations they could lay their hands on. Churchill was so bitterly hated by a large section of the working class that when he spoke on 3 December 1923 in London, the city was obliged the send both mounted and foot police as protection. Churchill described the crowd as “..more like Russian wolves than British workmen – if they are British workmen – howling, foaming, and spitting, and generally behaving in a way absolutely foreign to the British working classes.” Churchill lost by four thousand votes. Overall no party could command enough seats to form a government. The Labour and Liberal parties formed a coalition with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister. Another election was soon inevitable since a Labour government held in power by Liberal support could never hope to enact change. The Labour party had an equal share of Liberal minded men such as MacDonald and radicals intent on real socialism.

Shortly thereafter a Conservative seat fell vacant in Westminster London. Churchill at once set about getting himself adopted as the Conservative candidate. His powerful Tory friends intervened on his behalf but to no avail. The Conservative party adopted the nephew of the retiring Conservative member. Churchill continued undaunted calling himself an anti-socialist independent. Many Tories supported Churchill. There was a fear that since Westminster was a Conservative stronghold Churchill’s candidacy might split the Conservative vote and allow Labour to win. Churchill fought the campaign entirely against the Socialists. Blood, thunder, doom and ruin were interwoven with tales of tragic incompetence if Labour would lay its hands on power. Notable peers, Conservative members and newspapers canvassed for him. Despite the glittering support Churchill lost by 43 votes to the Conservative candidate Nicholson.

Churchill was far from downcast. The road at least to the Conservatives was clear. His Liberal bridge lay burned and the support of so many notable Conservatives gave him great heart. He was positioned as the most powerful Conservative weapon against a socialistic revolution. After nine months of governing the Liberals finally withdrew their support from MacDonald’s and another election was called in the fall of 1924. Churchill fought in this election as a Conservative at Epping and was victorious. His remarkable journey back to a party that reflected his ideals of economic orthodoxy, social reform and colonial morality was complete. It staggered his enemies who could not believe that he had once again switched party flags.

Soon after this victory and remarriage Churchill somewhat incredibly became Chancellor. It was an amazing transformation. Since 1918 Churchill had made a steady if not swift progression to his natural political home of conservatism. The Liberal party had by 1922 outlived its usefulness. Churchill had no choice if he prized his political future but to join the Conservatives. That Stanley Baldwin gave Churchill the second most important post in the government dazed even the staunchest of Churchill’s supporters. Given the complex spectacle and challenges of post war finances, reparation schedules, the gold standard issue and the grappling of the debt problem, the Chancellorship in the mid-20’s would prove to be an extremely laborious effort.

Why did Baldwin give Churchill the second most powerful position in the nation ? He simply feared Churchill and especially the political and oratorical combination of Churchill and Lloyd George. If Churchill was left out of power, a Centre Party with Churchill and Lloyd George and the Conservative orator and Churchillian supporter F.E. Smith could conceivably be formed dissipating greatly any governmental power base. Baldwin had no desire to be blasted by 3 such heavyweights. An astute party manager, Baldwin forced Churchill to accede to the Chancellorship where party pressure would keep him in line. Or so he hoped. And indeed in donning the robes once worn by his father Churchill showed himself a loyal and capable supporter of Baldwin and his government.

Though not trained in the world of commerce or finance Churchill mastered his post with precipitate speed and enjoyment challenging the experts and doctrinaires on all policy issues. However the mid-late 1920’s decline in exports and decreased employment opportunities in the export trades can be in large part traced to his decision to return Britain to the Gold Standard. This decision can be regarded as a rather disastrous move. In fact Churchill’s tenure at the Exchequer was marred by strife and labour bitterness, depression and industrial disquiet. Most of this calamity can be traced to business and financial pressure exerted upon British governments beginning in 1918 to return the British pound to the pre-World War 1 Gold Standard rate. A standing committee of experts appointed by the Lloyd George Government in 1918 to investigate the position urged that the decision be accepted and only the emphatic and brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes raised a howl of objection. In 1925 Britain sat between two stools of economic philosophy of society.

On one sat the school of market determination insisting that wages and prices are calculated by the strict, inviolable laws of supply and demand. Upon the other resided the Keynesians, preaching a managed economy and limited but effective government interference and resource allocation. Though Keynes intellectually gnarled the return to Gold he very importantly did not offer an alternative. The political and business pressure on Churchill to keep the parliamentary promise and return the country to gold was immense. It was viewed as a way to defuse inflation since the government would be constrained in its printing of money. All of Britain’s major economic partners had adopted or soon would pass under the heel of the Gold Standard. And though Churchill repeatedly hesitated imploring his civil officials to defy Keynes’ predictions he could find no plausible alternative to what many had expected to be a fait accompli.

The result meant a serious overvaluing of British Coal and Steel exports and generally exacerbated the inequality of comforts among the classes that divided the nation. Unfortunately for Churchill and his government economic woes dovetailed with sagging spirits. In much of the West there arose in the mid-late 1920’s a certain disappointment with Western values and the terrible cycle of industrial decline, unemployment, and social bitterness led to the worst explosion of class conflict that Britain had yet known in 1926. In April of that year Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin refused to renew a subsidy to the coal industry. This subsidy was considered essential to maintain the coal industry’s productive capability, and its repeal ignited a class-based nation wide general strike in early May 1926.

For nine days the country literally stopped functioning. As the struggle between the government and the unions deepened Churchill was again the most active member of the government to quell the disturbance basically commanding the creation and publication of a special government newspaper to keep the public informed about the strike, the position of the government and the developments at garnering reconciliation. Thankfully it was bloodless and the strike ended abruptly. However, the class divisiveness engendered by the strike plagued the nation for at least the next 20 years or more with 1926 injustice being revived as late as the 1984-5 coal disputes.

This was the signal event of his Chancellorship. After the excitement of the strike, balancing budgets, limiting unemployment and reducing income taxes became Churchill’s standard fare. He did not enact any other change as effacing or important as the return to Gold. The most notable feature of Churchill’s remaining tenure from 1926-1929 as Chancellor was his stubborn defence of free trade and economic orthodoxy. As the months passed on Churchill’s bellicose defence of free trade began to rattle and decrease his own status within the Conservative party, where many, including Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, favoured protection to give British industry relief from the high rates of unemployment. Churchill demurred and would not countenance such unorthodox blasphemy. For his colleagues this became a point of frustration. This was elevated in degree by Winston’s dominating, energetic manner. His colleagues were beginning to tire of Churchill’s overpowering presence, clever memoranda, forays into departments other than his own, and the vast literature of ideas and action points. Baldwin confided to a friend that Churchill’s lack of team skills was a disadvantage that outweighed his contributions and that he would not want Churchill in another government. He and his successors kept this promise, and Churchill was ostracised from office and power from 1929 to 1939.

In 1929 Baldwin’s government went to the polls. Labour emerged as the largest party and formed a government with Liberal support and Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister for the second time. In 1931 MacDonald deserted the Labour party and joined forces with the Conservatives in forming a National Government to deal with the financial crisis produced by the crash of Wall Street in 1929. This National Government was primarily Conservative in nature and though MacDonald was Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin was the real power broker and King maker.

This was the dawning age of the common man, where the spoils of power, prestige and money were to be distributed to a greater swath of society than ever before. The 1930’s marked the rise of the common man’s perception that society’s ills were not being repaired. He began to doubt the wisdom of being ruled by his so-called ‘betters’, those of the oligarchic aristocratic powerful elite, who by birth, money or talent and energy had hoisted themselves up to the summit of the noble ruling range. Was this system to continue indefinitely, the common man began to ask ? And as he surveyed the scene of poverty, unemployment, lost opportunity and vast resources wasted on war and death, he rightly began to question why it was that security, proper wages, better education and health were eluding his grasp ? Industrial and political control became mandatory and very quickly the common man became the richest political prize and a requirement for all politicians to woo and master.

Churchill was concerned that the Labour party, in the early stages of its development lacked the resolve and skill to govern. Largely this was correct. He did and could not blame the working man for erupting against the grave state of unemployment and desiring the fulfilment of hopes and promises. However, he was sceptical of magical remedies to cure the issue of 1-2 million men out of work. The great Keynes forwarded a mammoth plan of large borrowings for public works to relieve unemployment which Churchill readily denounced with veracity as ‘camouflaged inflation’. Thankfully neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative opposition were tempted by such schismatic views. Balanced budgets, and acceptable wage and price levels were deemed the wisest course.

Though it can never be forwarded that Churchill was a brilliant economist, he did have a solid grasp of the underlying principles of sound finance. What was distasteful to Winston was the blight that party politics radiated upon important economic questions. In June 1930 he delivered a lecture at Oxford University sponsoring the suggestion that economics must be separated from politics, “I see no reason why the political Parliament should not choose in proportion to its Party groupings a subordinate Economic Parliament of say one-fifth of its numbers, and composed of persons of high technical and business qualifications. This idea has received much countenance in Germany. I see no reason why such an assembly should not debate in the open light of day and without caring a half-penny who won the General Election, or who had the best slogans for curing unemployment, all the grave economic issues by which we are now confronted afflicted. I see no reason why the Economic Parliament should not for the time being command a greater interest than the political Parliament; nor why the political Parliament should not assist it with its training and experience in methods of debate and procedure. What is required is a new personnel adapted to the task which has to be done, and pursuing that task day after day without the distractions of other affairs and without fear, favour or affection.”

This was met with a cold indifference and Churchill found himself almost alone in its avocation. To compensate the pen provided distraction and he wrote his autobiography My Early Life, quite an amusing tale that finishes with his entrance into Parliament and his marriage ending with the words, “I married and lived happily ever afterwards.” The public was amazed by the tolerant and gentle humour of the work, much of it directed against himself. It was not the evocations of a combustible politician, but more the reflections of a man detached from life’s strife and living on high, above the corrupt daily battle of the House of Commons. This was soon followed by series of newspaper articles and essays ranging in subject from one on ‘Moses’ to ‘Shall We All Commit Suicide?’, bounded and reprinted in a book called Thoughts and Adventures. The last literary piece to appear in the early 30’s was the thick fifth volume of the First World War, The World Crisis, The War on the Eastern Front.

Also revealing but seldom known was that Churchill seldom spent a week-end away from his country house, Chartwell, which was close enough to London that a long troupe of friends would motor down for dinner engagements. Winston’s preferred element of relaxation was ardent political debate, late into the evening, with an early waking, working in bed, smoking of a large cigar and the afternoons engaged in children, farming and building. Churchill loved construction. He built a tree-top house, a goldfish pond, a bathing pool, a cottage, a brick wall, dammed a lake, and made miniature waterfalls. This love of design sprang from his interest in applying a methodical and systemic technique. The appeal of writing stemmed from matching sentences together to form paragraphs which then had to be arranged into a coherent pattern. Such it was with the creation of physical objects. The fabrication of the cottage and long wall induced Churchill, the arch-Conservative, to join the bricklayer’s association as a professional that could lay one brick per minute. Needless to say the Labour party was unamused. The public had no opportunity to see this side of the man; devoted to animals, family and estate projects. To the general mass Winston was pugnacious and formidable with a robotic appetite for work, a brilliant mind, unstable character and a flaming ambition.

Churchill’s immersion and occupation in the scholarly world was disturbed by one of the great debates in British history. In the early to mid 1930’s it was India – and the granting of nationhood to India – which dominated Churchill’s activities as he sat out of power. The Liberal, Conservative and Labour parties all supported the extension of dominion or independence to India and the details of the bill were in the hands of a multiparty commission. The Viceroy’s of India (Lord Halifax followed by Lord Irwin) were in favour of granting India the freedom that she demanded; first in drawing up a Federal Constitution; and second in extending self-government in Dominion status. Undoubtedly public opinion had been sharpened by the protracted struggle and lessons of Ireland. India was simply requesting what had already been granted to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was much to be lost by ruling with repressive force and much to gain by granting concessions and acting in accordance with the inclinations of a great subcontinent.

Churchill was adamantly opposed to any relinquishment of British control or influence. He was almost alone in his extreme criticism. And though his opponents used some chicanery to push the India Bill through Parliament Churchill’s hard and prickly position alienated and diminished his stature. His Demosthenic railings against Indian self determination were viewed with suspicion and then scorn by his contemporaries. Winston passionately and correctly believed that India was indispensable for the maintenance of the British Empire – it was certainly the jewel in the crown. Without it the rest of Britain’s imperialistic holdings would surely slip away. He also correctly surmised that without the resources and captive markets of the great subcontinent Britain could have difficulty surviving as a prosperous country and that once granted independence India would be riven with sectarian violence and bloodshed. However his obstinate badgering and negative criticasting did not prevent the bill from being given Parliamentary approval in 1935 as it rightly deserved. You cannot keep a subcontinent like India in permanent subjugation.

The Conservative party was outraged with Churchill’s obduracy over a 5 year period in trying to kill the India bill. Churchill was always consistent in his advocacy that India was inseparable from fortune in the affairs of Britain. However his pronounced, rash and incongruous campaign severed his ties with the Conservatives. He was a Tory in name, but the wilderness was his home. He became a political untouchable for much of the 1930’s. Legendary, brash, and self serving, or so the great mass believed when Churchill’s name was invoked. Though Churchill had a mystical belief in his own greatness and ultimate destiny most of his friends conceded during the early 1930’s that his career was finished. He had now quarrelled heavily with all three parties. The boats were burnt, there was no retreat. The Conservatives had quite reluctantly forgiven him once, and now that their suspicions had in their own minds been justified by Churchill’s extremity over India they were unlikely to grant absolution a second time. The Liberal Party was dead and the Labour party viewed Churchill as the Beelzebub of the House of Commons. In what direction lay the future ?

Strangely enough, when opportunity appeared at low ebb, Churchill began in 1931 the work on his famous ancestor the Duke of Marlborough which prepared him for the challenges of leadership during World War Two. It was the sweat, thought and inspiration poured into this literary masterpiece with its own story of weakness, subterfuge, tyranny and salvation that so peculiarly mirrored the events of the Second World War. This indoctrination prepared Churchill beautifully for the leadership of Britain at the darkest hour in its history. Ever since he was a young lad, Winston had consumed all the information he could imbibe on his great forbear John Churchill. Here was a tale that contained every element of drama; the story of the poor youth who came from unknown origins to become one of the greatest generals of all time and who saved England and half of Europe from the despotic maniacal control of France’s King Louis the XIV; of the pretty youth who fascinated the King of England’s mistress; the ambitious man who became the richest man in Europe; the sought after hero who loved his wife with unbounded passion for over 50 years; the conquering god who never lost a battle; the political diplomatist who ruled England by effective power during his tenure as war-lord. Nothing was missing. It was the perfect tale of dash, flash, glory and power. Love, war, espionage, revolution, King’s, Queen’s, romance and success all weaved and threaded themselves into one astonishing life.

It is small wonder that Winston became attracted to writing this thrilling record. The skill of Churchill’s account resides in his ability to bring all of the characters into life. The complicated relations are dealt with at a confident brilliant pace, and reveals a century (late 17th to early 18th) of resounding change. As a literary piece it compares with Tolstoy’s War and Peace and as an artistic expression it has few historical equals. Thankfully this story of power and struggle was not written by a historian but by a politician hobbying as a historian. Only a man who understood the current of political life could have written such a detailed and satisfying explanation of the jostling that takes place in political circles. Even more vital it was a theme of freedom and the restoration of England’s and of Europe’s independence. Such a thesis fuelled all of the innermost fires of Churchill’s fibre, “Since the duel between Rome and Carthage there had been no such world war. It involved all the civilised peoples; it extended to every part of the accessible globe; it settled for some time or permanently the real relative wealth and power, and the frontiers of every important European state.”

These words were written during 1933, the year Hitler came to power. Away from artistic endeavours Churchill began to discharge time and energy into comprehending and communicating the threat of Hitler’s Germany, collecting testaments and information on the gravity of Hitler’s menace from all parties and sources. Winston in his speeches consistently exhorted a full support of the League of Nations and tried to draw Russia into a Grand Alliance to ring and contain German ambition. However, his appeals rang hollow in the halls of the pacifist democracy and in the circles of power. Almost by default it appeared that the dove Ramsay Macdonald, and his Labour party would be a reliable guide to lead affairs for the 1930’s. Militarism was scorned and war in the 1930’s dismissed and pressing economic questions had to be resolved. The second Labour government under Macdonald was a disaster, not only due to ministerial incompetence but also to the stock crash, and the financial derangement which drove unemployment to over 3 million men, hastening the decline of important first and secondary industries, and showing to the world the inefficient work practices, and dearth of British business and entrepreneurial skills. British society was in tumult during the 1930’s.

In 1936 fascist Italy was busy conquering Ethiopia, and Franco was waging civil war in Spain supported by Germany and Italy against the government. In both cases the British government adhered to non-intervention though public psychology was greatly stirred by the Spanish war and Jewish refugees brought home the nightmare of Hitler’s Germany. Still the election of the Conservative party and Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister confirmed the people’s desire not to get involved with Europe or at least not another Continental war – no matter how bitter and distasteful they might find the events.

MacDonald was replaced in the mid thirties by the decaying Conservative Leader Stanley Baldwin who with his faltering powers was no more effective than his predecessor in curing the employment and economic problems ruining British society. But remarkably and in a very British-like manner, the UK compared to the Continent, displayed a great stability and affinity for liberal democratic governance and law. Whilst the baboonery of fascism skipped and capered in Germany, Italy. Japan and Spain, and whilst Russia was raped by the Bolshevik monsters, Britain, saddled with a distressing economic and social condition showed no real inclination (outside of a small fringe that supported Oswald Mosley’s fascist party) to gravitate towards revolution or anarchy. It was superhumanly stable.

This lasted until 1937. This mood of pacifist peace began to harden itself and grow bitter. The change of attitude was not due to domestic disunity but forced by foreign affairs. The rise of the demented Hitler finally drew a response in 1937 in the form of a British commitment to increase military preparedness. In 1936 Hitler marched into the allied occupied Rhinelands in direct infringement of the Versailles treaty. Only Churchill called for a military response. It was a gigantic bluff on the part of Hitler. France was immobile with fear and refused to move without British support. Baldwin would not commit himself and urged the French to take the matter to the League of Nations. As we know today, if the French army had advanced into the Rhine area scarcely a shot would have to have been fired to disperse the German force. Hitler had occupied the Rhineland in direct violation of his Chief of Staff advice with only a handful of troops. The democracies were inert and Hitler rightly guessed at the lack of resolve and courage of France and Britain.

While France stood gaping and Britain remained pawing the ground, Churchill attempted to galvanise the world through collective action; “If the League of Nations were able to enforce its decree upon one of the most powerful countries in the world found to be an aggressor, then the authority of the League would be set upon so majestic a pedestal that it must henceforth be the accepted sovereign authority by which all the quarrels of the people can be determined and controlled. Thus we might upon this occasion reach by one single bound the realisation of our most cherished dreams.” No action was forthcoming and the political leaders and newspapers of the day played down the crisis. However Baldwin’s stock was falling and Churchill’s was climbing.

The British had long been harangued by Churchill for their blindness to Hitler’s menace. The 1930’s make tragic reading. If but a tithe of Churchill’s advice and will had been effected the desolation of the Second World War would never have transpired. Efforts were made but they were too small to meet the challenge. Beginning in 1935 a new fighter based Air Force was being patiently constructed, and well known scientists dedicated to remilitarizing Britain like Henry Tizard and his rival, Churchill’s mentor Frederick Lindemann, were given ample access in corridors of power. Though the armed forces were being renewed, it was a case of far too little too late. The great German advantage in air and land power could not be overcome in a few short years by a determined but still rather small British remilitarization campaign.

The vacillation and blind insipidity of Britain, France and America during the 1930’s even now defies comprehension. At that time nearly every foreign correspondent was aware of the derision in which the dictators held the democracies and their determination to wage war while the waging was good. Masses of paper appeal to this theme. In 1937 Herr von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador to London had a long talk with Churchill telling him openly that Germany must have a free hand in Eastern Europe. When Churchill stated that Britain would not allow this the German replied, “In that case war is inevitable. There is no way out. The Fuhrer is resolved. Nothing will stop him and nothing will stop us.” It is difficult to find another period in history when war was so unconcealed and obvious.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/churchill-from-19141939-and-the-unnecessary-war-697578.html

Introduction to PLC’s

Programmable Logic Controllers

Bedford Associates, founded by Richard Morley introduced the first Programmable Logic Controller in 1968.  This PLC was known as the Modular Digital Controller from which the MODICON company derived its name.  The History of the PLC as told to Howard Hendricks by Dick Morley provides an interesting insight into the early development of the PLC.

 Schnieder Quantum PLC

Programmable Logic Controllers were developed to provide a replacement for large relay based control panels.  These systems were inflexible requiring major rewiring or replacement whenever the control sequence was to be changed.

The development of the micro processor from the mid 1970’s have allowed Programmable Logic Controllers to take on more complex tasks and larger functions as the speed of the processor increased.

Ladder Logic

PLC had to be maintainable by technicians and electrical personnel.  To support this the programming language of Ladder Logic was developed.  Ladder Logic is based on the relay and contact symbols technicians were used to through wiring diagrams of electrical control panels.

Until recently there has been no formal programming standard for PLC’s.  The introduction of the IEC 61131 Standard in 1998 provides a more formal approach to coding.  PLC Manufacturers have so far been slow on the uptake of the standard with partial implementation.  The SearchEng articleIEC 61131-3, a Standard for PLC Software by R.W. Lewis provides an introduction to the standard.

The documentation for early PLC Programs was either non existent or very poor, just providing simple addressing and basic comments, making large programs difficult to follow.  This has been greatly improved with the development of PLC Programming Packages.

SCADA and HMI

The early programmable logic controllers interfaced with the operator in much the same way as the relay control panel, via push-buttons and switches for control and lamps for indication.

The introduction of the Personal Computer (PC) in the 1980’s allowed for the development of a computer based interface to the operator, these where initially via simple Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and more recently via Dedicated Operator Control Panels, known as Human Machine Interfaces (HMI).

The History of the PLC
as told to Howard Hendricks by Dick Morley

The following are some fables associated with the first ten years of the programmable controller business. These Fables may or may not have a basis of truth, but in general, they are the best that my Alzheimer-plagued memory can do at the moment. As has been often in other articles and reports, the startup of Modicon and the programmable controller industry as a whole is well documented. The programmable controller was detailed on New Year’s Day, 1968, and from hence till now, a slow steady growth has allowed the manufacturing and process control industries to take advantage of applications-oriented software.

The early days however, were not as straightforward nor as simple. We had some real problems in the early days of convincing people that a box of software, albeit cased in cast iron, could do the same thing as 50 feet of cabinets, associated relays and wiring. The process was indeed difficult, and deserves some of the stories that I hope the reader will be regaled with as he proceeds onward through the tortuous swamp of my mind.

One of my earliest recommendations was that the programmable controller, according to my own system architecture specification, did not need to go fast because I felt as though speed was not a criteria because it would go as fast as we needed it to. The initial machine, which was never delivered, only had 125 words of memory, and speed was not a criteria as mentioned earlier. You can imagine what happened! First, we immediately ran out of memory, and second, the machine was much too slow to perform any function anywhere near the relay response time. Relay response times exist on the order of 1/60th of a second, and the topology formed by many cabinets full of relays transformed to code is significantly more than 125 words. We expanded the memory to 1K and thence to 4K. At 4K, it stood the test of time for quite a while. Initially, marketing and memory sizes were sold in 1K, 2K, 3K, (?) and 4K. the 3K was obviously the 4K version with constrained address so that field expansion to 4K could easily be done.

The question of speed, in part, was part of the early designs. No interrupts were necessary because the external signal conditions were directly written onto memory without any supervisory requirements or “operating system of the conventional type. This allowed the processor to pay attention to solving logic rather than housekeeping the I/O. As a result, of course, the processor had to have significantly more processing power than normally associated with this size computer; and secondly, the system had to be made to run fast.

We increased the memory size, as mentioned above, but to get it to run fast, we had to break up the machine into three distinct components. Initially, the programmable controller was conceived of a processor board and a memory, and that the algorithmic and logical manipulation would be done in software. This approach was painfully slow, both on the generic “store bought computers, and other items.

We did, however, manage to substantially speed up the machine by making a third major component. This was called the logic solver. A logic solver board solved the dominant algorithms associated with solving ladder logic without the intervention and classical software approach of general-purpose processing. This meant that we ended up with three boards; memory, logic solver and processor. This single step allowed us to get the speed we needed in this application-specific computer to solve the perceptually simple problem of several cabinets full of relay wiring.

We had also assumed a modular approach to the programmable controller. In act, the name Modicon means MOdular DIgital CONtroller. The modularity, however, was soon abandoned because, as everyone knows, open architectures are no good. We instead had the marketing premise that a large footprint would contain within it the sets of problems we wished to solve. This meant that a buyer of programmable controllers could buy large numbers of the same units, and the software and hardware would be identical across a broad spectrum of applications in his factory. Service, maintenance and total life cost would be substantially lower than the perceived lower cost of an open architecture and modular expansion. Although at first, a supporter of the open architecture modular expansion, I soon became convinced by the marketplace, but this was folly.

We took one of our early units which was aimed at the machine tool industry because of my Bedford Associates consulting background, up to one of the early requesters of this equipment. This particular early requester was Byrant Chuck and Grinder in Springfield, Vermont. We took the machine up there, and it was heavy. This was the 084. The 084 was in the trunk of my old Pontiac, and since we needed help carrying it in, requested some of the people at Bryant to help us. We went out and opened the hood, and the first comment made by an outside viewer of the programmable controller said, “Thank God it,s not another pastel colored piece of sheet metal.

We can hypothesize from this particular comment that the ruggedness of the visual design was pleasing to him, and being human (as opposed to Martian), assumed that this same attitude went deep inside the construction of the machine in both the hardware and software. Indeed, this was the case, and the machine as a result, was built rugged, had no ON/OFF switch, had no fans, did not make any noise and had no wear out system.

To reminisce for a moment—in selecting the cores for the first memories, which in itself was a revolutionary step, we selected these cores and we applied Shannon,s Law. Shannon,s Law assumes that the signal-to-noise ratio is what makes signals good or bad. There are several ways to get the power from the signal-to-noise ratio; one is to code heavily, be triply redundant, and use lots and lots of error checking. There is another way, which is perfectly compatible with theory, which is to use lots of signal power in another domain. A nice switch, a car battery and a D-rated light bulb will work fairly well over a long time period.

Therefore, what we did was rather than going error checking, triply redundant and stuff, we got, and searched for and found high energy, large ferrite core memories that had lots on energy per bit. We still make the same assumption today. The energy per bit is extremely important—as Shannon,s theory said in his most famous 1948 paper, that the signal noise to power noise is what gives you transmission. the way we got signal power was to increase the energy per bit. This we felt was far more important than getting the energy per bit increased by means of doubly transmitting it. But I digress. Bryant Chuck and Grinder put it in, and liked the equipment so much that they never bought one. They in turn thought it was a good idea, and as many did at that time, tried to evolve their own.

One of our first major customers, however, was Landis in Landis, PA. We flew the equipment down in a private aircraft, and with apprehension because we were late (as usual), brought the equipment into Landis. In doing so, we tripped over the threshold. The equipment went KA-RASH onto the floor! Without much chagrin, we picked the equipment up, trundled it in. hooked it up, and low and behold, it worked quite well.

Now, Landis was pleased and surprised. They were pleased because it worked, but they were most pleasantly surprised—not because the equipment worked—but because the guys from Modicon fully expected the equipment to work in spite of it being dropped. In other words, the people from Modicon weren,t nervous about the fact that it fell on the floor over the threshold.

Landis subsequently took and wrapped welding coils of wire around the machine to induce electro-magnetic noise to see if they could make it fail. We had them there! We used to test the programmable controllers with a Teslar coil that struck a quarter inch to half-inch arch anywhere on the system, and the programmable controller still had to continue to run. There was significant strangeness with respect to the programmable controller. For example, it had no ON/OFF switch. It had no means to load software. It had no fans. It ran cool. It could survive bad, physical and thermal environments. It was not computer industry standard. There were many things that were most difficult in the acceptance of the programmable controller, and early acceptance was most difficult indeed.

Our sales in the first four years were abysmal. Early innovators such as Landers and General Motors were, of course, heroes to our eyes, but they would buy small numbers of units and then test them in the field before they committed themselves later on. We had one customer in the utilities business that took them approximately six to seven years to make a decision to but the first one.

We never really sold any programmable controllers into the intended market which was machine tool control such as lathes, grinders and stuff, but we did, as luck would have it, stumble across the transfer line market which was and still is the mainstay, long-term market for the application of programmable controllers. Discreet parts manufacturing in an automatic environment, i.e., mass production, continues to be, and probably will be for the future, the mainstay of the programmable controller industry.

Some of the more interesting stories center around the personalities and experiences as opposed to the programmable controller. Modicon,s third president (or fourth, if you count my two-week stint) was Don Kramer. When Don Kramer was chosen as president, we decided to go out and celebrate at the Lanum Club in Andover. At the time, we felt we should celebrate over both martinis and food. As we were leaving the shop for the Lanum Club, Don made the aside comment that “the place is dingy and needs a paint job. As we were leaving, I mentioned to Don that as president you have to change what you say, and not be very open—you have to be a little careful about what you say because employees, customers, and boards of directors tend to take what you say as truth. Rather than listen to the meaning, they listen to the literal statements, and one must be careful. We went over to the Lanum Club and had a nice glowing two hours of discussion, food, and drink. Coming back, as we entered the Modicon lobby, we noticed that there was scaffolding about and people were painting. We went over and asked Lou as to why these people are painting since, at the time, we don,t have any money. Who ordered this paint job? And Lou looked Don Kramer straight in the eye, and said, “Why you did, Mr. Kramer. Nuff said.

As has been mentioned many times, your author, that,s me—Dick Morley—is supposed to be the inventor of the programmable controller. This is at best, partially true. The thing that made the Modicon company and the programmable controller really take off was not the 084, but the 184. The 184 was done in design cycle by Michael Greenberg, one of the best engineers I have ever met. He, and Lee Rousseau, president and marketeer, came up with a specification and a design that revolutionized the automation business. they built the 184 over the objections of yours truly. I was a purist and felt that all those bells and whistles and stuff weren,t “pure, and somehow they were contaminating my “glorious design, Dead wrong again, Morley! they were specifically right on! the 184 was a walloping success, and it—not the 084, not the invention of the programmable controller—but a product designed to meet the needs of the marketplace and the customer, called the 184, took off and made Modicon and the programmable controller the company and industry it is today. My compliments to the two chefs—Lee Rousseau and Mike Greenberg.

The issue of quality in programmable controllers is a story that is normally taken for granted. The gentle reader must remember that our engineering people came from the computer industry where reliability in those days was a phantom—a phantom of design, a phantom of cost. People felt that reliability was something other people did, and that if we only could deliver faster computers, even if they didn,t work, everything would be fine.

When the programmable controller was designed, it was designed in to be reliable. We used lots of energy per information bit by utilizing D-rated components, large memory ferrite cores, relatively stable and large etchings on printed circuit boards, totally enclosed systems and conductive cooling. No fans were used, and outside air was not allowed to enter the system for fear of contamination and corrosion. Mentally, we had imagined the programmable controller being underneath a truck, in the open, and being driven around—driven around in Texas, driven around in Alaska. Under those circumstances, we anted it to survive. The other requirement was that it stood on a pole helping run an utility or a microwave station which was not climate controlled, and not serviced at all. Under those circumstances, would it work for the years that it was intended to be? Could it be walled in? Could it be bolted in a system that was expected to last 20 years?

The humorous side of this is though we did all those designs and very carefully tried to make this system as intrinsically reliable as we could, not by redundancy, but by building well. In other words, it was designed to be built, it was designed to be designed, and it was designed to be reliable. We, however, as engineers, didn,t understand the accountants and manufacturing. those two have their grail, shipments by the end of the month. As far as we could ascertain at the time, shipments were made independent of quality and independent of whether or not the system ran.

In the early days of the programmable controller and Modicon, even though I wasn,t a direct employee and an owner, I would give out my home phone number to many of our critical customers so that if they had a problem, they could call me directly. Several calls indicated that when we shipped near the end of the month, let’s say October 34th, that the equipment would not run; and secondly, when they opened the box and took the machine apart, cards were missing, bolts were on the bottom of the cabinetry, and some of the cards were not fully inserted. In other words, to make the end of the month was much more important than to deliver equipment that ran. to put it mildly, we were pissed! How do we as engineers maintain quality without continual surveillance which is most difficult for the design and entrepreneurial mind set. What we did was specify and design “blue boxes. These were cabinetries that the system had to operate in and run continuously for a minimum of 24 hours, under load, and under varying conditions. The box was built out of plywood, but its primary intention was to heat cycle the programmable controller under various input/output loads. We also ran, as a specification, that a Tesla coil was to be used on the programmable controller, and that vibration and thumping with a hammer (rubber) would be part of the specification.

This may seem unscientific to many of you, but let us assume that you try to get your equipment to run while somebody purposely tries to destroy it with a rubber hammer or spark coil that he can put anywhere on the system. Remember, your intention is to make the processor stop. That combination significantly depressed those monthly shipments during the first period. As a result of that, however, the message got through. Not only did we build ovens and tests, and pay attention to heat and spark and RF emissions, we would run the system continuously even in the shipping crate to get the maximum number of pre-custom hours we could. It was important to us that we found the mistakes and not the customer and his secondary customer.

The language itself, ladder lister, bears some discussion. This particular language was not the invention of Modicon. We hypothesize that the language is very old, and originated in Germany to describe relay circuitry. If one looks at ladder lister, it has been our technical community for so long, we somehow think those little symboligies actually look like relays. In fact, it,s a mnemonic form of rule-based language, very modern and very high level, but designed in a Darwinian fashion over a period of many decades.

The ladder logic construct, “If… Then… is a very powerful construct used today in expert systems and other rule-based languages. The symbology, allowing normally open and normally closed situations as well as parallel and serial representation, was used for many decades before the invention of the programmable controller. I have worked on machines where the number of C-size and D-size prints were hung in special racks, and would be up to three feet thick worth of documentation on those drawing sets.

The name ladder comes from the fact that on the right-hand of the drawing is one power rail and the left-hand side is the other power rail; and in between in a horizontal fashion, is the statement or sequential connection of logical elements which we call relays or relay logic. The initial 084 had only logic in its functionality, and as a result, was marginal. In other words, all we did was replace relays rather than enhance the functionality by a factor of ten which is the entrepreneurial rule. Immediately, of course, based on customer response and our own frustrations, we put thing in the ladder listing language such as addition, multiplication, subtraction, and other functionalities that went far beyond relay capability and entered the realm of mathematics and set theory. This was still not sufficient, however, and we needed some way to make a “call to a “subroutine using ladder lister symbology and representation.

A software engineer, Chuck Schelberg, and myself were in the conference room one day trying to ascertain how we could make a generic call to functionalities that far exceeded the relay symbology and representation, and came up with the “DX function. This function was a block function that would be an element on the ladder logic representation that could perform many functionalities including arrays, motor drive functions, servo functions, extended mathematical functions, PID loops, ad nauseam. We felt there would be an occasional representation and use of these functionalities, and that not much had to be done to the programmable controller other than to modify the software. Wrong again!

The first customer that took delivery of a programmable controller utilizing the DX function, had a capability to be predictable and operate in real time. The RUN light went out, and the time to execute a scan or complete transformation of the ladder logic went far beyond the time allowable. Every single line had a DX function on it. Again we learned that when you enhance functionality, people use it all. I have never designed a computer that had too much memory. I,ve only designed computers that have too little memory. The same thing applies to any other functionality. Conventional wisdom seems to think that price/performance depends on only one thing—price—when, in fact, my experience has been that the customer cares little about price.

This price/performance tirade being over, one of the lessons we learned is that the customer wants functionality over the entire life cycle cost installation of the job. the customer also wants ease of installation, to have some fun, and to be proud of the work he does. After he,s finished, he never wants to come back.. The equipment should work as installed and as based. At one time, the programmable controller meantime before failure in the field was 50,000 hours. This is far in excess of almost any other type of electronic or control equipment.

The concept of languages and high-level languages is important. The programmable controller, as it evolved, began to request more and more power, and more and more memory. The memories continually went up as well as power. It is estimated that at one time, in the mid-1970s, that the programmable controller had the equivalent of two MIPS processor and 128 kilobytes of memory, which at that time was a significantly powered minicomputer capability. Why? High-level languages require power to run them. If we take the equivalent of the ladder lister statement “If… Then…, the high-level language as represented here, requires a substantial amount of interpretive compiler, if you will, generation of underlying code. In other words, this statement spawns significant underlying code that must be run quickly, reliably, and contain within it, all aspects of resource allocation and operations resource. The higher level the language, the more powerful the processor apparently has to be in order to run the language. Ladder lister is a high-level rule-based language which, until now, we haven,t talked much about in these terms. Our customers treated the programmable controller as a box of relays, and well they should. Language theory is neither necessary not desirable for most of the customers to know. The customers, instead, understand their problem, and are indeed much smarter than the design engineers because the dimensions of their problem far exceed the relatively simple problem of designing a computer software system and language. Ladder lister requires high performance which is one of the reasons it has difficulty running on the personal computer even of today

INTRODUCTION TO SCADA

SCADA is the abbreviation for Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition. It generally refers to an industrial control system: a computer system monitoring and controlling a process. The process can be industrial, infrastructure or facility based as described below:

            Industrial processes include those of manufacturing, production, power generation, fabrication, and refining, and may run in continuous, batch, repetitive, or discrete modes.

            Infrastructure processes may be public or private, and include water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment,  oil and gas pipelines, electrical power transmission and distribution, and large communication systems.

            Facility processes occur both in public facilities and private ones, including buildings, airports, ships, and space stations. They monitor and control HVAC, access, and energy consumption.

A SCADA System usually consists of the following subsystems:

            A Human-Machine Interface or HMI is the apparatus which presents process data to a human operator, and through which the human operator monitors and controls the process.

            A supervisory (computer) system, gathering (acquiring) data on the process and sending commands (control) to the process

            Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) connecting to sensors in the process, converting sensor signals to digital data and sending digital data to the supervisory system.

            Communication infrastructure connecting the supervisory system to the Remote Terminals Units

There is, in several industries, considerable confusion over the differences between SCADA systems and Distributed control systems (DCS). Generally speaking, a SCADA system usually refers to a system that coordinates, but does not control processes in real time. The discussion on real-time control is muddied somewhat by newer telecommunications technology, enabling reliable, low latency, high speed communications over wide areas. Most differences between SCADA and Distributed control system DCS are culturally determined and can usually be ignored. As communication infrastructures with higher capacity become available, the difference between SCADA and DCS will fade.

 Systems concepts

The term SCADA usually refers to centralized systems which monitor and control entire sites, or complexes of systems spread out over large areas (anything between an industrial plant and a country). Most control actions are performed automatically by remote terminals units (”RTUs”) or by programmable logic controllers (”PLCs”). Host control functions are usually restricted to basic overriding or supervisory level intervention. For example, a PLC may control the flow of cooling water through part of an industrial process, but the SCADA system may allow operators to change the set points for the flow, and enable alarm conditions, such as loss of flow and high temperature, to be displayed and recorded. The feedback control loop passes through the RTU or PLC, while the SCADA system monitors the overall performance of the loop.

Data acquistion begins at the RTU or PLC level and includes meter readings and equipment status reports that are communicated to SCADA as required. Data is then compiled and formatted in such a way that a control room operator using the HMI can make supervisory decisions to adjust or override normal RTU (PLC) controls. Data may also be fed to a Historian, often built on a commodity Database Management System, to allow trending and other analytical auditing.

SCADA systems typically implement a distributed database, commonly referred to as a tag database, which contains data elements called tags or points. A point represents a single input or output value monitored or controlled by the system. Points can be either “hard” or “soft”. A hard point represents an actual input or output within the system, while a soft point results from logic and math operations applied to other points. (Most implementations conceptually remove the distinction by making every property a “soft” point expression, which may, in the simplest case, equal a single hard point.) Points are normally stored as value-timestamp pairs: a value, and the timestamp when it was recorded or calculated. A series of value-timestamp pairs gives the history of that point. It’s also common to store additional metadata with tags, such as the path to a field device or PLC register, design time comments, and alarm information.

Human Machine Interface

A Human-Machine Interface or HMI is the apparatus which presents process data to a human operator, and through which the human operator controls the process.

An HMI is usually linked to the SCADA system’s databases and software programs, to provide trending, diagnostic data, and management information such as scheduled maintenance procedures, logistic information, detailed schematics for a particular sensor or machine, and expert-system troubleshooting guides.

The HMI system usually presents the information to the operating personnel graphically, in the form of a mimic diagram. This means that the operator can see a schematic representation of the plant being controlled. For example, a picture of a pump connected to a pipe can show the operator that the pump is running and how much fluid it is pumping through the pipe at the moment. The operator can then switch the pump off. The HMI software will show the flow rate of the fluid in the pipe decrease in real time. Mimic diagrams may consist of line graphics and schematic symbols to represent process elements, or may consist of digital photographs of the process equipment overlain with animated symbols.

The HMI package for the SCADA system typically includes a drawing program that the operators or system maintenance personnel use to change the way these points are represented in the interface. These representations can be as simple as an on-screen traffic light, which represents the state of an actual traffic light in the field, or as complex as a multi-projector display representing the position of all of the elevators in a skyscraper or all of the trains on a railway.

An important part of most SCADA implementations are alarms. An alarm is a digital status point that has either the value NORMAL or ALARM. Alarms can be created in such a way that when their requirements are met, they are activated. An example of an alarm is the “fuel tank empty” light in a car. The SCADA operator’s attention is drawn to the part of the system requiring attention by the alarm. Emails and text messages are often sent along with an alarm activation alerting managers along with the SCADA operator.

Hardware solutions

SCADA solutions often have Distributed Control System (DCS) components. Use of “smart” RTUs or PLCs, which are capable of autonomously executing simple logic processes without involving the master computer, is increasing. A functional block programming language, IEC 61131-3, is frequently used to create programs which run on these RTUs and PLCs. Unlike a procedural language such as the C programming language or FORTRAN, IEC 61131-3 has minimal training requirements by virtue of resembling historic physical control arrays. This allows SCADA system engineers to perform both the design and implementation of a program to be executed on an RTU or PLC. Since about 1998, virtually all major PLC manufacturers have offered integrated HMI/SCADA systems, many of them using open and non-proprietary communications protocols. Numerous specialized third-party HMI/SCADA packages, offering built-in compatibility with most major PLCs, have also entered the market, allowing mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and technicians to configure HMIs themselves, without the need for a custom-made program written by a software developer.

Remote Terminal Unit (RTU)

The RTU connects to physical equipment. Typically, an RTU converts the electrical signals from the equipment to digital values such as the open/closed status from a switch or a valve, or measurements such as pressure, flow, voltage or current. By converting digital setpoints to electrical signals and sending these electrical signals out to equipment the RTU can control equipment, such as opening or closing a switch or a valve, or setting the speed of a pump.

Quality SCADA RTUs have these characteristics:

            Data Networking capability

            Data Reliability

            Data Security.

Supervisory Station

The term “Supervisory Station” refers to the servers and software responsible for communicating with the field equipment (RTUs, PLCs, etc), and then to the HMI software running on workstations in the control room, or elsewhere. In smaller SCADA systems, the master station may be composed of a single PC. In larger SCADA systems, the master station may include multiple servers, distributed software applications, and disaster recovery sites. To increase the integrity of the system the multiple servers will often be configured in a dual-redundant or hot-standby formation providing continuous control and monitoring in the event of a server failure.

Initially, more “open” platforms such as Linux were not as widely used due to the highly dynamic development environment and because a SCADA customer that was able to afford the field hardware and devices to be controlled could usually also purchase UNIX or OpenVMS licenses. Today, all major operating systems are used for both master station servers and HMI workstations.

 Operational philosophy

For some installations, the costs that would result from the control system failing is extremely high. Possibly even lives could be lost. Hardware for some SCADA systems is ruggedized to withstand temperature, vibration, and voltage extremes, but in most critical installations reliability is enhanced by having redundant hardware and communications channels, up to the point of having multiple fully equipped control centres. A failing part can be quickly identified and its functionality automatically taken over by backup hardware. A failed part can often be replaced without interrupting the process. The reliability of such systems can be calculated statistically and is stated as the mean time to failure, which is a variant of mean time between failures. The calculated mean time to failure of such high reliability systems can be on the order of centuries.

 Communication infrastructure and methods

SCADA systems have traditionally used combinations of radio and direct serial or modem connections to meet communication requirements, although Ethernet and IP over SONET / SDH is also frequently used at large sites such as railways and power stations. The remote management or monitoring function of a SCADA system is often referred to as telemetry.

This has also come under threat with some customers wanting SCADA data to travel over their pre-established corporate networks or to share the network with other applications. The legacy of the early low-bandwidth protocols remains, though. SCADA protocols are designed to be very compact and many are designed to send information to the master station only when the master station polls the RTU. Typical legacy SCADA protocols include Modbus RTU, RP-570, Profibus and Conitel. These communication protocols are all SCADA-vendor specific but are widely adopted and used. Standard protocols are IEC 60870-5-101 or 104, IEC 61850 and DNP3. These communication protocols are standardized and recognized by all major SCADA vendors. Many of these protocols now contain extensions to operate over TCP/IP. It is good security engineering practice to avoid connecting SCADA systems to the Internet so the attack surface is reduced.

RTUs and other automatic controller devices were being developed before the advent of industry wide standards for interoperability. The result is that developers and their management created a multitude of control protocols. Among the larger vendors, there was also the incentive to create their own protocol to “lock in” their customer base. A list of automation protocols is being compiled here.

Recently, OLE for Process Control (OPC) has become a widely accepted solution for intercommunicating different hardware and software, allowing communication even between devices originally not intended to be part of an industrial network.

 Trends in SCADA

There is a trend for PLC and HMI/SCADA software to be more “mix-and-match”. In the mid 1990s, the typical DAQ I/O manufacturer supplied equipment that communicated using proprietary protocols over a suitable-distance carrier like RS-485. End users who invested in a particular vendor’s hardware solution often found themselves restricted to a limited choice of equipment when requirements changed (e.g. system expansions or performance improvement). To mitigate such problems, open communication protocols such as IEC870-5-101/104 and DNP 3.0 (serial and over IP) became increasingly popular among SCADA equipment manufacturers and solution providers alike. Open architecture SCADA systems enabled users to mix-and-match products from different vendors to develop solutions that were better than those that could be achieved when restricted to a single vendor’s product offering.

Towards the late 1990s, the shift towards open communications continued with individual I/O manufacturers as well, who adopted open message structures such as Modbus RTU and Modbus ASCII (originally both developed by Modicon) over RS-485. By 2000, most I/O makers offered completely open interfacing such as Modbus TCP over Ethernet and IP.

SCADA systems are coming in line with standard networking technologies. Ethernet and TCP/IP based protocols are replacing the older proprietary standards. Although certain characteristics of frame-based network communication technology (determinism, synchronization, protocol selection, environment suitability) have restricted the adoption of Ethernet in a few specialized applications, the vast majority of markets have accepted Ethernet networks for HMI/SCADA.

“Next generation” protocols such as OPC-UA, Wonderware’s SuiteLink, GE Fanuc’s Proficy and Rockwell Automation’s FactoryTalk, take advantage of XML, web services and other modern web technologies, making them more easily IT supportable.

With the emergence of software as a service in the broader software industry, a few vendors have begun offering application specific SCADA systems hosted on remote platforms over the Internet, for example, PumpView by MultiTrode. This removes the need to install and commission systems at the end-user’s facility and takes advantage of security features already available in Internet technology, VPNs and SSL. Some concerns include security, Internet connection reliability, and latency.

SCADA systems are becoming increasingly ubiquitous. Thin clients, web portals, and web based products are gaining popularity with most major vendors. The increased convenience of end users viewing their processes remotely introduces security considerations.

 Security issues

The move from proprietary technologies to more standardized and open solutions together with the increased number of connections between SCADA systems and office networks and the Internet has made them more vulnerable to attacks. Consequently, the security of SCADA-based systems has come into question as they are increasingly seen as extremely vulnerable to cyberwarfare/cyberterrorism attacks.

In particular, security researchers are concerned about:

            the lack of concern about security and authentication in the design, deployment and operation of existing SCADA networks

            the mistaken belief that SCADA systems have the benefit of security through obscurity through the use of specialized protocols and proprietary interfaces

            the mistaken belief that SCADA networks are secure because they are purportedly physically secured

            the mistaken belief that SCADA networks are secure because they are supposedly disconnected from the Internet

Because of the mission-critical nature of a large number of SCADA systems, such attacks could, in a worst case scenario, cause massive financial losses through loss of data or actual physical destruction, misuse or theft, even loss of life, either directly or indirectly. Whether such concerns will cause a move away from the use of existing SCADA systems for mission-critical applications towards more secure architectures and configurations remains to be seen, given that at least some influential people in corporate and governmental circles believe that the benefits and lower initial costs of SCADA based systems still outweigh potential costs and risks] Recently, multiple security vendors, such as Byres Security, Inc., Industrial Defender Inc., Check Point and Innominate, and N-Dimension Solutions have begun to address these risks by developing lines of specialized industrial firewall and VPN solutions for TCP/IP-based SCADA networks. The problem according to Eric Byres, CEO of Byres Security, is that “while many infrastructure organizations are doing good work, others are falling behind. When you have this diversity of effort, you are only as effective as your weakest link.

Also, the ISA Security Compliance Institute (ISCI) is emerging to formalize SCADA security testing starting as soon as 2009. ISCI is conceptually similar to private testing and certification that has been performed by vendors since 2007, such as the Achilles certification program from Wurldtech Security Technologies, Inc. and MUSIC certification from Mu Security,  Inc. Eventually, standards being defined by ISA SP99 WG4 will supersede these initial industry consortia efforts, but probably not before 2011.

N.Sankari
http://www.articlesbase.com/electronics-articles/introduction-to-plc-and-scada-679975.html