Economy – Page 10 – John Vincent

The River’s Arms

It’s now called the River’s Arms Close. A scattering of relatively new houses. That’s all that remains of a rough working public house that I knew well in my youth. Not indoors. In the bars. I never visited more than the paved courtyard outside the pub. Afterall, I am talking about me at the age of 12 or 13ish. Until now, looking it up, I’d remembered the pub as being called The Railway.

This pub was just across the road from the entrance to what was then Sturminster Newton cattle market[1]. A huge agricultural market. It was on Station Road. Even then, the railway station and its steam trains had long gone. They must have gone in 1965/66. Then a political axe fell on rural railway lines. On a Monday, the town was a busy place. That was market day.

Scruffiness was a badge of honour. Galvanised steel sheeted buildings and tatty block-built sheds were the order of the day. The feast for the eye was not the buildings, more the people. The noise was overwhelming. Smells were on the rich side too.

This comes to mind because I moved a large and heavy plastic planter containing a healthy blackcurrant bush. Green leaves and wood. My crop of blackcurrants had been eaten by birds earlier in the year. This week’s plan was to find a suitable spot in the garden to transplant the bush ready for next year.

Here’s the connection. It’s to do with fruits. Local produce. In the 1960s, to earn money of our own, my brothers and I would go blackberry picking. There were times when Somerset hedgerows were teaming with mases of blackberries. They still are in a lot of places. We’d fill to the brim used plastic containers. Recycling ice-cream containers. Trying not to squish the delicate fruit.

On market day the courtyard outside the pub would become an auction ground. People would bring local produce and miscellaneous junk in the hope of getting a fair price. Everything would be spread out over the floor outside. Fruit, veg, eggs and strange ironwork and old tools. Around lunchtime a sale would take place. Informal and unpredictable. A huddle of farmers, townsfolk and on watchers. Nevertheless, all the small items were carefully booked in and booked out. For our containers of blackberries, or later in the year field mushrooms, we’d get just less than a pound, if we were lucky. That was in “new money.”

It’s July, so we are not into that season yet. It’s creeping up on us. Fruit trees are starting to look as if they are going to produce a good crop. Blackberries are slowly forming. A time of fruitfulness is coming. That season of harvest is just over the horizon.

Exposure to markets, and their volatility, is as much a life lesson as the benefits of organic produce. In that small Dorset country town, the ebb and flow of market day were as integral to life as the water that flowed in the river. Today, much of that rhythm is history. A new rhythm is running. We go from coffee shop to posh bakery to the purveyors of expensive imports.

Our dependency on national supermarkets and large-scale logistics is mainstream. The heavy lorries that carry food are not full of local produce going to a local market. They come from remote fulfilment centres on main trunk roads. They dwarf the road traffic of the past.

It’s silly to think that we can step back. Times were rougher and cruder but there’s merit in giving thought to the better bits. Today, there’s little incentive for a boy with a recycled container full of fresh blackberries.

[1] https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/sturminster-newtons-bell-toll-today-148980

Solar farms

New Government signs off solar farms. Not everyone happy.

It would be good if we could all agree that the UK needs to recognise the importance of locally produced food and drink. There’re large environmental gains to be made by reducing the distance between production and consumption. Thousands of heavy trucks thunder up and down the inadequate road infrastructure in the UK. Colossal amounts of food waste get thrown away from supermarkets. Questionable preservatives enable supply chains to grow longer and longer. There’s are bad trends.

On a related subject, I do have a problem with proposals for large solar arrays that will take out productive farmland. However, that is by no means an objection to large solar arrays, or onshore wind farms for that matter.

It’s not as if we have always been so precious about what we do with our glorious countryside. One observation I’d make is that there has been a huge increase in the urbanisation of the countryside in my lifetime. Areas that were either wild or exclusively used for agriculture are now pony paddocks, car parks, golf courses, housing estates, out-of-town shopping warehouse, fulfillment centres[1], and bypasses. In 50-years, there’s little that remains untouched.

I’d sing “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” if I could. We really do need to think carefully about what we industrialise and what we preserve and protect.

For me large solar arrays are in the same category as acres of poly tunnels. Both serve a fundamental purpose, and both are structure that can be relatively easily removed. Keeping the lights on and eating fresh food are both part of society’s basic needs.

So, I’m not going to raise an eyebrow at new Minister Ed Miliband approving 3 large solar arrays[2]:No shock but no blank cheque either. No jumping on a political bandwagon to condemn the immediate decision.

It’s likely the decision was sitting on the former Conservative Minister’s desk. Is this a case of difficult decisions deliberately delayed because of an election? We may never know. It would be a bit disingenuous for such politicians to complain now. Wouldn’t it?

Let’s get it right. Failure to decarbonise our national energy system is a contribution to global warming we can’t afford to make. Long-term that global warming will impact food production.

In years to come it will be interesting to see what research flags up with respect to solar farms and biodiversity in an area. There’s some chance that the results will not be entirely negative. There’s all that sheltered and undisturbed soil under the array structures. A habitat for wildlife.

Choosing between what might seem as the lesser of two evils is often the situation a politician finds themselves in. Afterall, that’s the role they must play in a democracy. The outcome may not be popular in the short-term, but a balance must be struck.

Maybe we should reverse some of the urbanisation of the countryside. Return some little used roads to nature. Demolish unused industrial units. Put back the hedges that have been lost. Rewild one or two golf courses. It’s something to consider when building new infrastructure.

[1] Fulfillment centres enables outsourcing, warehousing and shipping. This is for online businesses to have the physical space to store stuff.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng6036vgqo

Just Culture

My thought is that we’ve forgotten the discussion of more than a decade ago. There was a time when the thoughtful reflections on responsibility and accountability were much discussed.

Without focusing on specific examples, there are plenty to choose from, there’s the propensity of our institutions and politicians to reach for “blame” as a first response. When situations go bad the instinctive inclination to hunt out someone to blame. This is an all too prevalent habit.

Naturally, in cases, there’s the strong need to identify who is accountable for bad decisions. Society does not like it when the powerful protect, cocoon themselves and grab for immunity. Certainly, some people and organisations are genuinely blameworthy. However, if we scrutinise and point the finger of blame, it doesn’t help if that finger is pointed at a person’s honest errors. There isn’t a human on this planet who hasn’t made an error.

The finger of blame is easily pointed. Judgment so often falls after an event. The time when more is known, and hindsight comes into play. This tips the balance. It’s so much easier to say: why on Earth did you do that? I would never have done that.

For people to come forward and be fairly heard in an open and fair inquiry or investigation they need to have the confidence that they are not stepping into a public blame-fest. Without trust between those on all sides of it’s less likely that the truth will come out.

“Just Culture” is a concept written into aviation legislation and followed by others. The overriding aim is to learn from mistakes. It’s the surest way of not repeating the same mistakes time and time again. It’s beneficial to have that long-term learning objective. Why suffer the pain of a bad event when the means to avoid it are known and understood?

Now, I’m going back 20-years. I remember being part of an international working group[1] called GAIN. The group compiled guidance about organisational culture. At the time, the group was considering the subject in the context of the air traffic profession. Guidance like the one referenced, emphasise that a Just Culture is not simply a no-blame culture. It’s not, and never has been a way of circumventing accountability.

Determining culpability can be complex. There’s often a test to consider the wilfulness of the participants in a bad event. In other words, did they carelessly, intentionally, maliciously or negligently make decisions that resulted in the bad event? In these cases, the “they” could be an individual or an organisation.

Gross negligence, wilful abuses and destructive acts should be addressed by the enforcement of laws. If we say the criminalisation of honest people involved in bad events has a negative impact. That is not to negate the need for enforcement. Regulators in all sorts of walks of life have a duty to apply enforcement where and when it’s appropriate. Maybe we ought to have applied that to the UK water industry.

My plea here is to first consider the nature of the events in question. Was there an element of genuine honest human error? Is the right balance being struck between the need to learn and the need to ensure accountability?

NOTE: Just Culture is defined in EU law as “A culture in which operational staff or others are not held accountable for actions, acts, omissions or decisions commensurate with their experience and training, but gross negligence, intentional violations and destructive actions are not tolerated” EC 376/2014 Art. 2 Para. 12.

[1] A Roadmap to a Just Culture https://flightsafety.org/files/just_culture.pdf

No Sprint

The last couple of days have seen a new UK Parliament take shape. Beaming smiles from an intake of rearing to go new Members of Parliament (MPs). There’s lashings of energy and enthusiasm. Every problem is to be looked at afresh. No problem is too big to tackle, even if some problems may take while to cure. Horizons stretch ahead full of oceans of possibilities.

Back in May 1993, I was a freshly elected young County Councillor. It was such a magic moment. One evening, at County Hall for the first time sitting in a room with 29 colleagues. For the first time the Council being No Overall Control (NOC). One room full of a mix of battle-hardened pros and fresh faces. A manifesto in hand and magic in the air.

Today, there are 72 Liberal Democrat MPs. Yes, 72 MPs. I can imagine, without looking at the press pictures what that may feel like. A wonderful feeling of hope, ambition and warmth. A little trepidation. Thoughts like: what will be my role in this epic journey? Those with small electoral majorities might be focused not only on their role in the team but how they will secure more than one term of office.

Politics is a precarious way of life. Any electoral success is certainly never to be taken for granted. This UK General Election has shown that in spades. Volatility amongst the voting population is probably higher than it has ever been. That impulsiveness sits in the background of the overall wish to throw out the mediocre incumbents.

At least for the honeymoon period, often characterised as the first 100 days, the new government and new effective opposition will be given a period of grace. It’s a time when everyone wishes the nation to succeed and prosper in the direction that is set.

A modern UK Prime Minister has a great deal of power in the first period of their office. On this occasion, those that lost, Conservatives will be struggling to rebuild their shattered party. Whether they bury Thatcherism or reincarnate it, they will be in turmoil for a considerable while. They may even strike up an extreme ideology and march off into the political wilderness.

Liberalism is in rude health. The 72 Liberal Democrat MPs will surely work with conviction and proudly hold their principles aloft.

It’s not the first time that I’ve referenced the Stoics. I am reminded that despite the joys of the moment and the races that have been won, the battle of ideas never stops or starts. There are peaks and troughs of optimism and pessimism. There are opportunities taken and lost. There are times of progressive advance and there’s inevitable push backs. He’s no longer with us, in fact if he was still around, he’d be nearly 100 years old. Labour MP Tony Benn was wrong on Europe but often wise about the UK Parliament. I agree with his view of Parliament in this respect, however flawed it may be: “Through talk, we tamed kings, restrained tyrants, averted revolution.” Long may that continue. There’s no finality in politics; there is always another step to take.

His maxim for MPs to operate on two levels makes a lot of sense. One is to be an agent of practical action and the other is to operate in the realm of ideas. Not so easy to do. Nevertheless, democracy is healthier if both delivery and values are never strangers.

Service

The subject of national service, and its reintroduction is part of a memorable Yes, Prime Minister. “He thinks it’s a vote winner[1]” and so, apparently does our current PM.

This sketch is a wonderful example of how someone can be hood-winked into saying “yes” to something regardless of circumstances, or the foolishness of the idea. It’s comedy genius. Sadly, it’s reality in this early stage of campaigning for this UK General Election.

Conservative PM Sunak’s knee-jerk proposal to reinstate national service falls apart like a toilet roll falling in a bath of cold water. Layer by layer the logic crumbles, with any scrutiny.

For one, how come £4 billion can be found at an instant for something previously ignored. Frankly, anything that resembled civic service has been consistently rundown over the last decade[2]. Not to mention the massive rundown in youth services over a couple of decades.

It might be wise to ask if the UK military want such a new system of national service. One that hosts around 30,000 young people a year. The answer so far is – absolutely “no”. At a time when our professional services are stretched, it seems ridiculous to ask them to take on the task of administering and running a scheme that is extremely unlikely to boost their combat readiness and overall effectiveness.

I’m old enough to have been told a long list of anecdotes from those people who had to do national services in the 1960s. I worked with many of them in the 1980s and 90s. The stories are often humorous, eccentric and riddled with tales of timewasting schemes that were invented to keep young men occupied and out of trouble. Well, out of big trouble.

National service doesn’t offer a life of adventure. More like peeling potatoes, picking fruit and driving scruffy delivery vans around. Although such schemes may benefit a very few, for the vast majority would be spinning wheels and filling time. Wating to put time served behind them before getting stuck into a career of their choice. For a few young people, who could already be on the path to a criminal career, giving them weapons training isn’t a good idea.

Mr Sunak is betraying his fickle nature. He’s a desperate politician inclined to grab at something shiny. Magpie like. Retro policies, perhaps picked-up watching classic TV series from the past, are not the way forward for a country keen to make a new start.

We will not see Mr Sunak running a flower stall outside Waterloo Station if he fails to secure re-election. The post of UK PM will be filed quickly. More likely to see him on a sunny beach in California soon. I wonder if he’s packed his suntan lotion.

POST 1: The last thing we need to do now is to take young people out of existing apprenticeship and training schemes. The demand for young engineers and technologists is high. It would be far more constructive to offer sponsorships and subsistence support to applying and existing students rather than vague one-year gimmicks.

POST 2: Even The Daily Mail is commenting on how this proposal was sprung on unsuspecting candidates and Ministers without warning. Maybe the lobbying of parents prepping their offspring for Oxbridge, and alike is echoing loudly. Clearly, no one thought through the real life implications of a mandatory national service scheme for all 18-year olds.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

[2] https://schoolsweek.co.uk/national-citizen-service-cuts-ties-with-largest-provider/

Two Issues

It’s all to play for, as they say. The UK General Election starting pistol has been fired. Politicians are out of the gate. We are in for six weeks of intense competition for every place where the poll result isn’t a horribly foregone conclusion. Even in some of those places there’s a renewed sense that anything is possible. So, far gone is the public image of the Conservatives that Westminster constituencies, formerly thought to be a wilderness of opposition parties are now possibilities.

What are, yes, I know it’s not new to say so, the elephants in the room? The political parties seem set on what they want to talk about but it’s not a couple of remarkably big issues.

One is Brexit, and its overall impact and the other is Social Care. Two massive pressing issues that politicians are ducking and weaving to avoid. Discussions about the UK’s economy should not happen without discussing Brexit effects. On the other issue, the big truth is that the population of the UK is aging. Yet, we really don’t like talking about it.

One point of agreement is that we need the UK economy to do better. That’s a conditional on generating the funds needed to be able to repair the damage done over the last decade. The overall performance of the UK economy during the Conservative period in power has been undeniably poor. A big part of that poor performance comes from the disruption caused to the UK’s primary marketplace by Brexit. It has been a self-inflicted wound.

On Social Care the Conservatives made a succession of promises. If we look at their record on delivery, there’s nothing to show. Local government has been beaten up over the last decade. Report after report has shown ways forward for social care. Sadly, politicians in power have not been brave enough to push hard enough to implement recommendations that can ease the heavy burden placed on many families.

In my view, our best hope on these two issues is to back the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives have demonstrated their inability to address these issues. Labour has been timid on both. Fearful that the tabloid newspapers will attack them at a critical moment.

There’s an excellent case for rebuilding the UK’s relationship with the European Union. Single Market membership wouldn’t happen overnight but surely, it’s the direction to head in. The free flow of trade, in a marketplace that is so large, and on our country’s, doorstep would boost the UK’s economy overnight.

For the sake of a few billion of public spending. Set in the context that annual government spending of a thousand billion, then priority action could be taken on Social Care. The difference this would make in helping those in extreme difficulty would be enormous.

I dare say MP Micheal Gove, who is standing down at this election, is right. It’s time for a younger generation to take up leadership roles and to sort out the mistakes that have been made over the last decade. Our liberal democracy needs to get back on track.

Turbulence

Turbulence is the result of atmospheric or environmental effects. Afterall, aircraft are craft that fly in the air. This is a hazard that is inherent in flying. Clear air turbulence (CAT) is common. However, extreme examples experienced in commercial aviation are rare. For one, aircraft operators and their crews do their best to avoid known potential atmospheric or environmental upsets, namely bad weather.

En-route turbulence accounts for a substantial number of cabin crew members injuries, and can occur at any time and at any altitude[1]. As far as I know, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) does not hold detailed data on turbulence injuries occurring on foreign registered aircraft. Numbers of injuries to passengers and flight crew on UK registered aircraft resulting from turbulence are recorded. However, it is not always known whether those injured in turbulence encounters were wearing seat belts.

Nevertheless, I can confidently say that the more passengers that are wearing seat belts during turbulence encounters the less the number of injuries. Deaths in these circumstances are rare. As might be expected fatalities are more likely to results from a combination of multiple causes and factors.

This subject is not immune from airline economics and competition. International flight routes can often be highly competitive. Fought over. So, the route taken, and associated fuel costs, can have an impact on the likelihood of a hazardous weather encounter. In fact, choosing to take routes for the benefit of picking-up specific winds is a common practice.

A high percentage of cases of turbulence events come about by flying too close to active storms[2]. Here there is often visual cues, reports, forecasts and feedback from turbulence encountered by other flights. This all helps crews avoid the worst weather encounters.

With very few exceptions, flight turbulence does not result in fatalities, permanent injure, or structurally damage commercial aircraft. However, turbulence is recognised as both an aviation safety and an economic issue, and it has been steadily increasing. Speculation and some research cites climate change as a reason for this increase. Also, there is the international growth in air traffic and development of new long-range routes.

One thing to say is that until recently, with INTERNET connections now in both in the cockpit and cabin, it could be the case that a passenger could access better real-time weather information than a flight crew. Now, SATCOM connections providing up-to-date weather information are more common on modern civil aircraft types.

There is still more that can be done to reduce crew and passenger injuries during turbulence encounters. There will inevitably happen despite any policy to avoid hazardous weather. The greatest threat to life exists to cabin crew. The cabin is their place of work.

There is potential to develop and employ better airborne detection systems to assist crews. That maybe by enhancing existing weather radar systems. It maybe by new means of turbulence detection using LIDAR, and possibly AI/ML. There is research and innovation that could be done to develop algorithms to better predict turbulence hazards.

Avoidance remains the best strategy.

[1] NASDAC Turbulence Study, August 2004

[2] US CAST briefing in 2004.

Star’s Law

It’s one thing to hear a report. It’s another to understand – what does it mean? Planning reform doesn’t often capture the national headlines. In this case, it’s a national celebrity that seems to be running changes in planning laws[1].

I’m more than a bit suspicious when I see the lines explaining legislation that say: “A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.” The word significant is purely subjective.

Like so many Statutory Instruments[2] (SIs) this subject makes for a hard read. SIs are English law that is made, not by parliamentarians debating and voting on it, but by amendments to existing law placed in front of them for a short while.

There’s no doubt that English farmers and landowners, under pressure post-Brexit, are going to be pleased by the planning alleviations offered by this new planning law. Being able to convert existing buildings into new houses, or new businesses, like farm shops, without local authorities intervening to say “no” has been dubbed – cutting red tape.

It needs to be noted that this action is being taken in the run up to a General Election (GE). For me, I see this as a two-edged sword. Sure, the name of UK Minister Michael Gove might be viewed more favourably by English farmers and landowners. That may not be the case by those people who live in the countryside adjacent to new developments.

Planning gets local people very agitated. A risk of a middle-class “civil war” is more likely to come from villagers and residents of small country towns than ever is the case from farmers. Neighbour disputes can be some of the worst disputes. I know of a case where a shotgun was used to make a point and that wasn’t by the farmer concerned. Boundaries being the issue.

Mr Gove has made a political choice. Framing the argument as cuts to “needless bureaucracy” may not be the whole picture, or even an accurate one but it does make Ministers feel good – like a sugar rush.

Converting more former agricultural buildings into dwellings or small businesses does make sense in many situations. Doing it without proper controls opens a pandora’s box of possible conflicts and disputes. Afterall the planning system is supposed to balance the rights and responsibilities of all concerned.

It’s all too easy for those in central government, heavily lobbied, to make local government the evil monster. I could say: a simple matter of power play and political expediency. Especially when the government minister making the decisions has just seen his political party devastated in local government elections.

Building more houses and shops without the need for planning permission might be a bit like that sugar rush, I mentioned. It last for a short while and then, well you know what happens.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/business/jeremy-clarkson-farm-shop-downing-street-b2341181.html

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/579/made

Challenger

It’s another phrase from HHGTTG. “Mostly harmless”. However, there are things that may seem mostly harmless that subsequently turn out to be far from harmless. It’s that law of unintended consequences playing out in real life.

In the UK, we are stuck with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. There is no good in pretending otherwise. Pretending that its perverse effects don’t exist is pure folly. Voting systems inevitably impact the results of elections.

What FPTP means is that the more parties, and their candidates that there are standing in an election, in each constituency, the more the votes cast can be spread. This reality often gives a big advantage to the incumbent. The one who came top of the poll last time votes were cast.

Thinking can go like this. The past winner always wins around here. So, my vote doesn’t count. If a past winner reinforces the impression that nothing has changed, then nothing will change. Because of this feeling of acquiescence, opposition voters may be more inclined to vote for a wide range of fringe candidates. Again, the thinking is that this doesn’t matter because the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion.

In a lot of places up and down Britain this is how both Conservative and Labour politicians have stayed in power. It’s not because people think they are doing a good job. It’s more because their most immediate opposition struggles to marshal a concentration of votes for an alternative.

The conclusion from these facts is simple. If you are a voter who wants to see change then go for the opposition candidate likely to get the greatest number of votes. This is sometimes called tactical voting. It’s not so much tactical as realistic pragmatism aimed at bringing about real change. Look at the numbers. Unless the individuals concerned are one in a million, those formerly in 3^rd place, or further adrift are there to do their best but not to bring about change. A vote for a mostly harmless candidate, way down the order, just helps to keep the current Member of Parliament in place.

2024 is a year of great potential. If change were ever needed it ‘s now. I’m confident that the British electorate is savvy enough to choose the path to change. This may mean choosing differently. This may mean taking a close look at the local situation.

No doubt a succession of bar charts will highlight who’s up and who’s down. Take a close look at them. Make sure the challenger really is the challenger. If the numbers say so, and you want change – go for it.

Harmonisation

There’s an example in of itself. I’ve used the British English spelling. Perhaps I should have standardised on the American spelling, namely Harmonization. Or does it matter at all given that the definition of the word remains the same, whatever. Oh, I can’t resist the temptation to say; you say Tomato, I say Tomato.

“You say tomato, I say tomato.

You eat potato and I eat potato,

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato,

Let’s call the whole thing off.”

Naturally, in the voice of Fred Astaire[1]. Nice though this is, my subject is not pronunciation.

Aviation is a highly regulated business. It’s been that since its potential for transporting huge numbers of people around the globe was recognised. Safety must be number one. Although, it’s not if you read the first few words of the all-important Chicago convention.

Article 1: Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory.

In the minds of those who signed the convention it was sovereignty that took first place. That didn’t mean abusing the word “sovereignty” as has to often been done. Afterall, the whole basis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation was international cooperation. It still is.

Let’s put that to one side for a moment. One of the challenges of international aviation has been the different rules and regulations in place in each country. There’s a level of harmony in the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). But ICAO is not a regulator and it’s for each country to interpret agreed standards within their domestic law.

Europe, or at least the European Union (EU) is different in this respect. Since there’s European law and an active European regulator then there’s common rules and regulation set for a regional grouping of countries. So far, Europe is the only region to go this far.

When it comes to aircraft airworthiness this has been a topic of a lot of discussion in the last four decades. In the 1990s, that discussion centred around the idea that a single worldwide code was a desirable achievement. That the time the two major entities engaged in the business of aviation rulemaking, and the maintenance of rules were the FAA (US) and the JAA (Europe).

A single worldwide code could greatly facilitate the movement of aviation produces around the globe. That done to ensure that common safety standards were maintained on every occasion. It proved hard to get to this utopian condition. That said, a great deal was achieved in the harmonisation of existing civil aviation codes. Today, we benefit from that work. I’d say we even take it for granted.

In around 2000, after much study, countries concluded that it was fine to seek some form of equivalence between respective rules rather than having to write done one single set of rules. Mutual recognition has flourished in the form of agreements between countries that has smoothed the path for the aviation industries.

That last major study of the pros and cons of harmonisation is now nearly a generation old. A lot has moved on. For one, in Europe the JAA transition to the EASA.

At the same time the manufacturing countries worked closely together to agree on measures to ensure that there was no great divergence in rules and regulations. Now subjects, like Safety Management Systems (SMS) became codified. However, sovereign countries continued to develop and maintain their own aviation rules and regulations.

International working groups often achieve remarkable commonality and convergence on detailed technical topics. Often because the few people who were deeply embedded in a technical subjects all knew each other and shared information relatively freely.

Discussion as to the viability of a single worldwide code has not completely faded into the past. In fact, there’s some good reason to breath life back into this historic debate. Here’s what’s added to the dynamics of the situation:

Ongoing moves from prescriptive rules to more performance-based rules,
Entirely new products in development, like eVTOL aircraft,
Interdependency, interconnection, and integration all increased since 2000,
Security and safety are becoming inseparable,
Digitisation is changing the ways that we ensure that an aircraft is airworthy.

If you have knowledge of, and thoughts on this subject, I’d be happy to hear from you.

[1] https://youtu.be/LOILZ_D3aRg