Category: Trade

Dog Days

It’s only when I looked this up that I realised how apt it was. Summer is upon us. Today, it’s not so hot, in-fact it’s been raining. Welcome rain. My garden looks fresher for it. These are the days of summer heat in southern England. They are known as “dog days”. It’s the period between early July and early September. These summer days can be delightful, but they can be uncomfortable, a source of fatigue and a time of unexpected thunderstorms. What I learned was that the term “dog days” comes from the appearance in the sky of the dog star, known as Sirius[1]. 

We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time too. The House of Commons recess dates for this session of the UK Parliament are that it rises on 20 July 2023 and returns on 4 Sept 2023. That would be a useful time for the current Conservative Government consider calling a General Election. I can hear their death rattle so I suspect they will not.

Last evening, I caught a debate on the Parliamentary TV channel. The main business was the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. It’s a truly hopeless and appallingly badly drafted legislative proposal[2]. That’s when the thought of “dog days” came into my mind. The term has more than one meaning. My thought here was that we have truly entered a period of stagnation in common sense The current Conservative Government is tabling dreadfully ill thought-out and unsafe proposals that suppresses free-speech and will become a charter for lawyers to paw over for years.

The timing of this Parliamentary debate, given what is happening in Israeli-occupied West Bank, is terrible. A wise government minister would have pulled it.

It never has been ethical policy for a government minister, to supress democratic discussion. This bill would gag local government and other public bodies[3]. It’s poorly drafted text that will have a detrimental impact at domestic and international level.

The summer can bring drought. What we have here is a drought of political imagination, a cavalcade of populist babble that concentrates power and an unethical embarrassment. I remember the days when throughout the country people and democratically elected public bodies opposed apartheid. This bill, had it been in place at that time, would have outlawed such opposition.

A well drafted law that addresses the issues associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement might have been welcomed. A political consensus should have been sought. What has been tabled by this fading Government is sweeping yet vague powers that go way beyond addressing the one issue of BDS and Israel. It’s a direct attack on free speech and democratic government. This tired and worn-out Conservative Government needs to stand down before it does more damage.

#unethical

[1] https://www.history.com/news/why-are-they-called-the-dog-days-of-summer

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66086671

[3] https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/economic-activity-public-bodies-overseas-matters-second-reading

Three Decades

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

1993 started with Bill Clinton taking his place as the 42nd President of the United States. So, you might say change was in the wind in that year.

History doesn’t repeat but there are changes that give the impression of a pattern. In 30-years, our daily lives have transformed dramatically. Technology has accelerated to a point where there isn’t much that it doesn’t touch.

Subscribing to the notion that there are cycles that rise and fall over the decades there are similarities between now and then. There are plenty of opposites too.

Early in 1993, the Bank of England lowered interest rates to 6%. This was the lowest rate available since 1978. Now, we have bank interest rates heading in the other direction and heading for 6%. The biggest political issue in that year was unemployment. Today, the situation has flipped. There are recruiters who can’t find the people the British economy needs.  

What’s analogous is that the Conservative Government of the day was in deep trouble. There seemed to be a future Labour Government in the waiting room. The Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time, John Major was unpopular, and the polls showed the public mood was gloomy.

Strangely, there was slight indications that the economic situation was gradually improving. The end of the 1990s recession was becoming real. The conservatives must have felt heartened by the US Presidential election campaign theme declaring it’s “The economy, stupid[1].”

On the ground the daggers were out for John Major. Parliamentary byelections in Newbury and Christchurch were resoundingly won by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative government did not benefit in popularity from the economy coming out of recession. Then inflation was coming down. It hit 1.3% in May 1993. Consider that with what is happening with the inflation rate that is hanging around now.

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

One was the formation of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Support for leaving the European Union (EU) was taking a shape and form that would lead to political change. It didn’t seem like it at the time. There was an element of the movement that was purely protest coming from cantankerous and disgruntled Conservatives.

The other was John Major’s disastrous “Back to Basics” campaign. If ever a British political campaign was misjudged that, was it. The campaign exposed an unpopular and split political party to ridicule and gave cartoonists and satirists a huge boost.

The current Conservative PM, Rishi Sunak hasn’t quite made that error – yet. However, his simple shopping list approach is creating a hostage to fortune. The direction of travel has similarities to 1993. Will Rishi Sunak survive the coming General Election?

The jury is out on that one. I’d like to say – no. The economy may soon slide into recession but it maybe underlying unpopularity that is the greater deciding factor.

[1] A phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992.

Weight

Projects aiming to electrify aviation are numerous. This is one strand to the vigorous effort to reduce the environmental impact of civil aviation. Clearly, feasible aircraft that do not use combustion are an attractive possibility. This step shows signs of being practical for the smaller sizes of aircraft.

Along the research road there are several hurdles that need to be overcome. One centres around the source of airborne power that is used. State-of-the-art battery technology is heavy. The combinations of materials used, and the modest power densities available result in the need for bulky batteries.

For any vehicle based on electric propulsion a chief challenge is not only to carry a useful load but to carry its own power source. These issues are evident in the introduction of electric road vehicles. They are by no means insurmountable, but they are quite different from conventional combustion engineered vehicles.

The density of conventional liquid fuels means that we get a big bang for your buck[1]. Not only that but as a flight progresses so the weight of fuel to be carried by an aircraft reduces. That’s two major pluses for kerosene. The major negative remains the environmental impact of its use.

Both electricity and conventional liquid fuels have a huge plus. The ground infrastructure needed to move them from A to B is well understood and not onerously expensive. It’s no good considering an aircraft design entirely in isolation. Any useful vehicle needs to be able to be re-powered easily, not too frequently and without breaking the bank[2].

Back to the subject of weight. It really is a number one concern. I recall a certain large helicopter design were the effort put into weight reduction was considerable. Design engineers were rushing around trying to shave-off even a tiny fraction of weight from every bit of kit. At one stage it was mooted that designers should remove all the handles from the avionics boxes in the e-bay of the aircraft. That was dismissed after further thought about how that idea would impact aircraft maintenance. However, suppliers were urged think again about equipment handling.

This extensive exercise happened because less aircraft weight equated to more aircraft payload. That simple equation was a massive commercial driver. It could be the difference between being competitive in the marketplace or being overtaken by others.

Aviation will always face this problem. Aircraft design is sensitive to weight. Not only does this mean maximum power at minimum weight, but this mean that what power that is available must be used in the most efficient manner possible.

So, is there a huge international investment in power electronics for aviation? Yes, it does come down to semiconductors. Now, there’s a lot of piggybacking[3] from the automotive industries. In my view that’s NOT good enough. [Sorry, about the idiom overload].

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bang-for-the-buck

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/break-the-bank

[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piggybacking

Yawn

Even seasoned presenter Fiona Bruce looked as if she was embarrassed. She certainly struggled to hold together a programme that was as dull and predicable as it was lacking in either appeal or entertainment. I persisted in watching the evening’s debate on the small screen, in the hope that some light would be shed on where we are now, and how we got here. Seven long years on from the Brexit vote, the people who wanted it to happen were ask – how’s it going?

I wondered if it was a schedulers sense of humour that one media channel was showing the classic movie: The Magnificent Seven (1960). 

Question Time[1] was once a flag ship political programme for the BBC. Last night, it got to a new low. The venue for the debate was in Clacton-on-Sea[2], a small English town on the east Essex coastline.

The Question Time audience was selected from people who voted to Leave in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) back in 2016. Making it usual, this parliamentary constituency voted nearly 70 per cent in favour of Brexit.

To sum up, it was the sort of conversation you might have with a disappointed grump on a scruffy park bench, on a rainy day: “The world’s going to hell in a handbasket. It’s those b***** politicians, you know.” That meaning an aggressive stance towards anyone who disagreed with their opinion.

One or two in the audience were brave enough to reflect and reconsider their past position. There’s a discomfort in publicly coming out as a doubter. Hats off to those brave few.

Amongst the panellists, one fitted the above description, one continued their religious devotion to Brexit, two sat on the fence and one attempted to look ahead at what may happen next to the UK. I can well imagine why no government spokesperson was willing to step-up and address this event.

It’s a peculiar situation for part of the country to be in. Those who desperately wanted a “Hard Brexit[3] got a Hard Brexit and are immensely dissatisfied with a Hard Brexit. They want an even harder Brexit. Chances are that would make everything worse. Chances are that they would then demand an even harder Brexit. Chances are that spiral of insanity would continue.

The stance of the Labour Party shadow cabinet minister on the panel was unfortunate. However, the tightrope they are walking, in the run-up to a General Election is a shaky one. I’ll bet that both Labour and Conservatives parties will be desperate not to talk about Brexit over the coming year.

The world of British politics and the media will likely skirt around the elephant in the room as much as they can. Nearly everyone knows Brexit has been a disaster but few wish to face it head-on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n3px

[2] https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/18207250.clacton-residents-mark-brexit-day-wild-celebrations/

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-hard-brexit/

Build-A-Car

How many people do you know who have taken a sharp axe to a Morris 1000[1] van? It’s a surprisingly effective tool. It was a hot day. The task took a fair degree of persistence. Nothing for an energetic 16-year-old.

What I was doing was to cut out the front sub-frame complete with the suspension complete. The van differed from the construction of the car by having a separate chassis. The Morris Minor had a straightforward torsion bar front suspension. Corrosion can be a real problem with these cars, but this old grey van was structurally sound.

The reason? For popular cars of its era, it had a ruggedness and simplicity that made it easy to work with and, I suppose, we got hold of an MOT failure with ease and probably little money. Besides a working BMC “A” series engine always had a value.

After the careful attention of my axe the remaining parts were to become the rear part of a car that we were building at school. That Morris 1000 front end would be welded to a Triumph Herald[2] front end. We didn’t do that. Our friend, mentor and teacher did the welding of the two chassis components. It was another year before I picked up that useful skill.

Why a Triumph Herald? That small car had a tight turning circle. I think it was about 28 feet. Funny, what gets remembered. That, and its availability in 1976 were the reasons it was valuable to my school friends and me. Putting all that together formed the basic frame of a car. Four wheels, brakes, steering and suspension. It was an ungainly looking crude construction, but it did the job. It was a good start. 

What came next was an engine. This really was a version of that story from Johnny Cash’s[3] “One Piece At A Time.” No, the engine didn’t come from a Morris or a Triumph. It came from a Reliant[4].

That question of why comes up again? Well, the Reliant engine we had got out hands on was made of aluminium. It was considerably lighter than the engines of a Morris or a Triumph. The baby Reliant engine we had was bathed in oil. It took a good kicking to get it to spark into life. I recall trying to fix brackets for engine mountings. It was an exercise done by eye. Getting the engine to run smoothly and without too much vibration was fun.

What was entity novel for a small car was our transmission system. I don’t know how this came about but we wrote to Volvo asking for them to sponsor our school’s project. They did. They provided our school with a hydrostatic drive system. That’s the pumps/motors and the assorted hydraulic plumbing. The removal of a mechanical transmission with fixed gears was the benefit we were promoting. Hydrostatic transmissions were used in boats and construction machinery but not in a small car.

All of this was stored in a tin shed at our school. Without the stubbornness of our teacher this project may have fallen into the wilderness, but we kept the faith. As I left school the project was handed on to the next generation. It was mobile. It worked, after a fashion.

The basic car became an entry in the BP Build-a-Car competition in October 1976[5]. This was a national competition where schools around the country designed and built a “practical” 2-seater car. The prize was a new school minibus. So, the competition attracted some capable, smart, and well-resourced schools.

I’d started an apprenticeship by then so didn’t get to go on the trip to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). This was the site for the contest to show off what the cars could do.

It was reported back to me that some of my designs for an electronic dashboard using LEDs attracted the interest of the judges. At the time Lagonda were ready to take on the world with a bold new design and a car with electronic instrumentation[6].

Later in my career, aircraft cockpit instrumentation design and integration were a big feature.

NOTE: I suddenly have more respect for Rick Astley. Just watch She Makes Me (Official Music Video)

[1] https://www.mmoc.org.uk/

[2] https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/classic-cars/104977/triumph-herald-buying-guide-and-review-1959-1971

[3] https://youtu.be/Pv8yTqjYCGM

[4] https://www.reliant.website/history.shtml

[5] https://youtu.be/evDWFB58Vo0

[6] https://www.auto-data.net/en/aston-martin-lagonda-ii-5.3-310hp-3052#image3

Time for Change

….people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The past is another country. So, it’s said. We now hear those who claimed Boris Johnson was the only man who could unite the Conservative Party eating their words. Eating them with a shovel. It wasn’t as if their support for the former Prime Minister was measured and rational, earlier it reached blind obedience as the troubles of the last decade accumulated. Lies, monstrous errors and blatant foolishness were defended by many who claim to be – working for you. 

I know loyalty is important. Any team, or institution needs a degree of unity to go forward with confidence that it can deliver. It’s the miss-appropriation of that loyalty and its twisting into unquestioning conformity that corrupts democratic processes. Politician minions will tramp along under any flag that will give them gongs.

It’s fascinating how flamboyant and raucous personalities can steamroller over convention and Pied Piper[1] like lead us into misfortunes. Hang about – we have a recuring problem here. This week, I was reminded of Itay’s challenges of a couple of decades ago. I remember Italian colleagues quietly apologising for Silvio Berlusconi[2].

A common feature of these personalities is an immense sense of self-importance. Whatever the story, it’s always about them. This is playing out with Boris Johnson’s departure from parliament. It’s playing out with Trump’s ambitions in the US. There are others but the mere act of using their names is distasteful.

Vulgar, scandal-ridden, and manipulative characters make good drama. On the pages of plays or the big or small screen we like to see rampage and for them get their just deserts. Classic stories of the rise and fall of demi-gods, showmen and tyrants are a literary staple. They are fictional warnings that can, and do, get copied into real life. We should, more often, heed those warnings.

There such a thing as a free lunch. Having your cake and eating it too, is a myth.

It’s coming up to Brexit’s 7th birthday and the annual pagan midsummer celebrations at Stonehenge[3]. Of the two, one reminds us of how foolish we can be. The other, reminds us of the enduring nature of our beautiful landscape and heritage. It comforts me every time I go up and down the A303. The reason being that whatever folly we encounter in our era, people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The people of Stonehenge were not isolationists. Artifacts found show that they traded widely. They communicated over large distances as part of a widespread prehistoric society. Brexit will be consigned to the dustbin of history in coming years. What counts about this wonderful land will endure for generations.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200902-the-grim-truth-behind-the-pied-piper

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

[3] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/things-to-do/solstice/

Safety is poltical

It’s a surprisingly controversial statement. It’s particularly difficult for those working in traditionally technical specialisations to come to openly acknowledge “politics” in their work. By raising the subject, it’s almost as if one had stepped in something unpleasant.

I recall the period when a new aviation agency was being established. That’s in the dawn of this new century. EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency came into operation in 2003, but the debate about its shape and form occupied many of the preceding years. Politicians, administrators, technocrats, and industry were vocal about the direction to take.

The impact of liberalising European civil aviation, that stated in the 1970s, was primarily a political drive. It envisaged both a commercial and social benefits. Separating the operation of aviation from the vagaries of political personalities seemed to offer a future that would be led by the customers needs.  

The general acceptance that State control of businesses, like airlines and manufacturers, had a stifling effect, limiting innovation and opportunity was questioned but not so much by those with the power to make changes. Momentum pushing liberalisation was given a boost by the apparent successes of businesses, like Southwest airlines[1] in the US. Freddie Laker had a big influence in the UK[2].

In these decades of transformation aviation safety has always been heralded as a priority. Whoever is speaking, that’s the line that is taken. Safety is number one. What industry has experienced is a decades long transition from the ways and mean of trying to control safety to an approach more based on managing potential outcomes. This is characterised in a shift from mostly prescriptive rules and regulations to other more adaptive approaches.

Back to the proposition that safety is political. There are several ways to address this as an exercise of analysis. There’s a mammoth amount of historical evidence to draw upon. However, my thoughts are more to do with anecdote and lived experience.

Number one is that our institutions are shaped by political decision-making. This is to varying degrees, from year to year, but international bodies, national ministries, administration, authorities, agencies, committees, learned bodies, all depend upon political support. If they do not muster and sustain this support, they will wither and die.

Number two, change is a constant, failures happen but safety achievement depends on a consistency, dependability, and stability. Maintaining public confidence. There lies a dissonance that must be reconciled. Governments and politicians instinctively insulate themselves in such cases and so the notion of “independent” regulation is promoted.

Number three, arguments for liberalisation or intervention do not stop. The perpetual seesaw of cutting “red tape” and tightening rules and regulation may settle for a while even if these are always in movement. This can be driven by events. The proximity of fatal accidents is always a significant political driver. Domestic fatalities, where consequences are borne locally, will have much more impact than similar events 1000 miles away.

Does any of this matter? Afterall it’s a context that exists, de-facto. It’s no good saying: stop the world I want to get off.

Yes, it does matter. Accepting that safety is political helps dispel some of the myths that persist.

A prerequisite to safety success is provision of adequate resources. Constantly cutting a budget has consequences. A blind drive for efficiency that doesn’t effectively measure performance invites failure. Much as lack of planning invites failure. Reality bites.

It’s reasonable to question of investigatory or regulatory “independence” from time-to-time. The reasons for safety decision-making can be purely objective and technical. Questioning that “purity” need not be impugning politicians, administrators, or managers in their motivations. Shedding light on contextual factors can help learning and avoidance of future failures.

Accepting the perpetual political seesaw of debate can help a great deal in meeting safety goals. What this means is the importance of timing. Making a proposal to tighten a rule concerning a known deficiency can meet a stone wall. Making the same proposal after an accident, involving that deficiency, can go much better. Evidence that is compelling can change minds. This is reality.

[1] https://www.southwest.com/about-southwest/#aboutUs

[2] https://simpleflying.com/laker-airways-brief-history/

digital probing

It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

Advertising, marketing, promotion, selling, I expect some of those cave paintings of ancient men and women were showing-off to the rest of their society. They’d be saying, extra tasty bison if you head on down to this big watering hole. Throw your spear this way for the best results. The communication medium, a rock face isn’t so different from billboards, hoardings and signage that line busy roads. Catching your eye is the aim. Doing it on a busy throughfare is a proven method.

Too much of this can be annoying, distracting and ultimately defeating. Wall-to-wall advertising that’s pushy, gaudy and litters the highway is a nightmare no one wants to see. It’s not just the urban planners that get riled-up when they see streets plastered with garish advertising.

What of the digital worlds we inhabit? It’s clear they’re no exception. A great deal of the money to be made digitally comes from advertising. My beef here is with the saturation questioning that this industry uses to accumulate data. The bombarding of people with questionnaire after questionnaire is as annoying as any gaudy poster. Survey after survey pops-up as soon as you give away your e-mail address in any purchase. “We’d love to know more about the experience you recently had……………” 

It’s one reason why I always refuse any request made at a till in a shop. Occasionally, shop assistants will look offended. It’s as if you have slighted them, is some incomprehensible way. It’s no good them saying they can reassure you that your data will be “protected”. Such reassurances are meaningless.

There are so many examples of data held securely and in line with data protection rules being hacked[1][2][3][4] and spread around like confetti. Compensation after the event is not compensation for the aggravation.

Making purchases it’s inevitable that we will give away data. Few of us read the terms and conditions under which we give away our data. There’s an expectation of “protection”. The conveniences of digital transactions are traded against the risks of losing vital personal data.

When it comes to advertising there’s no necessity. Unless there’s some form of inducement. One came into my in-box saying, “win a £10,000 holiday”. I did what I normally do – deleted it. I find such hooks like “This survey will only take a few minutes to complete” as annoying as improbable competitions and insincere thanks.

I don’t suppose I’m eccentric in disliking all this unrelenting digital probing. It’s clutter. It’s invasive. It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45446529

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52722626

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-57210118

[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/american-airlines-says-data-breach-affected-small-number-customers-employees-2022-09-20/

People

You can apply this to health, transport, and a multitude of successful industries.

When the subject of staff shortages, and generally that’s qualified staff shortages, comes up, and a government minister is put in the spotlight the answer that comes back is no more than evasion. It’s a shrug of the shoulders and an irritated retort along the lines that Brexit has happened. They may go for the sympathy vote in emphasising how hard the last six years have been in Parliament. What follows is a vague illusion to the opportunities that are now available to the UK because of Brexit. 

What’s sad, is they will then quote a small step that has benefited the UK but then neglect to say that such a step should have happened regardless of Brexit. The lack of intellectual rigour is growing. Conservatives are so deeply embedded in the Brexit mirage that they readily clutch at straws. This constant blindness hinders access to the real opportunities. The real opportunity is to move on.

If the UK is to be best positioned to exploit the new technologies that are advancing rapidly, we need to rediscover partnerships. We are well positioned, given the history of the post-war period, to be a significant player in the technology-based industries. UK academia has a lot to offer too.

It’s a global marketplace. That means there’s the need for people to move. Not always permanently, but to move to best use their specialise knowledge and skills. In that pattern of movement, we should not have unnecessary restrictions for British people to work in Europe, or the reverse.

There are lots of people and organisations that want to do trade with the UK. What they don’t want is the stone wall of British politicians who echo thin Brexit rhetoric at every opportunity. There’s also a mindless compulsion to be different for the sake of being different. British pragmatism has been submerged under a shadow of the last six years.

There’s some light over the horizon. Certainly, amongst most of the public there’s a dismissal of sloppy Brexit benefit agreements. There’s a groan. Our collective experience shows that sloppy political thinking falls into ruin when faced with reality. A General Election will be welcome. It needs to be a generational election. That should mean a sea change in the population of Members of Parliament. Let’s see a new generation stand and get elected.

Happy Birthday EASA

Happy Birthday EASA. 20 years is a good age

For me, it was a peculiar day in July. It was a baking hot Brussels. The sun beat down and the city’s trams were full of sweaty travellers. The interview room was a classic board room style. Modern office, heavy polished wooden table, and heavy black leather chairs. On a hot bright sunny summer day that was not a pleasing formula for a formal interview.

I was surprised at the result. I got the job. A moment in July 2004 became a pivotal moment in my aviation career. Not quite 20-years ago. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)[1] was already up and running in a shared office in a Brussels suburb. It was the bare bones of an organisation in the process of a rapid build-up. Discussion about the locations of the Agency’s eventual headquarters were concluding.

That kicked-off my 11-years in Cologne. I arrived in the city when the tower building was being constructed and as the staff had just moved from Brussels to take up the new headquarters. It was December 2004. Offices, on the 6th floor of the main building were buzzing. The Agency was small in numbers and running fast to fulfil its new responsibilities.

European aviation safety regulation was going through a major change. Up until September 2003, Europe’s National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) acted as a partnership within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)[2]. A body of rules and regulations and ways of working had been harmonised. However, because of the “club” like nature of the JAA there remained unresolved disagreements, incontinences, and a confusing representation at international level.

The legislation that called for the formation of EASA was set to unify aircraft certification and rulemaking activities and drive a consistency in the application of standards across Europe. It was the start of a long road to build world-class civil aviation safety regulator. It worked.

I experienced the first decade in Cologne. The storming and norming. The extensions of remit and turbulent days when we were finding our way. Several tragic fatal accidents and a least one Europe wide crisis. Now, the Agency is about to start its third decade.

EASA is undisputed as the European organisation that talks to the international aviation community. It works in lockstep with the European Commission. It is an achievement to be celebrated.

Yes, I find it sad that the UK is no longer a member of the Agency. But that doesn’t stop National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) working together in a constructive and positive manner[3]. There’s much to be gained from avoiding the fragmentation and conflicts of the past.

Happy Birthday EASA. 20 years is a good age.

[1] What’s #EASA’s story? See what we have achieved in 20 years  https://www.easa.europa.eu/…/looking-back-move-forward…

[2] https://jaato.com/start/

[3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/international-cooperation/easa-by-country