Category: Travel

Swearing in English Culture

I do suppose that it’s my country upbringing, but that’s not entirely so. There was a set of opposing tensions that spread through society in the 1960s as much as they did in the 1660s.

On the one side there’s the authenticity of the country born and bread son or daughter of the soil in honest toil. That image of the rural artisan, painted by a famous artist, struggling with the elements to put bread on the table wasn’t as clean and tidy as the artist depicted.

On the other hand, was a spirit of bettering oneself. Elevation from the base worker day reality, up to one’s knees in muck, and practicalities of country life. Middle class, educated entrepreneurial, energies directed at improvement and modernisation.

An indicator of the side of the line that was most natural for a person was the use of langauage. Another might be the seriousness with which a Sunday church sermon was listened to. Another could be the frequency of evenings spent propping up the bar in the village pub.

Here my focus is on language. I’m of a generation who was told off for swearing. Whether at home, school or most social situations. This idea of self-improvement and good manners was handed down. It didn’t just spring from our parents’ ambitions. There was pressure to behave.

To suggest that colourful swearing didn’t happen was far from the truth. Even the highest minded tended to shift their disposition depended on the situation. Afterall, if I have had a calf stood on my toe or lost a wellington boot in deep cold mud it’s unlikely that my exclamation would have been – oh dear! that was jolly inconvenient.

Swear words are a constant. What continues to change is the meaning and level of offense that each one has attached. Casual obscenities that were thrown about like confetti may now be totally out of bounds. Calling someone a “bastard” in past times might almost have been considered a term of endearment.

Campaigners rail against suppressing free speech. Regulating what can be said. Rightly so, in most cases. That said, it’s rare that common place langauage is what such campaigners wish to protect. Even the traditional mundane ones are converted into softer tones to avoid offence.

If I think back to my childhood and market days in towns like Sturminster Newton in Dorset, then a great deal of English culture has been lost. Some may say thank God for progress. For me, the rural landscape isn’t as colourful or characterful as it once was, but what do I know?

Don’t read me wrong. I’m not calling for expletives and offensive words to spill out of every page or be heard up and down the high street. Social media is full of grossly offensive nastiness.

That’s part of my point. Authentic swearing doesn’t have to be used as a weapon. Yes, swearing in the 17th century was often used that way. Today, it’s better used as emphasis, exaggeration or an expression of despair. Like a valve on the lid of a pressure cooker, the occasional use of a rude word is a manner of relief. I’m sure Shakespeare would approve. Even he was censored.

As an expression of despair, we do need everyday tools to hand. If that’s the lively use of traditional langauage then so be it. For those who are offended please look at the bigger picture.

Age Restrictions

Inevitably whenever there’s a decision as to what is age-appropriate one’s own experience comes to the fore. The experiment that is going on in Australia is one to watch. That country has taken a step towards the regulation of social media that provides defined limits. From zero to age 16 there’s to be a ban, or a restriction as the more diplomatic commentators say. One discussion could be about the whole necessity, and possible effectiveness of a ban on social media and another about the age limit that has been set.

This is one of those debates where there are good cases to be made on both sides. I could start by citing examples of harm caused, in particular cases, of social media use by children. That would reinforce a compelling argument for restrictions by law.

Alternatively, looking at the subject in the round, I could wonder at the position of young people first encountering an avalanche of social media on the day of their 16th birthday. Or the creativeness of young people in finding ways to evade a punitive law.

For me, my 16th birthday was a day of great liberation. Growing up in the countryside has lots of advantages. The downside is the effort needed to get anywhere beyond walking distance. No buses. No trains. Just a pushbike. Miles of country lanes, green fields and distant villages.

No demanding, distracting all-encompassing digital paraphernalia. Maybe a radio, cassette recorder and a pile of vinyl records. For me a couple of beaten-up cars and motorcycles too. As per the famous four Yorkshiremen sketch: try telling that to the kids of today.

Yes, my 16th birthday was a day of great liberation. That because of the law. I wasn’t alone. It was there for every schoolboy who could afford one. Shiny in the showrooms. Names like: Fantic, Gilera, Garelli, Yamaha, Suzuki and Puch, were all on our list of wants.

In December 1971, the British Government create legislation that restricted 16-year-olds to 50cc mopeds (motorcycles with pedal assistance). This was a worthy effort to improve road safety and reduce the carnage of motorcycle accidents. What was unexpected was the frenzy of innovation that this well-meaning law triggered. Motorcycle manufacturers set to their drawing boards and radically transformed the moped. I do mean radically.

I came in at the end of this era. By early 1976 manufactures had squeezed every drop of performance that was possible out of a mere 50cc engine. Designs had gone from uncomfortable, sluggish commuter bikes that would feel embarrassed to own, to sporty fast racing machines that were extremely desirable.

Ah, the unintended consequences of worthy legislation. For me this was wonderful. It opened a whole new vista and introduced me to one or two roadside hedges. Waiting for me on my 16th birthday was one of the best. A Puch Grand Prix Special. In black and gold, this really was a fast and refined two-stroke machine. Even with cast alloy wheels and a front disk brake, which was whizzy for the time. Racing along the main A30 the bikes gearing was such that I went fastest downhill, while my mates Garelli overtook me going up the hills.

What can I say? When it comes to age-appropriate the results may not be what is intended.

Note: Reference: Funky Mopeds! The 1970s sports moped phenomenon. Richard Skelton. Veloce Publishing. ISBN 13 978-1-84584-078-5  www.veloce.co.uk

A New Customs Union

Let’s not put up taxes. Let’s trade more. Seem obvious. Well not in late 2025 in Britain. This possibility must be forcefully put on the agenda for debate in parliament. Raise revenue, rather than raising new taxes, has got to be the better way to go. The bigger the pot the more chance that a government has got to balance the books. Taxes have their place but not to be the default opinion, in all cases.

The Labour Party has been talking the talk on growth in the economy but frequently marching in the opposite direction. It’s as if they embrace the comfort blanket of domestic tax increases too readily without thinking of the long-term impact. Habits are hard to change.

Before, what a majority agree was a mistake, Brexit, trade with our next-door neighbours was in a much healthier position than it is now. We’ve (UK) created barriers and obstacles that have diminished our trading position to no advantage whatsoever. Coming up for a decade of backward thinking.

In parliament, the Liberal Democrats are tabling a bill that calls for creating new Customs Union (CU) with the European Union (EU).

What is a CU? Simply put, it’s a trade agreement between countries to abolish tariffs on the goods they trade with each other. So, instead of barriers and obstacles to trade, the whole process becomes easier and cheaper.

Yes, such an agreement with the EU would have implications for relations with non-EU countries. What I’d say in that respect is that such negotiations with non-EU countries on tariffs haven’t been going so well in the last year. The UK has been buffeted by the policy of other nations, where their policy often spins on a dime. On / off fragile agreements don’t add enduring value.

Such a new CU with our next-door neighbours would boost the UK’s GDP by a significant amount. A boost of £25bn a year for the public finances is predicted. Thus, the growing demands that drive for domestic tax increases would be abated or at least be affordable.

Do you remember? So, many advocates of Brexit said we’d never leave the CU. It’s easily forgotten but some of the most ardent Brexit supports were saying this to the electorate. In essence being untruthful.

Back in January 2017, the Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time confirmed that the UK would not remain in the EU CU. What a massive mistake PM May made. The repercussions have been devastating for businesses and the public up and down the UK. It was an act of disfigurement that damaged our economy for nothing more than political dogma.

Sadly, we are where we are. I wouldn’t start from here. Wouldn’t it be great if negotiations started to take the UK into a new CU with our nearest, biggest trading neighbours and partners.

Sadly, the way the parliamentary vote will go is rather predicable. The Labour Party, in its current form, is not the internationalist Labour Party of its history and traditions. Currently, government support is not forthcoming. They prefer to talk the talk without walking the walk.

Post: Fix Britain’s Trade – Liberal Democrats

Why Embrace False Utopias?

Why do clever people often become dayglo prats? Not stupid by any means. More foolish and not embarrassed by their recklessness. It’s one thing to be incompetent or ineffectual but that’s not what I’m getting at here. It’s smart people who get carried away with delusional dreams.

How many vocal futurologists have said – “work is dead”? That one day we will be living in an age of leisure and ease because sophisticated machines will have taken all the drudgery out of existence. Intelligent machines doing all the things we once considered to be work.

In essence it’s a utopian vision that stands-up to be knocked down. In fact, the subject matter has been chewed over in science fiction ever since science has played a big part in our lives. Such popular fiction takes us from a dream world to a hideous dystopia that the original dreamers hadn’t envisioned.

The year is 2274. Almost 250-years ahead of where we are. Humanity is living in a bubble. That bit doesn’t change. Most people are unaware of how their society functions. Again, that bit doesn’t change. Rituals and customs dictate the path individuals take in life. Like today.

Strangely, even in the year 1775[1] those three aspects of life were evident. Maybe they are perpetual. However, there’s an exceptional point to make. That’s our rebellious nature.

The year is 2274. The movie is Logan’s Run[2], made at a time when society had ripple of anxiety about the so called “silicon revolution.[3]” That’s 1976. Before the elevated level of interconnection and communication that the INTERNET has afforded us.

It’s a sobering science fiction movie with a somewhat optimistic ending. Looking dated. I can get past the images and props that epitomised the seventies vibe. That’s become vintage.

To me, aspects of the theme of the story come from H. G. Wells. Nothing wrong with taking great ideas and reshaping them for the time. In the end the flawed utopia is defeated by our rebellious nature. Or at least of some people. The seeking of truth, at all costs, and to look behind the mask that everyday life paints.

You may ask – what the hell am I getting at? It’s a reaction to the recent headline[4]:

Musk says that in 20 years, work will be optional, and money will be irrelevant thanks to AI.

I like growing vegetables. Gardening is a superb way of doing something practical, staying grounded and in touch with nature. It’s good for one’s mental health too. However, the notion that work will be optional is far-fetched. The idea that money will disappear in a couple of decades is nuts. That’s not going to happen.

I know that the motivation to say such things maybe merely to provoke. That has its function. Nothing like stimulating a debate about the future. Surely, we are in for some dramatic changes in my later years on the planet. Surely, we need to equip the next generation to deal with these changes. Surely, we need to protect the public interest in turbulent times.

“Prat” is an often-applied British term. There are a lot worse terms than that one.

[1] https://www.clarkstown.gov/weekly-column/the-revolutionary-year-of-1775/

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/

[3] Intel’s 4004, released in 1971, packed the core of a central processing unit (CPU) onto a single chip for the first time.

[4] https://fortune.com/2025/11/20/elon-musk-tesla-ai-work-optional-money-irrelevant/

Navigating Aviation

Each profession has a way of speaking. This is not usual. Just try reading a long-winded contact on any subject. There are lots of references to a “third party” and more than one. Copious uses of the word “herein”. A good sprinkling of “hereby” and “foregoing”.

I don’t speak those words. If I used them in everyday conversation, I’d get locked-up. Nevertheless, these English words are universally applied to common legal documentation. The hundreds of End User License Agreement (EULA) that we all sign up to, whether we know it or not, apply legalese language liberally [love the alliteration].

Aeronautical people are no different. I could have said aviation people or professional flying people. There’s the rub. Even to say the same thing, there are a myriad ways of saying it.

One major problem that we all encounter, now and then, is having to work with a community that uses language in a different way from ourselves. I’m not talking about language as per dictionary definitions of words and standard English grammar. For good or ill, English opens the door to a numerous of ways of saying basically the same thing.

Professional English users, as I have alluded to above, choose their own pathway through the possibilities. English is not alone in facilitating this variability of expression.

I once worked in Bristol. A Filton. A large aircraft factory with an immense heritage. That included the Concorde project. Here both British and French engineers had to work closely together on a huge joint venture. It succeeded. Supersonic flight was commercialised.

One of the delightful little books I picked up from that time was a handy English/French dictionary of aeronautical terms. Those in common usage at an aircraft factory of the 1970s. To communicate effectively it was recognised that technical words needed to be explained.

What I’m noting now is this reality hasn’t gone away. For all the imaginative language Apps that might grace my mobile phone, there’s still a need to explain. This gets even more important when it’s a specific aviation community that is being discussed.

How do people from other communities get what regulatory people are saying when it’s perfectly obvious to them what they are saying? Take a banker or financier that wants to invest in electric aviation because they believe the future points that way. They come across bundles of jargon and precise terms that are not found in everyday conversations. Not to say that the world of money doesn’t have its own langauage.

In aviation there’s not only particular words with detailed meanings but a raft of acronyms. Combinations of words that are easily expressed as a package of letters. Then the short, sweet acronym surpasses the original text.

SMS, POA, DOA, ODA, OEM, TSO, TC, ICA, CofA, SUP, FDM, FAR, CS, NPRM, NPA, AC, AMJ, ACJ, GM and I can go on and on.

Maybe we need a Sub Part – better understanding.

Safety Differences

Are the safety standards for all large aeroplanes the same? No, they are not. I’m never sure if the public naively expect this to be the case. I’m sure it’s not something that goes through the mind of every air traveller. Looking up at an aeroplane, flying overhead, this is not a thought that instantly comes to mind. Even watching them take-off and land at a busy airport.

A large aeroplane is a large aeroplane – surely. Well, not exactly. Several issue come into play when addressing the safety standards for large civil transport aeroplanes. For example, when did the type of aeroplane first go into service? What is it being used for? Where is it flying to? How many people are on-board?

One place to start with any discussion on this subject is with the basics. For a start an aeroplane is heavier than air and its power driven. Immediately, two important factors pop out of that definition. One: weight counts. Two: operating engine(s) are needed.

Almost lost in the mists of time are the reasons for dividing the world of transport aeroplanes into two categories. Simply called – large and small.

Underlying this basic categorisation is an historic assumption. This is an assumption upon which civil aviation safety regulation has been built. Namely, that efforts need to be made to ensure large aeroplanes are safer than small aeroplanes. One way of looking at this is to consider a spectrum of risk, and several parameters of concern.

Let’s start with the question above – what is it being used for? A transport aeroplane can be used to carry cargo or passengers, often both. The number of crew and passengers carried can range from 1 to 850[1]. In fact, for large aeroplanes, there’s no upper limit written into international standards. However, the term “very large aeroplane” is coined for the upper end of weight or passenger numbers carried. Sadly, the very largest of these very large aeroplanes (cargo), the Antonov An-225 Mriya, was destroyed by war.

Although, a matter of primary concern is the number of passengers carried, and therefore at risk in the event of an incident or accident, the main dividing line in the regulatory landscape between large and small aeroplanes is weight.

To some extent this has a foundation. It could be viewed that in the event of an incident or accident any resulting impact will be more severe the greater the weight of the aeroplane. This is where a parameter called the MTOW, or Maximum Take-off Weight, comes in. This number includes the total weight of an aeroplane, crew, fuel, passengers, and cargo.

Today, we divide the world of large and small aeroplanes based on MTOW. Yes, the maximum number of passengers that can be carried comes into the equation too. The question I have is, should that be the number one consideration?

[1] https://www.airwaysmag.com/legacy-posts/top-10-largest-passenger-aircraft

Wealth and Power

No history buff, need you be. That’s Yoda speak for saying that there are one or two matters that bubble to the surface through human history. Let’s shelve the fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It’s a subject that a whole religion could be based upon.

I could encapsulate the phenomenon in the words: “Let them eat cake”. An example of a stratified society where those people that the top have completely lost sight of the lives lived by the majority. There’s a recognition that others exist but no great empathy or care.

That detachment can be exhibited in signs like gold plated panelling, crystal chandlers bedecking breathtaking halls and spare no expense expressions of power and wealth.

That’s one of my memories of my one visit to Russia. A port of call during a Baltic cruise itinerary. A trip that highlighted fascinating contrasts but shared histories. A good reminder of dramatic events. The Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg[1] is truly stunning. Lavish in every sense. A sign of the last century intense competition between major European powers.

To top a list, the Palace of Versailles[2] is the premier example of draw dropping magnificence. Naturally, these are global statements of power and wealth that are celebrated as part of our common heritage. They are, however, a lesson that history has posted for us to read.

What do both have in common?

Today, Kings and Queens are familiar with that lesson. Possibly apart from a small number who haven’t yet embraced modernity. If I must write it in the minimum number of words, it’s that distance that can grow between those who have great privilege and those who don’t. Then what happens when that becomes truly unstainable.

Revolution is bookmarked in any history book. These are moments, and their consequences are when a break point is reached. Although signs are there in hindsight predicting such events is a fraught with uncertainty. It’s usually thought that the price of destruction and devastation are a dam that keeps thoughts of revolution at bay. Change that happens, as if a dam breaks, are notoriously difficult to predict and cost. Not only that but such thoughts are rarely in the minds of any revolutionaries and their opponents.

Let me be clear. We are no where near a breakpoint in this moment. If I must write something, it’s more about the subtle signs that the direction of travel is not a positive one. Fine to dismiss my point of view as being that of a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I get that.

It’s the consequences of the concentration of power and wealth that’s concerning. The rise of the global billionaires and their reach beyond national boundaries is of the age. Nation states are no longer the biggest players in the writing of the story of the future. This is not always entirely bad, some are altruistic, but growing economic inequality[3] is bad. Outcomes from situations where inequality exceeds certain limits, that’s not where anyone sane should go.

[1] https://www.historyhit.com/locations/the-winter-palace/

[2] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/83/

[3] https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/12/widening-of-the-wealth-gap-the-rise-of-billionaires/

Rebuilding Relations

Here I’ve posted a thousand posts. So, it might be a good time to reflect. It was back in April 2016 that this blog started. The provocation being the then pending UK referendum vote. What was to become Brexit and a long litany of mistakes and missteps.

I’d not long returned to the UK from my time in Germany. I had a what I thought was a reasonable sense of the UK political landscape, only to find I was wrong. Here’s what I wrote:

“It’s the biggest event since the Berlin Wall fell. Yes, not to mince my words the UK referendum on EU membership could change the political landscape for a generation or more. It could be a terrible gamble that erects dark walls all over Europe or it could start a new period of enlightenment within the European project.”

I wasn’t far wrong with that statement. The landscape suffered a landslide. Even though the results of the votes were practically even- evens, for reasons that now seem bizarre the electorate swung in favour of leaving the European Union (EU). If the polls are to be believed, then the overwhelming majority now regret that choice[1].

“I’m firmly convinced that our place is in Europe. We are strong enough, we are clever enough and we are determined enough to make that project work. What a bonus that would be: Expanding a market that covers half a billion people on our doorstep. Guaranteeing that the world sits-up and listens to Europe. Unlocking a diverse creative powerhouse where the UK would thrive.”

My then time arguments were coherent, logical and straightforward. I didn’t know we were entering a phase when such attributes were to decline in importance. Should I have been wiser? With hindsight it’s easy to say that the campaign to remain in the EU was appallingly poor. Even if, at the time, I did wonder if the pomposity of the then UK Prime Minister would play a negative part in the outcome.

“The frightening alternative is to gamble with millions of jobs and invite a plunge into recension. If this happens it’s the younger generation who will pay the price. We should not condemn them to isolation and struggle for reasons of narrow nationalism.”

Oh brother. With something like 4% knocked off the country’s prosperity and a government struggling to finance public services, sadly I was spot on the money.

“I’m not saying the EU is perfect. In fact, I wouldn’t say Westminster or my local council are perfect – far from it. But the EU is a work-in-progress and not a finished project. It’s better for British pragmatism. It’s a two-way street as free movement brings people to these shores who then go home with a positive view of what we have to offer. In the next generation that means more trade and better international relations.”

Having seen at first hand the workings of both the British civil service and the European Commission, British parliamentarians and European ones, I could see a common thread. The foolish notion that escaping into glorious isolation would produce prosperity was nuts.

Here we are in 2025. It would be nice to say that – I wouldn’t start from here – but that’s useless. The thing to do is to reconcile, reaffirm and rebuild relations with Europe.  

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52410-nine-years-after-the-eu-referendum-where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-brexit

Why Timely Aviation Safety Reporting Matters

Waiting for accident reports can be frustrating. I’ve found this to be the case in past experiences. When a major fatal aviation accident happens the demand for information is exceptionally high. That means that every credible source of information will be drawn upon.

I don’t think anyone expects professional aviation accident investigators to come up with instant answers. Extensive and meticulous work is required to arrive at detailed findings. When it’s possible accident investigators publish interim reports to ensure that relevant information becomes generally available.

Countering this reality is the need to ensure that the aviation system is not operating at elevated risk during the period that investigation is being conducted. Information needs to flow to those who are empowered to take corrective action.

Given the nature of international civil aviation, accidents can occur anywhere at any time. There’s no rule, statistical or otherwise, that can stop these extremely rare events occurring. Much as it’s fine to promote an ambition for zero accidents, it’s not going to happen.

The frustration I’ve pointed to is shared by industry and authorities. As time goes by the level of speculation and misinformation always increases where there is an absence of verifiable facts. There’s always a need for industry, authorities and investigators to cooperate. As often each one will have a part of the jigsaw that when put together describes what happened.

For all sorts of reasons, this necessary cooperation does not always exist or exist as a smooth pathway to resolving a situation and initiating corrective action. Where barriers exist and delays accumulate the collective aim of assuring aviation safety is harmed.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), at their recent conference, highlighted this as being a significant issue[1]. There are international standards, but these standards are not always applied in the manner with which they were intended. It seems obvious to say. It’s essential to learn safety lessons and take corrective action as soon as it’s humanly possible.

Where sufficient resources are an issue then there must be cooperative arrangement to allow others to help. It’s by sharing expertise and equipment that the time between occurrence of an event and the implementation of risk reduction measures can be reduced.

Risk reduction measures do not always need to be the final measure. There are the conventional strategies for addressing aviation safety risk – reduce, eliminate or mitigate. Even if publication of a final accident report is a year or more away, there’s often much that can be done in the interim.

Bureaucratic protocols, political sensitivities and commercial interests are real. However, most governments have signed up to obligations within the ICAO convention and its standards. It’s recognised that timeliness is vital.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-10-14-02/

Recent Aviation Accidents: Lessons Learned, or not

I start from a position of apprehension. Making aviation accidents, documentary style, the subject of a television series does give me some concern. Obviously, there’s the importance of being respectful to those involved. To reveal something that is of genuine public interest.

Accident investigation and journalism seek to answer the six questions – Who, what, where, when, why and how. When it comes to addressing aviation accidents that have occurred in the last 18-months some of the process of investigation may still be ongoing.

My apprehension starts with – what is the purpose of the series? Does it go some way to answering the question – why? That’s especially the case given that word is in the title[1]. Practically the “why” is turned into a probable cause because the “why” can include multiple factors. It’s rare for there to be a lone factor that results in a tragic outcome.

Broadcast last night by the BBC, this series took a selection of the accidents that recently commanded international headlines. The fatal events have been much discussed within informed professional communities and across social media. I’ve written on them too.

[Fatal Boeing 737 Crash in South Korea, Investigating the Black Hawk and American Eagle Collision, Aircraft Safety and Fuel Starvation, Understanding Boeing 787 Avionics.]

We do this to seek to understand. If there are always lessons to be learned, it’s imperative that those lessons be learned without delay. Lack of an informed and timely response exposes the flying public to further risks.

Sadly, a few of the lessons learned in the past have not been translated into change. The fatal accident at Muan International Airport in South Korea is a case in point. Brid strikes are not new. The dangers of flocking birds have been highlighted time and time again. Whilst airports are built near large bodies of water this will continue be a risk. However, it wouldn’t be right to say this is the only cause of the accident outcome at Muan.

Truly tragic are what may be called: avoidable accidents. This is where the event is purely made up of human actions that need not have take the course they took. Processes and procedures were inadequate, and known to be inadequate, for the situation. To me, this is the case of the military helicopter that collided at low altitude with a passenger flight in Washington DC. It’s mystifying as to why past occurrences of near misses didn’t prompt a change to operations.

I’ll say this because it’s not often given credit. A testament to the good design of an aircraft, and the extensive certification work done and the rigorous training of crews, an accident in the Canadian snow did not become fatal. Upon a spectacular heavy landing in Toronto everyone escaped.

On take-off, a London bound, fully loaded Air India Boeing 787 failed to climb. The results were catastrophic in every sense. Not only were all on-board killed but there were multiple fatalities on the ground.  This tragic fatal accident remains mysterious. The published preliminary report is a source of more questions than answers. Facts so far published do not explain the sequence of events.

What connects this spate of aviation disasters? Nothing, that I can determine. Although, there is the importance of lessons learned. They are not that compilation of dusty past accident reports that sit on a shelf. They are a source of everyday learning. That is learning that needs to be put into action. Timely action. Not waiting for a final publication.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002kw1n/why-why-planes-crash