http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-2 ... s-pay.htmlRegulators concluded that the benefit of improving pilot safety at freight airlines wasn’t worth the expense. Because costs of crashes are based primarily on the value of lost lives and freight airlines don’t carry passengers, losses are inherently smaller in cargo accidents under the formula.
FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
-
Masters Off
- Rank 3
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:50 pm
- Contact:
Re: FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
I'm sure that if I did damage to a built up area, or worse, a large event with a cargo plane, I'm sure they would consider that important enough.
What an interesting propositon: The value of concern and change is based on the amount of life already lost, not the potential for life lost. Therefore, if a Cargo 747 takes it into the ocean, a field, etc. they don't care, meanwhile the Combi and Pax versions may share the same problems?
Interesting.
Does the same equation include how fast congress moves to push through new laws (i.e. Colgan in KBUF)?
What an interesting propositon: The value of concern and change is based on the amount of life already lost, not the potential for life lost. Therefore, if a Cargo 747 takes it into the ocean, a field, etc. they don't care, meanwhile the Combi and Pax versions may share the same problems?
Interesting.
Does the same equation include how fast congress moves to push through new laws (i.e. Colgan in KBUF)?
Re: FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
This probably is the biggest safety risk to a long haul operator (assuming they're maintained properly etc) and I believe that our understanding of fatigue and the effects of it on cognitive ability are only understood on a basic level and generally overlooked by regulators and operators.
Years ago, if you drank 4 or 5 beers but felt you were probably ok to drive home, it wasn't a big deal. After all, you were pretty sure that you were fine and you knew your own limit, and you were a tough guy. Today, that is not only illegal, it's widely viewed as risky and unacceptable behaviour to inflict on society. I'm sure a lot of people have logged many miles with 5 beers in their system and made it home just fine. But we've learned that the increased risks of that impairment will eventually come to hurt someone. Starting work in the evening and flying half way around the world places you at a very similar level of intoxication - but with fatigue rather than alcohol.
It may take years, or it may take accidents, but in time people will come to regard our current mindset and rules on crew day in a similar light. This is the next frontier of safety in commercial aviation and as the Bloomberg article points out, it's already so safe that it's difficult to argue for changes because there isn't much room for corresponding return on investment. It's unfortunate that the statistics aren't more indicative of just how unsafe we are when we're that tired (yet legal.)
Maybe the cost/benefit equation needs a little help, maybe some more pilots need to declare crew rest until the value of delayed "Next Day Delivery" packages exceeds the cost of staffing the operation to follow the new suggested crew day limits. One cost that isn't taken into full account is the affect it has on the health and quality of life of crews who are perpetually in a zombie state of sleep deprivation, with a circadian rhythm that's averaged out on a time zone somewhere around 30 west.
Years ago, if you drank 4 or 5 beers but felt you were probably ok to drive home, it wasn't a big deal. After all, you were pretty sure that you were fine and you knew your own limit, and you were a tough guy. Today, that is not only illegal, it's widely viewed as risky and unacceptable behaviour to inflict on society. I'm sure a lot of people have logged many miles with 5 beers in their system and made it home just fine. But we've learned that the increased risks of that impairment will eventually come to hurt someone. Starting work in the evening and flying half way around the world places you at a very similar level of intoxication - but with fatigue rather than alcohol.
It may take years, or it may take accidents, but in time people will come to regard our current mindset and rules on crew day in a similar light. This is the next frontier of safety in commercial aviation and as the Bloomberg article points out, it's already so safe that it's difficult to argue for changes because there isn't much room for corresponding return on investment. It's unfortunate that the statistics aren't more indicative of just how unsafe we are when we're that tired (yet legal.)
Maybe the cost/benefit equation needs a little help, maybe some more pilots need to declare crew rest until the value of delayed "Next Day Delivery" packages exceeds the cost of staffing the operation to follow the new suggested crew day limits. One cost that isn't taken into full account is the affect it has on the health and quality of life of crews who are perpetually in a zombie state of sleep deprivation, with a circadian rhythm that's averaged out on a time zone somewhere around 30 west.
Re: FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
....or......we can replace the crews on cargo flights entirely.....computers dont get tired, demand upgrades, join unions, or call in sick...And I expect that someone, somewhere right now, is analyzing whether RPVs will have more accidents, cause more loss of life...
It will be accepted by the public, despite the wailing and gnashing of the what if crowd.(I am old enough to remember when the 747 first appeared) ..There will be accidents, but it will continue on......and the hotels will love it as they will no longer need to provide cockpit pen supplies.
Overall we just might see a decrease in accidents if we get rid of the pilots in the cockpit.
It will be accepted by the public, despite the wailing and gnashing of the what if crowd.(I am old enough to remember when the 747 first appeared) ..There will be accidents, but it will continue on......and the hotels will love it as they will no longer need to provide cockpit pen supplies.
Overall we just might see a decrease in accidents if we get rid of the pilots in the cockpit.-
Meatservo
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
- Location: Negative sequencial vortex
Re: FAA & Valuing Passenger vs. Cargo Accidents
I'm not confident you're right. RPVs are still "P"'d from somewhere, by someone who also might be tired. Maybe these guys will have NO duty time restrictions. The rules will be even less worth changing because now NOBODY will be killed in a crash, not even a pair of good-for-nothing pilots. As for total computer control, when my Mac stops deleting my photographs and shutting down for no reason, and my PC at work stops locking up, I will be willing to believe that someday a foolproof computer can be trusted to fly a big aeroplane over peoples' houses without going nuts and wiping out the whole city. You can send cargo by drone if you like, but don't fly it over my house.
