When money comes before aviation safetyIn the aviation branch, there are honest and sincere efforts to ensure that safety is paramount, and the results have been positive.
In the final analysis, however, it is money that matters, even in aviation safety.
When money comes before aviation safety
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
When money comes before aviation safety
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
You're not gonna like this, but ...
One has to perform a cost/benefit analysis.
For example, let's say that one discovered something they could do for a buck, that on average would save one human life. No brainer. Spend the buck.
But let's say that one discovered something that they could do for a trillion (that's a thousand billion) dollars, that would statistically save one life in the future. Is that a good place to spend your money?
Rephrased another way, do you consider the above to be obscene? Is safety something that is not to have a price tag placed on it?
If so, have I got a solution for you. Ground all the airplanes. Stop all the trains. Get rid of all of the cars and trucks. Get rid of all the machines in all the factories. No tractors or farm machinery either (which is really dangerous).
Clearly the above is ridiculous, which takes us back to a cost/benefit analysis.
One has to perform a cost/benefit analysis.
For example, let's say that one discovered something they could do for a buck, that on average would save one human life. No brainer. Spend the buck.
But let's say that one discovered something that they could do for a trillion (that's a thousand billion) dollars, that would statistically save one life in the future. Is that a good place to spend your money?
Rephrased another way, do you consider the above to be obscene? Is safety something that is not to have a price tag placed on it?
If so, have I got a solution for you. Ground all the airplanes. Stop all the trains. Get rid of all of the cars and trucks. Get rid of all the machines in all the factories. No tractors or farm machinery either (which is really dangerous).
Clearly the above is ridiculous, which takes us back to a cost/benefit analysis.
-
pistonbroke
- Rank 2
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:04 pm
I don't want to be too left-brain, but there is this concept of "low-hanging fruit", which is easiest to harvest ...
Spend your money on the safety initiatives with the best cost/benefit ratios. That way, you save the greatest number of lives with the money that you have available.
I know, too engineering-centric.
Spend your money on the safety initiatives with the best cost/benefit ratios. That way, you save the greatest number of lives with the money that you have available.
I know, too engineering-centric.
Almost everything we do in life has a cost/benefit analysis done on it. Do we buy our kids Walmart jeans or put them in fireproof nomex pants. We weigh the cost beneft and opt for the more dangerous Walmart jeans. Why? Because the risk is so minor that it isn't worth the extra money. Hedley is absolutely right. Nobody flies nobody gets hurt. How safe do we want aviation to be? Obviously as safe as possible. But the "as possible" part includes economics. Commercial aviation is just that...commercial. We are a profit oriented business. Decisions are made daily as to what is acceptable risk and acceptable cost.
We can rant about aviation safety all day but it is still riskier to drive to Pearson then to fly from Pearson.
We can rant about aviation safety all day but it is still riskier to drive to Pearson then to fly from Pearson.
-
happily.retired
- Rank 4
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Variable
Isn't it amazing how we easily freak out about safety. It wasn't long ago that there was consideration given to equiping airliners with anti-heat seeking missile protection devices.
And while on the topic of risks, imagine if we were seeing 3-4 B747 crashes a day for a week. The world would ground the fleet and ensure the killing stopped. Yet, 1200 people die every day from smoking related illnesses. Any hint of global panic?
And while on the topic of risks, imagine if we were seeing 3-4 B747 crashes a day for a week. The world would ground the fleet and ensure the killing stopped. Yet, 1200 people die every day from smoking related illnesses. Any hint of global panic?
bmc
carholme wrote:bmc;
Sorry that you think we may be freaking out about safety. Many of the recent ongoing discussions on this site are a result of many years of problems that exist in Canadian Aviation. Obviously, from afar. you think we are over reacting, however the Puma/Kanata tragedy that happened in Austria two days ago, the recent Adam Air problems, the Garuda 757 yesterday and several others are just about enough to see that the cycle has come around again. To some of us, it points out that we still have not discovered the best method for safe operations in a tough business climate, in a world racked with terrorist threats, etc., etc., etc.
In the meantime, you might offer an apology to Widow. She is left without a husband and father for her children after an accident here in Canada and her situation may be symptomatic of some of the problems that do exist in this country.
We will be happy to inform you when we settle down and stop our freaking out.
carholme
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
I remember something like that too. for some reason I think it was about $2,000,000/person.pistonbroke wrote:I remenber watching an interview on TV with the FAA, and they had an dollar figure on a human life.I just can't remember what that figure was.It had to do with the re-wireing of certain aircraft.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
-
neilaroberts
- Rank 2
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:42 pm
Widow, with all due respect, aviation safety in Canada and many other countries is just fine thank you. As always there is room for improvement as new technology and risk management techniques come available and add reasonable benifit for the cost.
I'm not sure if you post these obscure stories because you feel they are relevent but in my opinion most are pure alarmism.
As Hedley said, we must consider cost versus benifit when aviation safety is in question. If a safety system is too expensive for the benifit but an unacceptable risk is apparent, it may get mitigated some othre way. Perhaps by adding operating limitations.
They (the regulators) don't just identify some glaring saftey risk and shrug their shoulders when they find it may be too expensive.
I wonder what operators think of the up and coming rule that will require all sorts of little airplanes to carry TCAS. Some operators will have to foot a $100K+ bill to reduce the chances of a mid-air from "almost nothing" to "less than almost nothing".
I'm not sure if you post these obscure stories because you feel they are relevent but in my opinion most are pure alarmism.
As Hedley said, we must consider cost versus benifit when aviation safety is in question. If a safety system is too expensive for the benifit but an unacceptable risk is apparent, it may get mitigated some othre way. Perhaps by adding operating limitations.
They (the regulators) don't just identify some glaring saftey risk and shrug their shoulders when they find it may be too expensive.
I wonder what operators think of the up and coming rule that will require all sorts of little airplanes to carry TCAS. Some operators will have to foot a $100K+ bill to reduce the chances of a mid-air from "almost nothing" to "less than almost nothing".
Interesting post.carholme wrote:carholme wrote:bmc;
Sorry that you think we may be freaking out about safety. Many of the recent ongoing discussions on this site are a result of many years of problems that exist in Canadian Aviation. Obviously, from afar. you think we are over reacting, however the Puma/Kanata tragedy that happened in Austria two days ago, the recent Adam Air problems, the Garuda 757 yesterday and several others are just about enough to see that the cycle has come around again. To some of us, it points out that we still have not discovered the best method for safe operations in a tough business climate, in a world racked with terrorist threats, etc., etc., etc.
In the meantime, you might offer an apology to Widow. She is left without a husband and father for her children after an accident here in Canada and her situation may be symptomatic of some of the problems that do exist in this country.
We will be happy to inform you when we settle down and stop our freaking out.
carholme
bmc
CID wrote with great affection:
If one was to make a data-driven (as opposed to incident-driven knee-jerk) decision as to where to spend money to improve safety, and look at the causes of accidents of charter operators in the past, I kind of doubt mid-airs would even make the top ten.
Not sure TCAS for charter ops passes the cost/benefit anaylsis.
Back to cost/benefit analysis .... how many accidents have charter operators had in the past, due to mid-air collisions? Can we use that track record as an accurate predictor of the number of future mid-air collisions?all sorts of little airplanes to carry TCAS. Some operators will have to foot a $100K+ bill to reduce the chances of a mid-air from "almost nothing" to "less than almost nothing".
If one was to make a data-driven (as opposed to incident-driven knee-jerk) decision as to where to spend money to improve safety, and look at the causes of accidents of charter operators in the past, I kind of doubt mid-airs would even make the top ten.
Not sure TCAS for charter ops passes the cost/benefit anaylsis.
CID wrote: I wonder what operators think of the up and coming rule that will require all sorts of little airplanes to carry TCAS. Some operators will have to foot a $100K+ bill to reduce the chances of a mid-air from "almost nothing" to "less than almost nothing".
What up and coming rule change?
-
invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
He's likely referring to this:Edo wrote:What up and coming rule change?
Canada Gazette Part I Vol. 140, No. 36 — September 9, 2006 - Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VII)The amendments proposed as specific to each of Subparts 702, 703, 704 and 705 are the following.
Section 702.46 ACAS
The proposed amendment to Subpart 702, section 702.46 ACAS, will require turbine-powered land aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) greater than 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) to have a functioning TCAS II which meets TSO C-119a installed. The installation must include a Mode S transponder.
Section 703.70 ACAS
The proposed section to be added to Subpart 703 will require those aeroplanes with a MCTOW greater than 5 700 kg (12 566 lb.) being operated under this Subpart to have a functioning TCAS I installed. There will be no requirement for a Mode S transponder. This version of ACAS is not capable of providing RAs.
Section 704.71 ACAS
The proposed new section in Subpart 704 will distinguish between aeroplanes in terms of weight and the type of power plant in determining the requirements for ACAS installations. Turbine-powered aeroplanes with a MCTOW greater than 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) must have a TCAS II installation that includes a Mode S transponder. These aeroplanes may have either software version 6.04a or version 7.0. Non-turbine powered aeroplanes with a MCTOW greater than 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) are only required to have an ACAS meeting TSO C-118 (TCAS I). Aeroplanes with any type of power plant operating under Subpart 704 with a MCTOW between 5 700 kg (12 566 lb.) and 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) are only required to have an ACAS meeting TSO C-118 (TCAS I). That is, an aeroplane operated under Subpart 704 with a MCTOW greater than 5 700 kg (12 566 lb.) and equal to or less than 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) with any type of power plant or with a MCTOW greater than 15 000 kg (33 069 lb.) that is not turbine-powered will be required to have at minimum a TCAS I installation.
Section 705.83 ACAS
All aeroplanes that are being operated under Subpart 705 will be required to have one or the other of the ACAS installations described above. Those aeroplanes that are turbine-powered will be required to be equipped with a TCAS II installation with a Mode S transponder. Any other aeroplane operated under Subpart 705 will be required to have, at least, a TCAS I installation.
Inverted - Thanks that's just the answer I was looking for.invertedattitude wrote:Is this actually news to people?
CID - stated he was talking about was talking about all sorts of little airplanes.
The lnfo CD posted shows 702/703 TCAS requirements for a/c weighing between 12466- and 33069 Lbs - hardly "little aircraft"
CID - thanks for clearing that up.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/ ... -h104e.htm
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2006/2 ... e26-e.html
EDO,
Sorry, I kind of consider Beech 1900s little airplanes but you're right my wording was misleading. Sorry 'bout that.
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2006/2 ... e26-e.html
EDO,
Sorry, I kind of consider Beech 1900s little airplanes but you're right my wording was misleading. Sorry 'bout that.
CID, from what I can tell, there aren't so many people that agree that "aviation safety in Canada... is just fine thank you". I do agree the airlines are doing alright, but the smaller charter/air taxi ops, not so much. Seems the Investigators Union and other authorities, like Moshansky, agree with me.CID wrote:Widow, with all due respect, aviation safety in Canada and many other countries is just fine thank you. As always there is room for improvement as new technology and risk management techniques come available and add reasonable benifit for the cost.
I'm not sure if you post these obscure stories because you feel they are relevent but in my opinion most are pure alarmism.
As for my posting "obscure stories", I have google alerts set up, and when I see something that catches my interest, I do post it. There have actually been very few "obscure stories" I have posted, and my biggest error was in using my own title for one, instead of leaving the title as issued. I thought this particular article was good, and wouldn't have called it alarmist - it covers both sides of the story, and ends with a true comment. I understand that cost/benefit analysis must be done, and I understand that sometimes those costs outweigh the benefits. I have also found many replies posted to be interesting and informative. And since I come here to learn .... well, enough said.
Again, if what I post bothers you - don't read my posts.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
happily.retired wrote:I have officially been inspired by this thread! In honour of safety I'm going to down a brew and see how long I can sleep. Nobody ever got injured in their own bed, well, not regretably injured.
Actually we had a medevac just the other day where the patient was paralyzed after he slipped while making the bed.
