Originally Posted by
megan
Perhaps we once had a sensible society Clinton, did an aviation safety course where it was explained that the need (cost) to introduce a life preserving mod would be balanced against the predicted number of lives it may save. If it were otherwise we wouldn't have vehicles driving head on at a closing speed of between 200 and 260 kph and separated in their passing by a couple of feet.
If only that were so in aviation.
In order for cost and benefit to be “balanced”, a price has to be put on each of the lives predicted to be saved. Otherwise, the outcome is
an arsepluck driven by mere intuition and politics.
What price does CASA put on a life predicted to be saved? I’ll bet all the passengers on RPT jets flying in and out of aerodromes in G (pre- and post-Covid19 would / will be fascinated to know why their lives are worth less than the cost of implementing E or D or C.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the cost balance ....
CASA destroys lives, livelihoods and liberties in the name of safety, and prices that destruction at precisely $0.0c. For example, how many people who would otherwise have been carried on ‘community service flights’ are now not carried, as a consequence of CASA’s reaction to a couple of tragedies? (Let’s assume, for a moment, that the reaction causally reduces the risks of ‘community service flights’.) Are all the people who would otherwise have been carried still getting all of the medical attention and treatment they need, without incurring further cost? If not, that’s a cost that should be put into the ‘balance’. And what of the cost to pilots who would otherwise have been at liberty to conduct ‘community service flights’ but can no longer lawfully do so? I thought we lived in a liberal democracy where individual liberty has a value and, therefore, its curtailment is a cost.
What was the real cost of CASA’s reaction and what was the price put on the lives predicted to be saved? Absent those numbers, the reaction was you-know-what.