Lu Zuckerman posted 21st January 2005 13:45
--- Start quote ---
. Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis.
. They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. .... They total up the number of passengers in an aircraft and multiply it by the figure above. If it costs more to make the change than the cost in human lives they will recommend that the change not be implemented even if the NTSB disagrees.
--- End quote ---
This is little off the topic of the 380 but its a response to your post above on this thread.
I see that flight level separations have been reduced from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft, apparently on the basis that it is expected to result in savings of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.
Applying the valuation of $2.7 million per life this saving is equivalent to about 1,963 lives.
If one assumes that a mid-air collision involves two aircraft, each with 250 people, this represents about four incidents over the next five years, each with 500 fatalities.
Would you agree with the opinion that the FAA etc have agreed to the reduction in flight separations on the basis that having, for example, one major mid-air every two years is cheaper?
Should we assume that a corresponding calculation was made that a separation of 500 ft with presumably larger savings would have exceeded the $2.7 M/life figure?
Or have I misunderstood the process logic?
Cheers,
