TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

The aircraft cost of $1 billion was used as an example by another poster. However let’s say all aircraft should be the same safety standard as a Boeing 747 – costing $400 million.

… the same safety standard? … you are confusing capacity/cost with adequate safety standards …. A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34!? .. the two are worth substantially different amounts and require vastly different ground support infrastructure and terminal area protection …. Throwing up meaningless comparisons is pointless!

It is obvious to you that many airports in Australia would not receive an air service with such an aircraft because the ticket price would be too high.

… no ****e!

This is why some airports are serviced by Chieftains.

… and using your methodology (10trillion), why should that chieftain operation be any less safe as each passenger on the PA31, DHC8 and the B747 are worth 10trillion i.e. 100tril (PA31) 300tril (DHC8) 3,500trill (B747) ... in either case, an accident is unafforable! .. therefore, using your logic:-
.
- YBTH would have a full radar TCU, Radar TWR, precision approach monitor etc etc to ensure not one passenger was lost due lack of safety services (10tril) .... flawed and inconsistant with your other views on allocation of services ..... how do you reconcile this?
.
In reality, the safety systems available to each should reflect a baseline and then scaled according to the number of persons exposed to the operations risks! …. I say again, why mandate TCAS without corresponding TXPDRS … why not subsidized ADS-B (including IN for RPT) so all targets can be alerted! ... it can be done for modest cost and will provide real savings in infrustructure and improved safety across all sectors!

In relation to the value of a human life at $10 trillion, if you are simply comparing safety improvements – i.e. whether to fit TCAS or whether to increase the coverage of radar – you can use any figure in the comparison as the answer will be the same.

again, this is patently wrong, that is why figures are set to consider properly cost V's benefit!

That is, where best to spend the money to save the most lives.

I will say it one more time – location specific service levels should be assessed and (where necessary) established based on a whole set of variables including traffic density and complexity, meassured against the cost of loss of life (agreed and reasonable values), the risk of loss occuring, and what systems are available to reduce that risk to ALARP
.!
…. It is disingenuous to suggest that anyone is saying airspace serviced by PA31’s should be the same as SY serviced by B747’s!
…. Similarly, Regional airports servicing 30 odd daily RPT jet movements (+ GA etc) might not be CTAF with Centre E above or SY type primary high density infrastructure, rather D TWR/App!
…. Similarly regional airports with RPT turbo’s and moderate levels of other traffic might be F AFIZ!
…. and remote rarely used airports might be CTAF with pilot separation based on ADS-B/VHF provided traffic information pilot to pilot!
.
……. Allocation based on need not by how many dollars Pollies decide is available (surely you do not want that)! ... not ridiculous unnecessary investment where it is not effective ……. It is common sense whether you choose to agree or not!