There seems to be veiled assumptions that because airlines are not refitting aircraft with four point seat belts, rear facing seats etc etc, that they are compromising the safety of their passengers.
The cost/benefit analysis has been discussed ad nauseam, however, I am more content that safety budgets are targeted at the areas where there is potential to prevent accidents in the first place.
Disasters such as Kegworth, Flixborough, Ladbroke Grove for example, all had elements of human error as a major contributory factor into their causes.
Where there is human involvement, it is impossible to achieve a 100% accident free industry. Of course, company's such as Du Pont believe that every accident/injury is preventable which to some degree is true, but due to erratic human nature and its potential failings, safety is not an exact science.
You can have the safest equipment in the world, the best policies and operational procedures in place but as soon as the human being comes into the equation - there the weakest link lies unfortunately.
A competent and sensible person who is normally totally professional at his/her job can be affected by outside factors such as family or health issues or other personal or indeed work matters.
There are other elements that can also induce human errors in certain circumstances such as poor design of equipment, ineffective policies and procedures, misinformation and poor communication.
Unfortunately when human or organisational shortcomings have been discovered, it is usually in the aftermath of an accident. It is the result of aviation accidents and incidents and sadly, the loss of thousands of lives over many years that we have learnt and adapted to make air travel much safer.
Design flaws can be engineered out, policies and procedures can be reviewed and amended if necessary, but it is the reducing of human error that is the biggest challenge, although improving the organisational factors will help. That assertion also applies to ground personnel such as ATC and maintenance teams.
There are strict medical requirements and stringent training for Pilots with regular monitoring of both health and competence.
Cabin Crew also have to undergo a strict regime of training.
The cost of keeping an aircraft airworthy will undoubtedly cost a phenomenal amount and maintenance is obviously a priority.
All of the above are costly but are vital in getting an aircraft off and on the ground safely.
I am not suggesting that an airline would compromise any of the above and there are regulatory bodies that ensure maintenance, training and operational requirements are complied with, however, would placing the financial burden of redesigning seats, fitting new seat belts and providing smoke hoods really improve the operational safety of an aircraft?
Would RF seats, modified seat belts and smoke hoods have been of any use in some of most recent major air disasters AF/ET? Sadly, no.
Was the cause of those accidents attributable partly or wholly to human error or organisational failings? That remains to be seen.
Are the safety features (including the crew) we currently have in mitigating the consequenses of a survivable aircraft accident sufficient in relation to the risk? Yes.
Every time I see the images of AF358 in Toronto just confirms that view.
F3G I am a great believer in prevention rather that cure due to the fact that when an epidemic occurs, some people do not survive the disease.