Peuce
I respect your view, however I believe it’s important that we know what the actual chance of an accident is in the two different airspaces, ie. if it was E and if it was C.
The latest figures I looked at showed there was about a 1 in 3,000,000 chance of dying in an airline accident if you purchase a ticket and fly. Obviously most people agree that this level of risk is acceptable.
Now, to keep things simple, surely the experts must have the figures on what chance there is likely to be with a mid-air collision above Broome/Karratha if it is E airspace and what the chance is if it’s C airspace, ie. is there a chance of a collision every 3,000 years or is it every 30 years if the airspace is a particular category?
These figures must be available. I am fascinated by the fact that they are not published. We only have a very limited experience with E airspace, ie. twelve months, and there were no mid-airs. Obviously, that means very little. However, in other countries there was enormous experience of E over D, both in radar covered airspace and non-radar covered. If I was involved in, or responsible for, a decision on what airspace to put above Broome/Karratha, I would want to know those figures.
For example, if I was told there was one a chance of a mid-air collision every 3,000 years with a particular airspace, I would probably find it acceptable. However if I was told there was a chance of a collision every 30 years, I definitely would not find it acceptable.
It’s interesting how the reports we read – completed by these so-called “independent contractors” – never bring the accident rate down to something which is easily understood.
For example, talking about ALARP – “as low as reasonably practical” – means very little to average people. But to say that you have “1 chance in 3,000,000 of losing your life” on a particular flight is very easily understood.
Now the figure of 1 in 3,000,000 has obviously come about by someone looking at the number of flights and then the number of accidents over a reasonably sensible period, whether it be 10, 20 or 30 years. Surely we can do the same with E airspace over D – ie. work out how often there is likely to be a mid-air accident based on the figures that are readily available from around the world.
Of course, figures for C over D are going to be very hard to get from experience, as we are the only country who has this type of airspace – and we hardly have any traffic movements in it.
Could it be that if you do simple figures for risk of E above D, that the risk is so small that it would be clearly acceptable by most people, and that’s why none of the scientific organisations and contractors who do these studies actually give the real figure?
And conversely, if the risk was high – say, as mentioned before, an accident every 30 years – why don’t they say that?
Food for thought.