Old 4th Jun 2016, 14:11
  #1016 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,451
Ian W;

I accept the cost argument as both reasonable and necessary - I mentioned it but didn't/don't emphasize it.. I also accept that, for some, it could be too much to argue that such enormous expense is the cost of engaging in the "long line" side of commercial aviation. After all, the billions spent otherwise, (generally by rich country's governments, I acknowledge), on R&D, regulatory processes and achieving that 10^-9 engineering standard isn't viewed in the same way as the "necessary" response (and enormous immediate/unplanned costs), of finding lost information and knowing what happened. Yet this is the model of progress in aviation safety, and clearly it has worked given the enviable and outstanding record for safety the industry achieves.

This will sound like hedging to those focussed on the realities of fiscal responsibility alone, but it is not intended as such. I truly don't intend that things should continue as they are - things will unfold as they will. But I don't see industry specialists clamouring for such a solution (deployable/streaming), as a priority, and I think that tells us something.

My "What do we do Monday?" remark conveys the need for action now that can have material benefits, but the case for the deployables or streaming and other, more elegant solutions may still be made on a flight safety basis. These two notions require careful examination on their merits alone and should not be accepted out-of-hand as a "logical" solution to an "obvious" problem.

Last edited by PJ2; 4th Jun 2016 at 14:27.
PJ2 is online now