Panic Attack Man Tries To Storm Cockpit [Archive]

TightSlot

27th Jan 2010, 15:29

Love it when that statement is trotted out. Safety is the crew's number one priority, but the company's is to make a profit
This sort of dinner-party throw-away cynicism surfaces periodically, and is tedious.

Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline. Without compliance with the various bits of legislation and procedure that apply to the enormously complicated world of commercial aviation, there would be no airline to even earn a profit in the first place. Killing customers is bad for business, and therefore profit.

Naturally, all businesses seek to be profitable - no profit, no business. It does not take surgically precise analytical skills to work this out and scarcely seems worth saying in here. I'm not certain whether it was said with the intention of sniping at the industry or demonstrating some sort of perceptive insight - both would seem to have failed.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 11:41

and how many of those might escalate if sharp objects were available.

If you want something razor sharp and very dangerous in flight, just buy a bottle of duty-free that every airline is happy to sell you, hold it by the neck and hit it against something solid - instant knife edge and inflamable liquid too.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 11:53

Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline

I disagree. Nicholas49 is correct, there are many things that airlines could do to increase safety but choose not to do for cost reasons. For example;

All mobile phones could be removed from passengers before boarding and returned on arrival. This would guarantee passengers do not use phones during landing and take off - something i'm sure you know some people still do despite the warnings.

Airlines could refuse to serve any alcohol onboard as well as breathalise and search passengers before boarding. This would inconvenience passengers and lose the airline business but it would make air travel safer.

Abusing_the_sky

28th Jan 2010, 13:26

All mobile phones could be removed from passengers before boarding and returned on arrival. This would guarantee passengers do not use phones during landing and take off - something i'm sure you know some people still do despite the warnings.
Why? Some airlines, like my lot, have a selection of a/c fitted with a Mobile Phone System that allows pax to use their mobile phones just like when they're on the ground.
Many airlines allow phones in Flight Mode (not where i work, but others do). Pax use their phones as MP3 players, they listen to their music or watch movies, play games and so on.
Now, for T/O and Landing they have to be switched of. If one or 2 pax decide not to listen to the CC's instructions (who only reinforce the commander's instructions), there are ways to deal with them; but whilst the wast majority of pax are following the said instructions, why should they be affected because of one or two plonkers who chose to "be different" let's say.

Apart from that, who on their right mind would willingly give away to a complete stranger something that contains private information (e-mails, text messages, people's phone, numbers, you know what i mean). I know that phones nowadays have an option where you can lock your phone and only access it with a password or pin number, but in this day and age, anyone can hack just about anything.

Airlines could refuse to serve any alcohol onboard as well as breathalise and search passengers before boarding. This would inconvenience passengers and lose the airline business but it would make air travel safer.Again, why do that? Just because there are some idiots out there who can't handle their drink, doesn't mean the rest of the pax are the same.
When the said idiots cause problems, that's where we step in. The ground staff can stop them at the gate. If they don't notice the drunk, we will notice them on board and should it be the case, will off load them. Should it happen in the air, there are ways of dealing with it (restrain, diversion and eventually police on arrival).
You also need to remember that the airline doesn't have to refuse to serve alcohol because CC can refuse to serve it to an unruly pax. It is at the CC's discretion to assess the case (person).

And this is where i agree with Tight Slot.
Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 15:16

Why do that? Because it would increase safety.

I'm NOT saying that airlines should ban alcohol or take mobile phones off passengers. I'm saying they could and that if they did it would increase the safety of the flight. Not by much but it would make the flight just slightly safer. If the airlines first priority really was safety they would do whatever they could, however small, to increase safety.

They don't do it because the increase in safety would be tiny and it would lose them passengers and money, ie. safety does not come before everything else, it is just one of a number of competing issues. .

TightSlot

28th Jan 2010, 15:29

Wrong - I'm sorry, but it simply is. I'm having trouble finding alternative ways of explaining this point, and usually when that happens it tells me that I am wasting my time - however, I'll have one more go... :)

Safety in aviation is not an absolute: It is, and always has been, a compromise. The only absolutely certain method for avoiding impact with the ground is never to leave it. All aspects of aviation are trade-offs between safety and the requirement for flight. Therefore, you argument may be extended ad infinitum - there are infinite ways in which safety could be enhanced, and infinite examples. Some of the improvements or changes may be driven by fashion, some by experience and some by common-sense.

Forgive me, but I feel that I should ask if you work on-board the aircraft? Those who do, work with safety as their prime concern: This approach can only be successfully achieved if the culture of the airline supports it - It cannot exist in isolation.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 15:30

Again, why do that? Just because there are some idiots out there who can't handle their drink, doesn't mean the rest of the pax are the same

Again, i'm not saying they should. I'm saying the fact that they don't shows that safety is not the only consideration. There are lots of things airlines could do to make flying safer but choose not to do pecause pax wouldn't like it or it would cost time or money. That's ok, flying is still one of the safest forms of travel, but it does get annoying when airlnes go on and on about how safety is all they care about.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 15:35

Tight slot, perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Could you address the specific examples i gave above; do you agree that removing phones from pax or allowing no alcohol in flights would improve safety even if only to some tiny extent?

TightSlot

28th Jan 2010, 15:44

I thought I had? It's probably better if I withdraw at this point, so there you are - you've won.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 16:00

You mean this?

All aspects of aviation are trade-offs between safety and the requirement for flight.

But alcohol or mobile phones are not requirements for flight.

I am not suggesting that you or most airline managements do not have safety as a high priority. I'm just saying that the incessent airline mantra of "safety is all we care about" is simply not true (they also care about survival and profits, etc,) and becomes tiresome after a while.

Abusing_the_sky

29th Jan 2010, 00:08

etrang, i'm struggling to get your point but i'll see it and raise you this point:

Do you think that [insert country here] Aviation Authority would allow airlines to sell/serve alcohol on board if they thought it would endanger the safety of pax, crew and a/c? You do know that the Aviation Authority is the "GOD" of Aviation, and what they say goes?
Take the CAA for example.

The CAA is the UK's specialist aviation regulator. Through its skills and expertise it is recognised as a world leader in its field. Its specific responsibilities include:
Air Safety
Economic Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Consumer Protection
Environmental Research & Consultancy(my emphasis)

I am yet to hear of any Aviation Authority anywhere in the world who does not put safety first, therefore does not impose safety as a primary concern to any airline they regulate.

But alcohol or mobile phones are not requirements for flight.
Indeed they are not. Call them a "perk" if you must. It sort of comes with the "contract" (ticket). It's not written, but it's an expectation. I too, when i travel as pax, have an alcoholic beverage when i'm off on my holidays. I expect it to be there should i fancy one.

But then again we could go on and on and on re this subject.
Maybe at this point we should agree to disagree.

etrang

29th Jan 2010, 10:15

As Tight Slot said the only 100% safe flight is the one that never leaves the ground. So every flight involves compromises between safety and practicalities such as getting where you want to go. The point about regulators is a good one though. It is mainly the existance and enforcement of regulations which make flying safe - not airline managements or crew. Flying is very safe in the UK for example but much less so in, for example, Africa. No one ever wants to have a crash but people will often cut corners if they can.

However, you seem to missunderstand my point. I am NOT saying that flights are unsafe. I am saying that airlines' constantly repeated claims that they only care about safety and that they will do everything to ensure passenger safety are economical with the truth to say the least.

Let me give you some more examples;

Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.

Four point seat belts: A four point or three point seat belt provides better protection than the two point lap belt. Pilots and crew get 4 point belts. Passengers get the less safe two point belts because it would cost the airlines money to upgrade their seats.

Yes regulators accept the current situation. I am not saying flying is unsafe - its clearly a very safe form of travel. I'm saying that airlines could make it more safe, and that they would do so even without regulators telling them to IF safety was really they only thing they cared about.

lowcostdolly

29th Jan 2010, 10:59

etrang I'm going to have to add my two cents here as senior crew for a certain loco airline.

I don't know of any airline who's mantra is "safety if the only thing we care about" although I could stand corrected on this. However in the UK at least it is the number one priority for all carriers and therein lies the difference in your perceptions and reality.

My lot also care passionatly about on time performance as it costs money if we are late. However I can confidently say there is no and I repeat no pilot who would accept an aircraft for a flight if he had concerns re a technical issue. We would stay on the ground until it is sorted so safety takes priority over our on time performance.

Profit per seat is right up there for any airline nowadays not just the loco's. As crew we are constantly bombarded by various sales incentives from management and many of them involve alcohol. Crew also earn a lot of commision from the sale of alcohol.

If the Friday night Ibiza appears on our roster we know the spend per head and therefore the company's profit per seat is likely to be high as this flight has a particular pax profile.

However if any problems kick off safety takes priority over this. If we have problems on boarding the offenders get off so the company profit per seat is then tranferred elsewhere in the interests of flight safety. If we have problems during flight we stop selling alcohol (which is one of a number of measures at our disposal) so again safety takes priority. I'm sure ATS and Tightslot would concur that is the approach of all UK airlines. I'm referring to the UK as I don't have experience outside of this.

I hope that reassures you. Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of :ok:

Final 3 Greens

29th Jan 2010, 15:18

LCD

When I see smoke hoods for pax, then I'll buy into 'safety being #1 priority.'

Until then, it's profit, but carefully managing the risk of hull losses, which is bad for business.

Di_Vosh

29th Jan 2010, 20:31

Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.

What Military aircraft have you been on? I've been on Aussie 707's, HS748's, Caribous, and C130 Hercules of Oz, US, and Malaysian air-forces.

The 707's and HS748's had forward facing seats. The Caribous and Hercs all had sideways facing seats. All the above had lap belts.

DIVOSH!

lowcostdolly

30th Jan 2010, 14:11

F3G you have raised a good point re the smoke hoods. Indeed we already have individual oxygen masks and individual life jackets so why not have individual smoke hoods as well? I can't answer that but can take a guess.

etrang also raises very relevant points re 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats. Indeed I sit on and am strapped into exactly that for take off/landing. I feel a lot safer than the SLF should an incident occur at this stage of flight because of this.

However if I travel on a train/coach in which I get the choice I will always travel in a forward facing seat because it is more comfortable for me personally. I know basic crash dynamics so should know better.

Apparently there have been studies done on plane pax which demonstrate they feel the same. I have never seen any of them so cannot offer informed comment. All I know is most pax prefer to travel forward facing regardless of anything else.

What I do know through experience is that most (not all) pax put their comfort above safety. Some pax do not see the importance of fastening their lap belt even in severe turbulence......some will disregard everything and get up and walk around the cabin (usually to go to the loo). What advantage does the 4 point harness have to them here? They will walk pass the CC who are strapped into their 4 point harness and still disregard the CC instructions......:rolleyes:

A lot of pax (not all) pay scant regard to the safety brief which instructs them on how to use the masks and life jackets amoung other things. Why would they pay more regard to the instructions on how to use the smoke hoods??

Smoke hoods are provided to all crew to fight a fire and we are trained how to do this and use them. Pax are not and niether would most of them listen to a routine brief on this anyway because after all a fire on their flight would never happen would it??

Fighting fires aside, yes the O2 generated by these hoods would give pax at least 15 minutes of breathable air but then we have to stow them.

On every flight I do I have pax who will throw their handluggage on top of crew/pax emergency equiptment despite large signs saying no stowage. They will open bins to do this. Even when I explain when doing this why I am moving their baggage a few rows down I get grief for doing this.

Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.

The CAA balance what is essential for flight safety against what the pax expect and want. What is desirable is another matter and a matter for infinete debate.

You are correct re "hull losses being bad for business". There are also a lot of potential safety incidents in between that catastrophic event that are risk managed.

Yes profit is something that every airline cares about including my own. I had hoped that my previous post demonstrated how safety takes priority over this. As it hasn't then to pax who doubt this I would say this:

All flight and cabin crew are human with families like yourselves. Do you really think we would fly or operate on a plane where profit would take priority over safety??

passy777

30th Jan 2010, 15:26

Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.

But if baggage handling agents and indeed relevant airline personnel adhered to the size/weight specifications of hand luggage that is allowed on board, then the need to remove unchecked baggage to the hold would not be such an issue.

Unfortunately, due to many airlines charging for checking in luggage, this problem is exacerbated.

I appreciate that this is a difficult one and there are valid points from all sides, but I believe the balance between the needs of an airline to generate revenue without compromising safety is about right.

Would making the flight 'dry' or not selling duty free items in glass bottles improve safety? (Although I fail to comprehend why plastic bottles are not used for all duty free liquid sales - even if only from a weight perspective).

I believe one of the biggest safety features of an aircraft are the cabin crew themselves. We as pax usually only see CC carrrying out their 'normal' duties, however, I am confident that should an emergency situation arise, they will have had the appropriate training to deal with the situation whether it be an intoxicated or irate pax, a medical emergency or an evacuation.

Sure, there are additional features that could potentially improve on board safety, however, that would apply to most things we do or use in our lives today.

Mandatory use of seat belts on trains and coaches are just one example.

Whether additional safety features are 'reasonably practicable' to implement i.e. the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk, is another matter.

etrang

31st Jan 2010, 06:31

[QUOTE]Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of /QUOTE]

Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc. I would be very interested in you answer.

One Outsider

31st Jan 2010, 07:43

Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc.
Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through. Anyone arguing differently either does not understand the process or are trying to keep up appearences.

passy777

31st Jan 2010, 10:15

Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through.

Absolutely!

Thankfully, catastrophic mid air events are extremely rare, but the reality is that when such events occur, rear facing seats, smoke hoods and four point seat belts would be rendered ineffective with the outcome sadly predictable.

Many survivable incidents result in the seating becoming dislodged from their anchoring points which results in a 'concertina' effect resulting in serious body trauma - again, it could be argued that four point seat belts would not increase the survivability of pax in such circumstances.

As One Outsider correctly stated, it is all down to cost/benefit analysis based on risk assessments (likelihood X severity of an incident) and other relevant factors likely based on previous incidents.

In an ideal world, it would be better to have footbridges over every road rather than have to cross at street level with all the risks that entails. All roads should be dual carriageways in the interest of improved vehicle segregation, but the reality is that costs are a deciding factor and road improvements are usually only implemented where there is an unacceptable level of risk and danger based on previous accidents.

To implement the above, it would require citizens to pay a hefty price on their taxes - likewise the airline industry would need to increase the fares substantially to introduce measures that may or may not increase the safety of a particular aircraft.

Please don't assume I am trivialising the loss of even one life, but I believe that the airlines have reduced their risks of injury/death to an acceptable level. Statistics based on the number of people flying annually and the numbers of injuries/deaths per mile travelled will likely confirm that assertion.

100% risk free is an unrealistic goal, but as alluded to earlier in this thread, to achieve anything near that, the aircraft would need to remain on the ground.

I am confident that the current combination of very well trained cabin crew, on board safety measures and legislation - not forgetting the skills and expertise on the flight deck and all of their strict requirements that are policed by respective Aviation Authorities have reduced the risks of flying to an acceptable level.

lowcostdolly

31st Jan 2010, 12:46

Etrang OMG now I understand why Tightslot threw in the towel :ugh:

My post I feel answers your questions and so does Passey777 but to spell it out again for you:

The majority of pax don't want to fly with 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats and that's cost/benefit analysis aside. In fact a lot of them won't fasten a lap belt when instructed to do so and many pay little attention to the safety brief.

For every bit of equitment a pax might have to use for themselves on board that is the seatbelts, oxgen masks and lifejackets (all of which you are given by the way despite the cost) by law you have to be briefed on before take off. Likewise the exits. If we issued smoke hoods the same would apply.

Everyday I see pax talk, read and sleep their way through the demo on what we do now. Why would they give any more attention to the use of a smokehood?

Smoke hoods are issued to crew because it is our role to fight fires on board not the pax. The majority can be put out within a few minutes so there is no need for the pax to have these for breathing purposes. If there is uncontrolled smoke in the cabin due to an underfloor fire you can rest assured the flight crew will be descending PDQ and have procedures for venting the cabin.

My advice to you as clearly you have a really low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it is don't fly if you have so little confidence in us.

I'm going to follow Tightslot and ATS on this one and give you the last word. In the meantime I'm going to watch the following to see how I should be doing my safety demo according to your viewpoint. I bet I would get more attention from the SLF :ok:

www.youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com) New United Airlines safety demonstration. The Pam Ann safety demonstration is also good for a laugh but doesn't quite get over that profit apparently takes priority over safety so clearly :rolleyes:

Enjoy!!

etrang

1st Feb 2010, 04:07

lowcostdolly, unfortunately you still fail to understand my point. Let me try again.

Passey777 did answer the question and clearly did understand the issues. Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through.
Absolutely!

That is the point - Airlines do cost/benefit analysis for every action or inaction. They could make flying safer but choose not to because they consider it too expensive.

You claim that pax don't want 4 point harness, etc. Whether or not that's true, what pax want or don't want should not be the deciding factor when it comes to safety.

Your reply seems rather emotional, perhaps because think that i have a "low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it". That is not true at all. The aviation industry has managed to make flying a very safe form of travel indeed and should be congratulated for it.

Final 3 Greens

1st Feb 2010, 14:24

Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, we should differentiate between cabin crew and airline management.

I have no doubt that a well trained and motivated CC member has a primary focus on safety, I saw Austrian crew deal with a suspected fire on board last year and they were very professional. So let's make it clear that cabin crew are not the target of any tough words in this thread (I think I can say that from what I have read.)

Equally, I have no doubt that airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough in a civilian environment, within the oversight of the regulatory authorities.

There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety, as I private pilot of single engined aircraft, I am more aware than most people of that.

The point the ealier poster was making is that regular pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.

Likewise, the industry is it's own worst enemy for mollycoddling pax and letting them walk around with the belt sign on, letting them get on to aircraft when drunk (I do know more get drunk in the air, but drunks do board, I have seen them.)

The following extract is from from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 14th report, 14 July 1999......

[QUOTE]85. Most of the fatalities during the Manchester disaster were the result of inhaling lethal quantities of carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide. Moreover, the evacuation of the aircraft was severely impeded by passengers collapsing unconscious from the effects of smoke.

[224] As a result the Air Accident Investigation Branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should develop a specification for a smokehood that could be worn by passengers to protect them from smoke and fumes, and thus give them longer to evacuate an aircraft, and to conduct research into the use of smokehoods. The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions.

[225] As a result, it has been very difficult to manufacture a product to meet these requirements.

86. The Civil Aviation Authority is particularly concerned about the difficulty of donning a smokehood, the time it would take, and the time taken to evacuate the aircraft afterwards.

[226] Quite apart from the delay in finding and then putting on the smokehood, it is possible that the hood would give a false sense of security, leading to passengers evacuating more slowly. Conversely, as the Transport Committee said in 1991, "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".

[227] We recognise that there are sensible arguments that can be advanced against the provision of smokehoods, and we note the observation made by British Airways, that "the industry belief is that they would be more hazardous than helpful".

[228] Virgin Atlantic said that "the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration have written reports on the use of smokehoods and they said basically that they would cause more problems in evacuation if people were installing smokehoods".

[229] Nevertheless, we thought it very telling that several of our witnesses, including the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, told us that they carried smokehoods whenever they travelled. (my italics)

[230] We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement.[/QUOTE

Two-Tone-Blue

1st Feb 2010, 16:39

Thanks, 3 Greens. I knew the smoke hood idea had been binned by SRG and other long since. Good to have the facts.

In a similar vein, I have a family member who is a Firefighter, who has cautioned me about having excessive reliance on a fire extinguisher. The message was very clear ... don't pi55 around, STAY LOW, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!

All these things are potentially good for TRAINED people. Lemmings and SLF may be less useful.

Final 3 Greens

1st Feb 2010, 16:49

I had the pleasure of watching a very grey cloud of smoke coming down the aisle of an A320 and it certainly gets your attention.

Really don't fancy a lungful of HCN, the same nasty stuff they used to dispose of crims convicted of capital charges in some of the states.

eightyknots

1st Feb 2010, 21:09

Smokehoods for pax are not a viable idea because (in addition to the reasons already mentioned) given the sudden nature of such an emergency, they would be busy sitting there putting them on (and then dying anyway) instead of getting out of the aircraft quickly.

Think back to the Hudson river ditching last year. Should the crew have wasted valuable minutes getting pax to fit their lifejackets whilst still inside a sinking aeroplane rather than getting everyone out quickly?

:ugh:

Pax Vobiscum

1st Feb 2010, 22:10

You seem to believe that any measure that improves (no matter how slightly) safety ought to be implemented (no matter how expensive) - forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you're criticising airlines for (in your mind) putting profit above safety.

But all safety decisions are ultimately subject to cost-benefit analysis (except for those taken by individuals, who are free to make their own irrational choices). Since resources are always finite, money spent on one safety measure is not available to be spent on another, and therefore corporate and governmental safety decisions are always based on such an analysis, as passy777 pointed out, in order to deliver best value for money - the only decision is where to draw the line (since the line must be drawn somewhere) - the British government somewhat arbitrarily sets the line at £2 million per expected life saved.

For aviation, minimum safety standards are set by numerous national and international bodies. They too bear in mind the cost implications of their safety decisions, which is why they don't mandate smoke hoods, rear-facing seats, four-point belts etc.

This has resulted in a transport system that is by most measures the safest on the planet, despite being involved in the inherently risky business of moving large numbers of people at high-speed and high altitude in thin-walled metal tubes.

As an illustration, let's suppose there's a new airline PerfectAir that will incorporate all possible safety features. As a result PerfectAir can guarantee to deliver you to your destination safely. I need to get to New York. I can take a standard flight from Heathrow (which statistically has a roughly 1 in 11 million chance of ending fatally) or fly PerfectAir from Stansted. Surprisingly, it's actually safer for me to travel from Heathrow, since Stansted would involve me in an extra 100 miles of road travel which has a 1 in 700,000 chance of killing me - actually somewhat less than that, since (like all British males) I consider myself to be an above average driver. :ok:

Final 3 Greens

2nd Feb 2010, 03:40

eightyknots

You do not seem to be fixated on a single accident mode and unable to understand that fires also happen in the air (as did the incident I was involved in) and I can assure you that there was plenty of time to don masks as the aircraft abandoned the climb and started back to base.

Note the comment from the report "The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions."

They got that, even if you didn't.

To close the loop on this one, I made the comment that I would believe that safety was an airline's #1 priority if they supplied pax smokehoods and hold that to be true.

I don't believe it will happen soon (unless there is knee jerk legislative reaction to a fire related disaster) because the business case does not make sense.

So let's understand that flying is a trade off.

With regard to pax dying through putting the hoods on, the report considered that and quoted the transport committee "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".

You will also note that unconscious pax blocking the aisles as a major factor in the MAN incident.

Pax Vobiscum

You have not understood what etrang is saying.

Why don't you read it again.

Der absolute Hammer

2nd Feb 2010, 04:52

What, after all, is safety, apart from being a mantra used to excuse a multitude of abuses inflicted upon concepts of human rights which are in themselves abuses of common sense and intelligence?

The reasonable prophylactic precautions that can be taken to avoid an incident or accident where, coincidentally, loss or damage civil actions might arise.

Is it unsafe if I carry on board an aircraft my own personal smoke hood, a 100ml bottle of after shave and my two lucky flint stones?

eightyknots

2nd Feb 2010, 07:19

F3G

Ok, when was the last time anyone on board died due to smoke in the cabin whilst in flight?

etrang

2nd Feb 2010, 09:33

You seem to believe that any measure that improves (no matter how slightly) safety ought to be implemented (no matter how expensive) - forgive me if I've misunderstood,/QUOTE]

You have misunderstood, but i do forgive you. :)

3 greens summarized it well;

[QUOTE]airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough .... There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety ... pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.

Final 3 Greens

2nd Feb 2010, 12:37

Ok, when was the last time anyone on board died due to smoke in the cabin whilst in flight?

That is completely the wrong question to ask in prudent risk management and I have not got a clue as to the answer.

When did a lifevest last save an airline passenger? Same answer.

If we are talking risk management, the probability is extremely low and the incident severity is potentially fatal, so it must be considered. Note the select committee comment that the chief accident investigator travelled with his own smoke hood, he might just know a bit about aviation risks.

However, it is completely irrelevant to my argument, which is that the provision of smokehoods cannot be justified by the extremely low probability of occurence, so we accept the risk if we wish to travel by air.

This trade off, accepted by airlines and passengers alike, demonstrates that safety is not the number one priority, but a competing factor in a carefully crafted set of trade offs.

I agree with extrang when he says the airline industry has performed excellently in this aspect.

passy777

2nd Feb 2010, 12:49

What is the first thing that comes to mind in relation to the following companies?

White Star Line

Townsend Thoresen

Union Carbide

Occidental Petroleum

Pan American World Airways

Sadly, it will likely be the disasters and huge loss of life due to totally or in part of alleged negligence and breaches of safety of those companies.

It would be tantamount to corporate suicide to compromise safety as the above organisations can testify - well those that still exist anyway. The cost of safety failure within a company not only affects the balance books, but the negative image and reputation will never be eradicated.

As alluded to earlier in the thread, 'killing people is bad for business'!

The most significant cost in safety failures is sadly human pain and suffering - not just for the immediate victims, but also their families.

With airlines in particular, once passenger confidence in safety within an organisation has diminished, that company will find it difficult to survive.

Of course, there are certain regions and indeed some airlines that have a higher prevalence of incidents. If you are concerned, you can then perform your own risk assessment by deciding if you are prepared to fly with an airline that has a higher than average rate of accidents.

Is it worth paying the extra cost and making the additional effort of rerouting or changing flights to avoid that airline that may or may not be more prone to an accident/incident? That could be perceived as a personal cost/benefit analysis.

I am unsure if the following applies to aviation, but in occupational health & safety, there is what is known as the 'Heinrich Triangle Theory'

In 1931, H.W. Heinrich reported on a study of accidents that he classified according to severity. His report showed that for each serious-injury incident, we could expect about 29 minor injuries and 300 near-miss or property-damage incidents. His conclusions are often depicted with a pyramid or triangle indicating a single serious incident at the peak and a broad base of non-injury incidents.
http://www.symbolix.com.au/storage/post-images/Heinrichs%20Triangle.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12452182 70152

This principle may not apply totally to the aviation industry due to the fact that one lapse of safety could result in catastrophe and I would not expect such a high number of incidents as detailed in the triangle, however, I am sure someone could provide statistics.

I will also refer to the occupational health and safety principles of control. It is well established that personal protective equipment (PPE) is ALWAYS the last resort and is ALWAYS at the bottom of the hierarchy of preventative measures.

The principles of control are usually elimination of the risk, reduce, isolate etc. etc. again, with PPE being the last measure.

This is simply because if you need to use PPE, the other preventative measures and controls have either failed or have not been 'reasonably practicable' to implement. This would likely have been determined following a risk assessment/cost benefit analysis of the exposure to the risk.

I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.

Eliminating and controlling risks by using physical engineering controls and safeguards is more reliable than depending on people.

I am not questioning the ability of the people responsible for flight safety, but I am referring to the passengers response to an incident which would likely result in a panic situation.

It would be the cabin crew who I am confident would control such a situation by virtue of their training (another control) although lets not totally disregard that human failure is sometimes a major contributory factor in some incidents.

Therefore, IMHO, I believe that by targeting the potential/likely causes of accidents and incidents by reducing or eliminating risks which airlines do, that greatly decreases the need to use smoke hoods, rear facing seats and four point belts.

I honestly believe that having to implement the use of such equipment on a mandatory basis is completely disproportionate to the risk.

Final 3 Greens

2nd Feb 2010, 13:06

Passy777

Interesting post; Unless I am missing something, etrang, you and me are saying pretty much the same thing, in different words.

I have used Heinrich as well, AFAIK the airline industry often uses the 'Swiss Cheese' model of Prof. James Reason of Manchester in a similar way.

I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.

I would use the words 'mitigation of impact risk response' to describe these pieces of equipment, as opposed to 'mitigation of probability risk response', which says prevention is better than the cure.

In terms of physical design, are you citing Poka Yoke and Shingo ? I ask, because I would be very interested if you have an alternate reference.

My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.

passy777

2nd Feb 2010, 15:00

My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.

Although it cannot be disputed that the immediate cause of the liner's demise was due to the impact with an iceberg, there were many underlying causes, one of which you highlighted in your posting with reference to the limited capabilities of the hull design following such an impact, although that was a consequence of the impact - not the cause.

Of course, many lives were indeed lost as a result of the limited numbers of lifeboats - a serious and unacceptable failing and had that issue been assessed and addressed appropriately, remedial action (the provision of lifeboats in proportion to the passengers carried) would have significantly reduced the number of souls lost.

What is relevant to this thread is that all of the controls that should have prevented such a disaster had failed with only lifeboats available to the lucky ones.

The life jackets although doing their job by keeping victims afloat, could not protect them from the freezing Atlantic.

It could also be argued that the White Star Line were negligent as they had obviously overestimated the ships capabilities and not identified its limitations - that view is compounded by the company's claim that the ship was unsinkable.

Let's not forget there were human failings that were also contributory factors - none more so than the Captain himself and the company who seemingly put him under pressure to arrive on schedule.

I think the White Star Line fully deserves to be on my list.

Like many disasters, lessons were learnt which ensures safer travel today whether it be on a train, boat or plane. We learn from previous failings and implement more safety features into all of our modes of transport and the aviation industry should be proud of its safety record, although let us never forget the lives lost that have made air travel as safe as it is today.

Sadly, there will likely be more incidents in the future, but I am confident that when I step onto an aircraft that I will arrive at my destination safely, although (like all modes of transport) there will always be an element of risk.

Pax Vobiscum

3rd Feb 2010, 15:28

So, the argument is that safety can't be the airlines' #1 priority because it is subject to cost-benefit trade-offs. But stating that x is our #1 priority implies that there are also #2, #3, #4, ... priorities. For an airline these will include making a profit, delivering customer satisfaction, keeping staff motivated etc.

Now, if I can make a small improvement to my #1 priority, but at the cost of a significantly greater reduction in some lower priority item, it seems to me that I might choose not to make that improvement and yet still legitimately claim that it remains my #1 priority. Only if I reject the opportunity to improve my #1 priority because of a lesser negative impact to some lower priority item have I demonstrated that it is not really my #1 priority.

And I don't see that this has yet been shown to be the case regarding airlines and safety.

Final 3 Greens

3rd Feb 2010, 17:53

Pax

I hate to have to break the news, but when constraints compete, the factor that drives the decision is the #1 priority.

The details of the trade off are irrelevant.

You are making a fatuous argument here, as no one is saying that safety is not a very high priority or that the airlines take unreasonable risks, I re-iterate that they make very sound decisions.

But if safety was the number one priority, it would be more important than profit and we might have sprinkler systems, smokehoods etc.

The effect of this would be to make air travel much more expensive and unattractive/unaffordable to many.

For your info, as a management consultant, I worked in the business side of a major airline for nearly 12 months and got involved in making recommendations that balanced cost, time and safety.

passy777

3rd Feb 2010, 22:57

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.

Final 3 Greens

4th Feb 2010, 05:19

Passy777

Agree completely about prevention.

Ultimately it comes down a pragmatic view of what is achievable.

Rear facing seats (although some authorities are unconvinced), smokehoods, sprinkler systems etc etc etc may, under certain circumstances, save lives or serious injuries, but the cost is prohibitive and commercially unjustifiable as those events happen so infrequently.

I also agree about the human factor; Chernobyl reminds me of the capacity for people to cause disaster by deliberately overriding safety mechanisms.

Airlines tend to profile their crew very carefully to avoid the above syndrome.

lowcostdolly

5th Feb 2010, 15:40

Thank you F3G re your post on cabin crew being different to airline management.....spot on :ok:

Thats maybe why etrang thourght I was being emotional. When I spend every single working day putting safety as my top priority and working with Pilots who do the same it is hard when you read on here that pax think that all we are interested in is profit above all else.

I don't doubt that in my own, and probably most other airlines their are middle managers and execs who would rather not have to consider safety above profit as for them it is irritating as their annual bonus depends on the airlines profit.

Thankfully for all of us, crew and pax, they are the meat in the sandwich. Above them are the CAA who do all the stuff re cost/benefit that is way above my paygrade but these managers are answerable to them. They have to comply with what the CAA say.

Below middle management are the Pilots and CC, the people who you guys meet on every flight. We go nowhere if the plane is not airworthy as the Pilot just would not accept it for flight regardless of delay costs. In addition I have been on numerous flights where we have been delayed on the ground because of "minor" issues which needed sorting out and signed off by our engineers. They don't rush this because of our on time performance/costs..... it takes as long as it takes.

Whatever your opinions of airline management motives please remember that at the end of the day your safety on that flight depends on the crew rostered on it. I have yet to meet any Captain in all my years of flying that would take any cr*p from the beancounters re profit over safety.

LCD :)

Pax Vobiscum

5th Feb 2010, 19:59

when constraints compete, the factor that drives the decision is the #1 priority
That's simply wrong, and apparently contradicted by your last sentence about balancing cost, time and safety. Let's suppose profit is my #1 priority with safety at #2. If I could double my safety by reducing my profit by £1, should I refuse to do so? No, of course I would take a balanced view and decide that the tiny loss of profit could be outweighed by the large improvement in safety. But that wouldn't alter the fact that profit remained my #1 priority.

And FYI, I'm never impressed by the "I'm a management consultant, don't you know how important I am?" line. I've met quite a few able and competent folks who called themselves management consultants - and a lot of crap ones, too.

Final 3 Greens

6th Feb 2010, 03:48

Pax Vobiscum

I mentioned that I had worked with an airline as a management consultant to avoid giving the impression that I was/had been an airline manager, which would have been false.

Nonetheless, I did have to investigate options to solve problems and justify my recommendations to airline managers.

That is where I learned about how airlines make trade offs.

Now tell me, how much experience have you working inside an airline?

Final 3 Greens

6th Feb 2010, 04:00

Dolly

I don't doubt that in my own, and probably most other airlines their are middle managers and execs who would rather not have to consider safety above profit as for them it is irritating as their annual bonus depends on the airlines profit.

I never saw any behaviour like that.

What I did see was the knife edge economics of running an airline severely constraining options.

Even the CAA is very careful about introducing 'asymmetric requirements' that would allow other airlines in other jurisdictions to have an advantage, something that becomes clear if one reads Hansard from 1999 (the committee I mentioned earlier in the thread.)

As I said before, the airlines do a very good job of making trade offs.

etrang

7th Feb 2010, 09:17

it is hard when you read on here that pax think that all we are interested in is profit above all else.

You obviously misunderstood, dolly, or didn't bother to read what i said, because i didn't say anything like that at all. Regarding the rest of your post, you might find it instructive to do a search using the term "fatigue" on the flight deck folders (especially rumours and news) and read the results.

lowcostdolly

7th Feb 2010, 14:46

etrang yes I did "bother to read" your post thank you, all of them in fact as I've found pax perceptions on this thread very interesting.

I misunderstood? Maybe? But I'm not the only one am I? Pax Vobiscum you "forgive" for misunderstanding you and AbusingtheSky also "struggles" to get your point as it seems am I. Maybe it has something to do with the way you are coming across if a few people are apparently :confused: here.

Regarding your quote from my post above. This is the pax forum is it not? Your post 13 and 32 clearly alludes to profit being placed above safety as does F3G's post 47 or have I misunderstood these as well?

I did my search as you suggested. 242 results came up. Not one of them from the safety forum so I didn't look further. Safety is what is being discussed here right?

F3G you have never seen the behaviour I described as a management consultant. Why am I not surprised at that? :hmm:. I'm not doubting the accuracy/integrity of your post BTW.

This thread is rapidly turning into a who can have the last word on safety being the number one priority.

IMHO Tightslot did in post #16 very well on reflection.

Final 3 Greens

7th Feb 2010, 15:43

F3G you have never seen the behaviour I described as a management consultant. Why am I not surprised at that?

Don't know. Maybe you worked as management consultant too?

Once again, airlines take very cautious decisions on matters involving safety and the track record of modern flying is testament to that, it is extremely safe.

I thought Tighslot's summary in #16 was very good too.

Pax Vobiscum

8th Feb 2010, 17:36

I may have lost my way a little with this thread. I didn't realise one needed to be a management consultant working in the airline business to identify an obvious logical error. For the avoidance of doubt, I've never worked for an airline, either as an employee or a consultant. I actually rather doubt that safety, while undoubtedly important, is the single most important factor in the management thinking of airlines - if it were we wouldn't see so many of them operating so close to the minimum safety standards imposed by the relevant authorities (which are, of course, already extremely safe).

But the existence of a possible safety feature (such as the provision of smoke-hoods) that has not been implemented does not of itself prove that safety is not the number one priority (although it does demonstrate that safety is not the only priority, which should not surprise anyone). That is all I have been endeavouring to point out.

lowcostdolly

9th Feb 2010, 14:16

Pax I too have lost my way a little with this thread. I totally get where you are coming from though :)

"Management thinking of airlines" struck a cord with me because the "thinking" of my managers is sometimes very different to my reality on board a plane as an SCCM. At all times safety is my #1 priority.

I'm met with many situations where I have competing company priorities. At my mob this is usually safety, profit and on time performance (OTP).

Hypothetical example is the night Ibiza. It's running on time and is full of young party goers who have already had a drink or few in the terminal. They are also anxious to get started on the bar on board which is very lucrative for the company and the CC......we can earn loads of commision on these flights and the company's profit per seat rockets so management is happy :ok:

A few (say a party of 10) start kicking off on the ground. They get off and if we have to call the Police to do this we do. There goes our OTP and all the profit per seat we might have got from this lot in the interests of safety. If this happened in the air we would divert.....Simples!! Safety would be the #1 priority here

That is why I also get where F3G is coming from on this. It is the priority at the time that drives decisions.

If I make a decision based on safety vs profit vs OTP I have to justify this to my managers via a Cabin Safety Report which is signed off by the Captain. Even then sometimes I'm called in for a "chat" to talk about why I took the decisions I did to a CC manager.

F3G I've never worked as a management consultant but I have dealt with consultants outside aviation as a Manager. What is said to outside scrutiny/consultation by managers is sometimes different to reality for the people at the sharp end. That is why i did not doubt your post in any way or was I surprised at what you said re management behaviour.

west lakes

9th Feb 2010, 14:31

This phrase is commonly used in any safety decision, which will not be someones bright idea but carefully researched and risk assessed.

Reasonably practicable

What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact). The Court of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales) held in 1949 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949) that:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonably_practicable#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonably_practicable#cite_note-13) ... in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost.
– Lord Justice Tucker
— and: Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them.
– Lord Justice Asquith
or in other words if the cost of improving safety is high in relation to the actual improvement or the risk is low it can be discounted.
I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!

passy777

9th Feb 2010, 15:29

This phrase is commonly used in any safety decision, which will not be someones bright idea but carefully researched and risk assessed.

Quote:
Reasonably practicable

What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact). The Court of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales) held in 1949 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949) that:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonably_practicable#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonably_practicable#cite_note-13)... in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost.– Lord Justice Tucker

— and:Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them.– Lord Justice Asquithor in other words if the cost of improving safety is high in relation to the actual improvement or the risk is low it can be discounted.
I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!

The term 'so far as reasonably practicable' which is a key element of UK health & safety legislation, was recently challenged by the European Commission as it did not conform to European Directives (The Framework Directive).

The "so far as reasonably practicable" wording has been a long standing feature of English law and predates even the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA). It introduces flexibility into the law and contrasts with some other Member State legal systems where the law is written in absolute terms.

The EC's complaint is based upon section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure "so far as is reasonable practicable" (SFAIRP) the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. The EC considers the SFAIRP qualification placed upon the employers' duty is incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the Directive.

The Framework Directive Article 5(1) imposes a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers in every aspect related to the work.

Article 5(4) provides that the Directive "shall not restrict the option of Member States to provide for the exclusion or the limitation of employers' responsibility where occurrences are due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the employers' control, or to exceptional events, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care."

The ECJ rejected the EC's claim.

Had the European Directive been implemented here in the UK, then potentially, there could have been repercussions for cost/benefit analysis and a nightmare for those responsible for health & safety- and they keep telling us to 'keep it simple' which is an ideal concept, but due to the myriad of legislation and a more litigious society, just impossible to realise.

What is a pain here in the UK is that we have to adopt EU health & safety directives alongside our own effective and well established laws.

Just like most things here in Britain, any EU legislation that benefits the general public or will be costly to implement will be rejected, any new rules that brings extra money into the government’s coffers to the general public’s detriment will be efficiently brought in.

We are either in Europe or not - seemingly only when it suits!

Two-Tone-Blue

9th Feb 2010, 17:04

I have read the Thread ... honestly. Some VERY interesting points have been made. But the bottom line is that no system is going to be perfect. The more complex aircraft become, the more opportunities for systems failures. The more crowded the skies ... etc etc.

At the risk of trivialising the debate, I'll make one comparison. I am perfectly comfortable flying in civil air transport, because the aircraft captain is nearest the impact point if things go wrong. Somehow I never get the same comfortable sensation when driving on a motorway/freeway, despite the innumerable airbags and ABS.

My wife and I often joke about "lifejacket is under your seat" - an uncontrolled descent from FL350 could make that as irrelevant as a smoke hood when landing on the Hudson River.

I have NO safety fears when flying with a proper airline. I also accept, from my 30+ years in the world of aviation, that sometimes things may go wrong. I've had more "near death" experiences on the roads.