Merged: Affordable Safety - Or Unaffordable Accident?
Thread Starter
Does day really follow night (continued)
I notice the thread has been locked but there were very serious questions raised. Here are the answers.
Scurvy, an acceptable risk criteria will always look at cost – otherwise it runs the risk of “misallocating” the finite safety dollars that are available. Once you misallocate these dollars you get less safety. It is as simple as that.
Peuce, you have stated:
Most certainly if the statement was factual. Have a look at Mount Isa. It did have an air traffic control tower and this was closed because it was a misallocation of the safety dollars. It is better to spend the $1.5 million per annum elsewhere because more lives could be saved.
It is exactly the same situation with rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. This was closed and over $20 million has been saved. Some of this money went to building a new fire station at a better location at Coolangatta. This meant more passengers could be saved with the money spent.
Scurvy, an acceptable risk criteria will always look at cost – otherwise it runs the risk of “misallocating” the finite safety dollars that are available. Once you misallocate these dollars you get less safety. It is as simple as that.
Peuce, you have stated:
say we said we can't afford Air Traffic Control ... would the Government agree to get rid of it?
It is exactly the same situation with rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. This was closed and over $20 million has been saved. Some of this money went to building a new fire station at a better location at Coolangatta. This meant more passengers could be saved with the money spent.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Affordable Safety - Or Unaffordable Accident?
Affordable Safety – Day or Night
Dick Smith raised a post yesterday, which seems to have been closed off perhaps a little too hastily – and I suspect that I might suffer the same fate – but I would like to respond – first flippantly – and then seriously.
First – the flippant responses.
Dick proposed that the Sun always rises in the east. In fact, to be absolutely correct, Dick, in relative terms [relative to our solar system, that is], the Sun doesn’t move at all – it is the Earth that rotates about its own axis, and around the Sun, causing the concepts of night and day and seasons. In truth, the Earth sets rather than the Sun rises.
Dick also proposed that night always follows day. Again a ‘minor’ factual inaccuracy [as you are prone to do often, Dick]. In fact, in most parts of the world, the calendar day begins at midnight, and ends at midnight 24 hours later. In most parts of the world, it is dark at midnight – hence we say it is night-time. So, in most parts of the world, night both precedes AND follows day – i.e., day is squeezed between two periods of night.
In some parts of the world – most notably the Middle East – the ‘day’ actually begins at sunset – so it may actually be tomorrow in the Middle East when it is still today in ‘western’ terms. Believe me, it can be confusing when you’re asked to a person’s home tomorrow night [which is actually tonight in western terms]. So, in the Middle East, night-time ALWAYS precedes day-time.
But enough of the flippancy.
To the main thrust of Dick’s post – affordable safety. Though I don’t have the exact references in front of me as I write, the numbers I’m about to quote are ball-park correct. According to IATA, and according to ICAO, and according to Eurocontrol, total aviation costs world-wide amount to around 2% of Global Gross Domestic Product [GGDP] – but contribute 8% of the world’s GGDP – that is, you get a 4 to 1 ‘bang for your buck’ from global aviation. So, if you are going to argue affordable safety, you need to look beyond the costs to aviation industry partners, and look at the beneficiaries of aviation services. The ability for people in Europe to give red roses to loved ones on St Valentine’s day doesn’t come from wonderful farming techniques in Belgium – it comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry flowers from South America. The ability to buy fresh unseasonal fruit and vegetables at any time of the year at any place in Australia comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry freight and cargo underneath fare-paying passengers. I could cite thousands of examples of the relative benefit versus cost of aviation, and the size of the ‘user’ community that should be investing in aviation safety. It is NOT just the aviation community that needs to invest in aviation safety – it is the entire beneficiary community – most often best represented by governments.
It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that governments will invest a lot more heavily in aviation infrastructure than immediately looks realistic from an aviation only point of view. They need to protect their economies, and where else do you get a 4 to 1 return on investment.
There is also the counter argument to affordable safety – and that is unaffordable accidents. Perhaps nowhere else is the spectre of an accident more haunting than in aviation – and perhaps nowhere else is an accident’s effect more immediately detrimental to the economy. Look at the huge downturns in the industry associated with major accidents, and major incidents, including 9/11, SARS, and so on.
To put this in simple terms - whilst people naturally don’t want to pay more than they have to for a service, they sure as hell don’t want to pay the consequences of not having paid just that little bit more. Look at what happened recently in a major Australian city. People complained about rising energy costs, so the energy provider cut back on investment in infrastructure. Customers were happy their bills were ‘under control’. Suddenly we had 3 days of soaring temperatures – blackouts across the city – 42 degrees and no a/c for a day – who screamed – the consumers.
I assure you we’d see the same response from the public if applying ‘affordable safety’ principles based on the ability of relatively small aviation community alone to pay resulted in an accident – or even a disruption in the supply chain.
Dick – I don’t think anyone has a problem with the [small ‘a’, small ‘s’] affordable safety concept that is used in most countries. Your concept of Affordable Safety just doesn’t recognise the ‘greater good’ of aviation.
Dick Smith raised a post yesterday, which seems to have been closed off perhaps a little too hastily – and I suspect that I might suffer the same fate – but I would like to respond – first flippantly – and then seriously.
First – the flippant responses.
Dick proposed that the Sun always rises in the east. In fact, to be absolutely correct, Dick, in relative terms [relative to our solar system, that is], the Sun doesn’t move at all – it is the Earth that rotates about its own axis, and around the Sun, causing the concepts of night and day and seasons. In truth, the Earth sets rather than the Sun rises.
Dick also proposed that night always follows day. Again a ‘minor’ factual inaccuracy [as you are prone to do often, Dick]. In fact, in most parts of the world, the calendar day begins at midnight, and ends at midnight 24 hours later. In most parts of the world, it is dark at midnight – hence we say it is night-time. So, in most parts of the world, night both precedes AND follows day – i.e., day is squeezed between two periods of night.
In some parts of the world – most notably the Middle East – the ‘day’ actually begins at sunset – so it may actually be tomorrow in the Middle East when it is still today in ‘western’ terms. Believe me, it can be confusing when you’re asked to a person’s home tomorrow night [which is actually tonight in western terms]. So, in the Middle East, night-time ALWAYS precedes day-time.
But enough of the flippancy.
To the main thrust of Dick’s post – affordable safety. Though I don’t have the exact references in front of me as I write, the numbers I’m about to quote are ball-park correct. According to IATA, and according to ICAO, and according to Eurocontrol, total aviation costs world-wide amount to around 2% of Global Gross Domestic Product [GGDP] – but contribute 8% of the world’s GGDP – that is, you get a 4 to 1 ‘bang for your buck’ from global aviation. So, if you are going to argue affordable safety, you need to look beyond the costs to aviation industry partners, and look at the beneficiaries of aviation services. The ability for people in Europe to give red roses to loved ones on St Valentine’s day doesn’t come from wonderful farming techniques in Belgium – it comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry flowers from South America. The ability to buy fresh unseasonal fruit and vegetables at any time of the year at any place in Australia comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry freight and cargo underneath fare-paying passengers. I could cite thousands of examples of the relative benefit versus cost of aviation, and the size of the ‘user’ community that should be investing in aviation safety. It is NOT just the aviation community that needs to invest in aviation safety – it is the entire beneficiary community – most often best represented by governments.
It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that governments will invest a lot more heavily in aviation infrastructure than immediately looks realistic from an aviation only point of view. They need to protect their economies, and where else do you get a 4 to 1 return on investment.
There is also the counter argument to affordable safety – and that is unaffordable accidents. Perhaps nowhere else is the spectre of an accident more haunting than in aviation – and perhaps nowhere else is an accident’s effect more immediately detrimental to the economy. Look at the huge downturns in the industry associated with major accidents, and major incidents, including 9/11, SARS, and so on.
To put this in simple terms - whilst people naturally don’t want to pay more than they have to for a service, they sure as hell don’t want to pay the consequences of not having paid just that little bit more. Look at what happened recently in a major Australian city. People complained about rising energy costs, so the energy provider cut back on investment in infrastructure. Customers were happy their bills were ‘under control’. Suddenly we had 3 days of soaring temperatures – blackouts across the city – 42 degrees and no a/c for a day – who screamed – the consumers.
I assure you we’d see the same response from the public if applying ‘affordable safety’ principles based on the ability of relatively small aviation community alone to pay resulted in an accident – or even a disruption in the supply chain.
Dick – I don’t think anyone has a problem with the [small ‘a’, small ‘s’] affordable safety concept that is used in most countries. Your concept of Affordable Safety just doesn’t recognise the ‘greater good’ of aviation.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trick of course is who makes these decisions and how much is too much and where then is the money to be spent....
In other words who decides what an acceptable risk is and where the line in the sand is drawn...
In other words who decides what an acceptable risk is and where the line in the sand is drawn...
..... is there more than one WELLCONCERNED 
re: the above post
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXACERY 
.
... the decision is not Dick Smith's, MJBow, Scurvy.D.Dog's or any other individual
.
... notwitstanding Dick .. you avoided the thrust of my answer/question anyhow .... AGAIN
.
... MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job
.
... then lets compare!!
.
... the decision is not Dick Smith's, MJBow, Scurvy.D.Dog's or any other individual
.
... notwitstanding Dick .. you avoided the thrust of my answer/question anyhow .... AGAIN
.
... MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job
.
... then lets compare!!
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 3rd Jan 2008 at 03:45.
Thread Starter
Lowerlobe, you state:
I personally don’t believe there is any such thing as “acceptable risk” when it comes to flying in airline aircraft. We all want a flight without any risk. What is forced on us is the reality of the amount of resources we have in reducing risk. Because those resources are limited by what we can afford, we then have risk forced on us.
Note that it is not so much that it is acceptable, it is simply what is forced on us by the reality that we only have limited resources.
In other words who decides what an acceptable risk is and where the line in the sand is drawn...
Note that it is not so much that it is acceptable, it is simply what is forced on us by the reality that we only have limited resources.
Thread Starter
Wellconcerned, actually I don’t have a “concept” of affordable safety, I’m just stating that it is a truism.
What you seem to be mixed up with is that you think – erroneously – that I believe the people who pay for aviation safety should just be the people who benefit from this safety. That is not actually my belief. I would be quite delighted to have general taxpayers contributing towards air safety.
The problem is that the basic truism of affordable safety remains the same whether one poor person pays for it, whether Jamie Packer pays for it, or whether the whole community pays for it. That is, if you misallocate the resources you end up with less safety.
What you seem to be mixed up with is that you think – erroneously – that I believe the people who pay for aviation safety should just be the people who benefit from this safety. That is not actually my belief. I would be quite delighted to have general taxpayers contributing towards air safety.
The problem is that the basic truism of affordable safety remains the same whether one poor person pays for it, whether Jamie Packer pays for it, or whether the whole community pays for it. That is, if you misallocate the resources you end up with less safety.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and Mr Smith, you're missing my point. It's not about misallocation of resources - it's about ensuring there are adequate resources available in the first place to ensure that the returns from our aviation industry are protected and enhanced.
You attack the resource issue by saying that because there isn't enough, we should apportion what's left in a different manner - which appears to provide 'appropriate levels of safety', but which is, in fact, a smaoke and mirrors exercise.
IF you read the various threads on this site closely, you'll see that ATC staff are stretched, there is a shortage of skilled pilots, engineers, and other skilled aviation personnel, and there is a substantial focus on cost-cutting and profit-before-anything - all within the context of 'affordable safety'.
No, I'm not advocating wasting vast amounts of taxpayer - or even aviation sector - money on unjustifiable programs - but lets make sure we start from a point of understanding that recognises the value of aviation to this nation's security and economy - and then allocating an appropriate amount of resource to protect it.
Use your connections to lobby the Minister and government to provide resource in the first place - don't lobby them to re-allocate the already scarce resources we current have, to the detriment of our industry.
You attack the resource issue by saying that because there isn't enough, we should apportion what's left in a different manner - which appears to provide 'appropriate levels of safety', but which is, in fact, a smaoke and mirrors exercise.
IF you read the various threads on this site closely, you'll see that ATC staff are stretched, there is a shortage of skilled pilots, engineers, and other skilled aviation personnel, and there is a substantial focus on cost-cutting and profit-before-anything - all within the context of 'affordable safety'.
No, I'm not advocating wasting vast amounts of taxpayer - or even aviation sector - money on unjustifiable programs - but lets make sure we start from a point of understanding that recognises the value of aviation to this nation's security and economy - and then allocating an appropriate amount of resource to protect it.
Use your connections to lobby the Minister and government to provide resource in the first place - don't lobby them to re-allocate the already scarce resources we current have, to the detriment of our industry.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy D Dog
MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job
They are not interested in our 1950's style airspace, however we are quite interested in theirs which is why NAS is a parliament approved government policy. It makes sense to find out how they make it work so well given their experience with managing competing interests in airspace use.
MJ
MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or can we have you lobby for the level of affordable safety that is available in the US? ie. funded by general revenue, and not as the residual of profit-taking by the govt?
Or once again, will you run for cover and go silent when this aspect of the super-duper 'US System" is mentioned?
mjbow....Dick....anyone?
I mentioned the charging regime, but I think I got away with it
Or once again, will you run for cover and go silent when this aspect of the super-duper 'US System" is mentioned?
mjbow....Dick....anyone?
I mentioned the charging regime, but I think I got away with it
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris et al,
Given the enormous benefit that derives from aviation, it's not unreasonable to expect the Government of Australia to fund the major parts of the infrastructure required to provide air traffic services across Australia, and to contract out the service provision [i.e., to give a company like Airservices the responsibility to operate the system].
If Airservices or others didn't have to worry about funding new equipment, or technologies, and only had to focus on provision of resources, then I suspect that the economic equations might be easier to manage.
This is effectively what happens in the US - FAA budgets for staff - but also requests separate funding direct from government for major infrastructure and associated upgrade.
So, part of the 4 to 1 cost benefit is provided to us by government as enabling infrastructure, and the parts that are funded by industry relate to service provision.
Unlike the 50's and 60's, though, any infrastructure decisions would have to be made within a framework of industry need, and global harmonisation.
Given the enormous benefit that derives from aviation, it's not unreasonable to expect the Government of Australia to fund the major parts of the infrastructure required to provide air traffic services across Australia, and to contract out the service provision [i.e., to give a company like Airservices the responsibility to operate the system].
If Airservices or others didn't have to worry about funding new equipment, or technologies, and only had to focus on provision of resources, then I suspect that the economic equations might be easier to manage.
This is effectively what happens in the US - FAA budgets for staff - but also requests separate funding direct from government for major infrastructure and associated upgrade.
So, part of the 4 to 1 cost benefit is provided to us by government as enabling infrastructure, and the parts that are funded by industry relate to service provision.
Unlike the 50's and 60's, though, any infrastructure decisions would have to be made within a framework of industry need, and global harmonisation.
Thread Starter
Ferris, I’m not against the US charging system - which is based on a ticket levy and fuel taxes, plus an amount from the general taxpayer. It is just that it is not going to happen here. Look at all the political parties – no one supports it.
I can’t see myself wasting time on something which is not achievable. Also, journalists will correctly point out that I am well off and all I’m trying to do is to get other people to subsidise my flying. I’m not against you attempting this, however I think it is going to be very difficult.
I am actually for moving ahead with doing things better – such as having the best airspace system possible, and aviation safety regulations which are modern and international harmonised without adding unnecessarily to costs.
I can’t see myself wasting time on something which is not achievable. Also, journalists will correctly point out that I am well off and all I’m trying to do is to get other people to subsidise my flying. I’m not against you attempting this, however I think it is going to be very difficult.
I am actually for moving ahead with doing things better – such as having the best airspace system possible, and aviation safety regulations which are modern and international harmonised without adding unnecessarily to costs.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t see myself wasting time on something which is not achievable.
Also, journalists will correctly point out that I am well off and all I’m trying to do is to get other people to subsidise my flying.
.
.... were you to support a system that make the cost affordable for the little bloke .... you would not be seen as you suggest!
I’m not against you attempting this, however I think it is going to be very difficult.
Grandpa Aerotart
The big problem with 'user pays' has always been that the 'user' is very narrowly and incorrectly defined for political purposes.
As I have said before, over and over, if every GA aircraft (say everything below Metros) disappeared tomorrow essentially nothing would change within the ATC system...it would still be needed in its current form.
If every aircraft above Metros disappeared tomorrow the entire ATC system would be redundant and have to be closed down.
So who is the real 'user'?
As wellconcerned suggested above it is the economy...society if you will. That being the case the ATC system should be funded as per the US model as the fairest way...but note the US airline management are trying VERY hard to change to the style of user pays system that we have...because it is about the only way left they can think of to gain unfair advantage by passing some of their costs on to the part of the industry that does not need the ATC system and bolster their year end bonuses.
We used to have DCA/DOTA/CAA...one Govt department funded from a mix of taxes (general revenue and fuel tax) and it was a system that basically worked quite well.
Now we have three Govt depts, CASA/AsA/ATSB, two of which are GBEs required to return a dividend (profit) to Govt.
Much like Dick's diurnal analogy above it is a simple fact that a beaurocracy's first loyalty is to itself...to get bigger and be more important....to look busy and justify their existence with ever more complicated rules and procedures that attract Lawyers to the mix in ever increasing numbers too...never a good thing.
'Yes Minister' was actually more a documentary than a comedy...and a prescient one at that.
It is also a simple fact that Australia's civil aviation industry CANNOT afford the grotesque overburden of beaurocrats we are currently burdened with.
We used to pay fuel tax and we still do...it's just called GST now rather than fuel tax. Nothing, charts etc, was ever free in the old days...we paid for everything but it was done in a fair and equitable way, or as fair as possible.
The only real way forward is to reduce the beaurocratic burden down to 1/3rd it current size, remove the profit motive from that reduced beaurocracy and fund it as the US model currently does by having a ticket tax on the end users of the ATC system...the passengers.
As to GA recognise it's essential importance to society as a training ground for future airline pilots and Engineers , 'high tech' Employer, provider of essential regional services and lastly recreational flying.
Recognise that the GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labor and $ of capital MORE THAN covers the costs (way, WAY more than covers the costs) of GA's participation in the system.
You think aviation is booming now?
Do all the above and watch the resultant BOOM!!!
As I have said before, over and over, if every GA aircraft (say everything below Metros) disappeared tomorrow essentially nothing would change within the ATC system...it would still be needed in its current form.
If every aircraft above Metros disappeared tomorrow the entire ATC system would be redundant and have to be closed down.
So who is the real 'user'?
As wellconcerned suggested above it is the economy...society if you will. That being the case the ATC system should be funded as per the US model as the fairest way...but note the US airline management are trying VERY hard to change to the style of user pays system that we have...because it is about the only way left they can think of to gain unfair advantage by passing some of their costs on to the part of the industry that does not need the ATC system and bolster their year end bonuses.
We used to have DCA/DOTA/CAA...one Govt department funded from a mix of taxes (general revenue and fuel tax) and it was a system that basically worked quite well.
Now we have three Govt depts, CASA/AsA/ATSB, two of which are GBEs required to return a dividend (profit) to Govt.
Much like Dick's diurnal analogy above it is a simple fact that a beaurocracy's first loyalty is to itself...to get bigger and be more important....to look busy and justify their existence with ever more complicated rules and procedures that attract Lawyers to the mix in ever increasing numbers too...never a good thing.
'Yes Minister' was actually more a documentary than a comedy...and a prescient one at that.
It is also a simple fact that Australia's civil aviation industry CANNOT afford the grotesque overburden of beaurocrats we are currently burdened with.
We used to pay fuel tax and we still do...it's just called GST now rather than fuel tax. Nothing, charts etc, was ever free in the old days...we paid for everything but it was done in a fair and equitable way, or as fair as possible.
The only real way forward is to reduce the beaurocratic burden down to 1/3rd it current size, remove the profit motive from that reduced beaurocracy and fund it as the US model currently does by having a ticket tax on the end users of the ATC system...the passengers.
As to GA recognise it's essential importance to society as a training ground for future airline pilots and Engineers , 'high tech' Employer, provider of essential regional services and lastly recreational flying.
Recognise that the GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labor and $ of capital MORE THAN covers the costs (way, WAY more than covers the costs) of GA's participation in the system.
You think aviation is booming now?
Do all the above and watch the resultant BOOM!!!
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 4th Jan 2008 at 03:51.
Chuck your ears must have been burning. You forgot to mention as per a post from yonks ago that the GST component on a stateless industry goes to the states. Not one cent gets spent by the states on aviation infrastructure because it is a federal issue...money for jam.
If you look at just a handful of aviation fatalities over the last couple of years. The loss of the Spud King , very very high income earning potential lost to the community(Easily in the $200mills) The Benalla crash (possibly as high as $200mill) and Hotham ($300mill) The individuals lost in these three crashes are a considerable loss to the gross product of this nation. Granted their companies may continue after their passing but what is lost to the families of those people. Dick How much is YOUR LIFE worth? How much are you insured for? People who fly in GA charter aircraft can be considered high value individuals Those three prangs may well have cost the community in excess of $300million in lost earnings.
LHR lost so many lives that even at the vehicle accident costs it exceeds $23mill. How much would it cost the Federal government to come to a deal with the Japanese government to get a WAAS signal from the MTSAT. How many prangs could be PREVENTED in the future by having a WAAS derived glideslope at every NPA. LHR HOT and BLA could quite possibly have never happened.
My intentions to draw a cost comparison here is to show affordable safety as a prevention doesn't work! Affordable safety only works as a cost recovery statistic. If money was spent these accidents may well have never happened. Aircraft accidents are not similar to auto accidents. Most all pilots have a skillset that make them resist flying into the unknown, this is to the benefit of the bean counters. Auto accidents are a statistical certainty. If you have a high speed train crossing a major highway at a crossing that doesn't have boom gates the odds are stacked that there will be an accident. How many accidents must happen before an overpass is built? How many fatalities? Aviation? We are all in the business of PREVENTION. Prevention saves money, Fatality COSTS money. Why is aviation industry prevention not funded to the same level as transport fatality outcomes?
Every aviation service was created AFTER a major fatal accident. Bean counters(the state) have been reducing the level of service to save money. They will keep cutting and cutting until there is a statistical possibility of a fatality occuring. Once this level is reached they will have their level of affordable safety. How much of this level of safety can be directly contributable to the skill of its operators despite the criminally low levels of safety provided for by the state?
That rogue futures trader a few years ago. The market in Japan showed it was about to collapse. The rogue trader was trying to protect a position . He singlehandedly (AND the bank funds he was using) propped up the Japanese economy despite the amount of money being bet that the jap market would fall over. How much skill in aviation is it going to take to keep supporting the market when the government is betting they can take out more money and services before an accident WILL happen.
AFFORDABLE SAFETY IS A CROC OF
T!
How many skilled/savy people left the department all those years ago?
How many skilled/savy people would they have trained to replace them?
We may never know what might have been nor what it would have really cost in prevention of fatality.
LHR lost so many lives that even at the vehicle accident costs it exceeds $23mill. How much would it cost the Federal government to come to a deal with the Japanese government to get a WAAS signal from the MTSAT. How many prangs could be PREVENTED in the future by having a WAAS derived glideslope at every NPA. LHR HOT and BLA could quite possibly have never happened.
My intentions to draw a cost comparison here is to show affordable safety as a prevention doesn't work! Affordable safety only works as a cost recovery statistic. If money was spent these accidents may well have never happened. Aircraft accidents are not similar to auto accidents. Most all pilots have a skillset that make them resist flying into the unknown, this is to the benefit of the bean counters. Auto accidents are a statistical certainty. If you have a high speed train crossing a major highway at a crossing that doesn't have boom gates the odds are stacked that there will be an accident. How many accidents must happen before an overpass is built? How many fatalities? Aviation? We are all in the business of PREVENTION. Prevention saves money, Fatality COSTS money. Why is aviation industry prevention not funded to the same level as transport fatality outcomes?
Every aviation service was created AFTER a major fatal accident. Bean counters(the state) have been reducing the level of service to save money. They will keep cutting and cutting until there is a statistical possibility of a fatality occuring. Once this level is reached they will have their level of affordable safety. How much of this level of safety can be directly contributable to the skill of its operators despite the criminally low levels of safety provided for by the state?
That rogue futures trader a few years ago. The market in Japan showed it was about to collapse. The rogue trader was trying to protect a position . He singlehandedly (AND the bank funds he was using) propped up the Japanese economy despite the amount of money being bet that the jap market would fall over. How much skill in aviation is it going to take to keep supporting the market when the government is betting they can take out more money and services before an accident WILL happen.
AFFORDABLE SAFETY IS A CROC OF
T!How many skilled/savy people left the department all those years ago?
How many skilled/savy people would they have trained to replace them?
We may never know what might have been nor what it would have really cost in prevention of fatality.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you may or may not be right about LHR or BLA, I don't think HOT is a good example for your WAAS. The circumstances and actions undertaken virtually guaranteed the result there sadly. WAAS or no WAAS
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZBUSDRIVER says
Aviation safety 20 years ago was affordable as it was being paid for. Aviation safety 10 years ago was affordable as it also was being paid for. Aviation safety today is affordable as it is being paid for.
All you Neocons decrying affordable safety as an untenable 'concept' already have it. Aviation safety is currently being paid for. Therefore by definition is affordable by the party paying for it! This is a fact, not an opinion or an idea.
You are so wound up in trying to appear to defeat anything that Dick Smith says that you cannot even see that you already have affordable safety right now. Everything for sale is either affordable or unaffordable. This is a fact. If you can grasp this simple fact you can then debate the real concept that Dick Smith is offering aviation here in Australia and that is a reallocation of how the aviation safety dollar is spent.
MJ
AFFORDABLE SAFETY IS A CROC OF T!
My intentions to draw a cost comparison here is to show affordable safety as a prevention doesn't work!
Aviation safety 20 years ago was affordable as it was being paid for. Aviation safety 10 years ago was affordable as it also was being paid for. Aviation safety today is affordable as it is being paid for.
All you Neocons decrying affordable safety as an untenable 'concept' already have it. Aviation safety is currently being paid for. Therefore by definition is affordable by the party paying for it! This is a fact, not an opinion or an idea.
You are so wound up in trying to appear to defeat anything that Dick Smith says that you cannot even see that you already have affordable safety right now. Everything for sale is either affordable or unaffordable. This is a fact. If you can grasp this simple fact you can then debate the real concept that Dick Smith is offering aviation here in Australia and that is a reallocation of how the aviation safety dollar is spent.
MJ