fire cover - do we really need it?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl,
it COULD make the difference between life or death! Every village has their fire brigades JUST IN CASE a fire breaks out, but thank God they don't!
In the case above, it WAS a licenced field and you can believe there were a lot of questions to answer afterwards. They were lucky no body got hurt.... or worse! This case is often used in seminars for field owners and helpers as an example of what should not happen!
I really don't understand why anybody should be against it. Do you think that doing away with them would reduce the landing fees? And training flights are much more at risk.
Westy
it COULD make the difference between life or death! Every village has their fire brigades JUST IN CASE a fire breaks out, but thank God they don't!
In the case above, it WAS a licenced field and you can believe there were a lot of questions to answer afterwards. They were lucky no body got hurt.... or worse! This case is often used in seminars for field owners and helpers as an example of what should not happen!
I really don't understand why anybody should be against it. Do you think that doing away with them would reduce the landing fees? And training flights are much more at risk.
Westy
Lets look at your assumptions:
1. 'It *could* make a difference...' etc etc
Except the demonstrated risk ie what has actually happened, shows no additional safety benefit. Ergo, it's effort & cost that is irrelevent.
2. 'Training flights are much more at risk.'
Again the demonstrated risk shows training as one of the safer aspects of GA flight, not riskier.
These are both arguments against the necessity for a fire service.
For all the arguments about 'could', 'might', 'conceivably', 'remotely' and so on down the likelyhood scale, aviation safety is, and has always been, a matter of proportional response to the level of risk and type of operation, not absolute safety.
Even the safest of aviation activities - jet airline operations - has probability applied, not absolutes, to determine acceptable safety rates as a result of design, planning & procedural interventions.
1. 'It *could* make a difference...' etc etc
Except the demonstrated risk ie what has actually happened, shows no additional safety benefit. Ergo, it's effort & cost that is irrelevent.
2. 'Training flights are much more at risk.'
Again the demonstrated risk shows training as one of the safer aspects of GA flight, not riskier.
These are both arguments against the necessity for a fire service.
For all the arguments about 'could', 'might', 'conceivably', 'remotely' and so on down the likelyhood scale, aviation safety is, and has always been, a matter of proportional response to the level of risk and type of operation, not absolute safety.
Even the safest of aviation activities - jet airline operations - has probability applied, not absolutes, to determine acceptable safety rates as a result of design, planning & procedural interventions.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 26th Nov 2004 at 22:37.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl,
there will NEVER be absolute safety in anything! But why not provide at least a minimum if it can make a difference? I'm sure many firefighters here in pprune would agree that they would rather sit around and do nothing then to not be there when needed!
Training IS more risky... the instructor cannot always recover the mistakes the student may do, and the student isn't practised enough. And excercises are performed in training that are not a part of everyday flying and COULD go wrong (like aborting take-off, etc.).
The cost isn't that much... the personel do not necessarily have to be "professional" firefighters... it's enough to have the field regulars trained in using the equipment! At some of the fields in Germany the club members get together once a year with the local fire department for a simulated training event. Or you can have the local department at least demonstrate to all the pilots that are stationed at the field and ground personel in the use of extinquishers! That doesn't cost anything! But at least they know how to handle them in case of an emergency!
And once the equipment is purchased, the only cost is having fuel in the vehicle and the extinquishers checked every 2 years. The vehicle itself can be an old fire truck that some professional department can't use anymore due to old age.... at a small local air field it's perfectly ok!
I don't see where the problem is really. I know that even having all the equipment on the field may not save the day, but it MAY just make the difference.
I rest my case
Westy
there will NEVER be absolute safety in anything! But why not provide at least a minimum if it can make a difference? I'm sure many firefighters here in pprune would agree that they would rather sit around and do nothing then to not be there when needed!
Training IS more risky... the instructor cannot always recover the mistakes the student may do, and the student isn't practised enough. And excercises are performed in training that are not a part of everyday flying and COULD go wrong (like aborting take-off, etc.).
The cost isn't that much... the personel do not necessarily have to be "professional" firefighters... it's enough to have the field regulars trained in using the equipment! At some of the fields in Germany the club members get together once a year with the local fire department for a simulated training event. Or you can have the local department at least demonstrate to all the pilots that are stationed at the field and ground personel in the use of extinquishers! That doesn't cost anything! But at least they know how to handle them in case of an emergency!
And once the equipment is purchased, the only cost is having fuel in the vehicle and the extinquishers checked every 2 years. The vehicle itself can be an old fire truck that some professional department can't use anymore due to old age.... at a small local air field it's perfectly ok!
I don't see where the problem is really. I know that even having all the equipment on the field may not save the day, but it MAY just make the difference.
I rest my case
Westy
No, training is *NOT* more risky. That's supported by the in-service accident rate, and not just a perception of things. That's the problem with a large part of your contention. Your presuming a case that is contradicted by in-service, demonstrated experience.
As for '...it MAY just make the difference.'......or in fact, as is borne out by demonstrated safety rates and not just supposition, it makes no, or negligable, difference.
You're arguing that just because something *MIGHT* make a difference then it should be done - nevermind that it's been shown to make little or no difference. To follow this logic, then we shouldn't be using these aircraft at all. They have no ability to continue flight if an engine fails (care to consider light twin certification?), no redundant load path requirement, parts retirement based on some buffer against the population failure rate average, etc etc ad nauseum. Changing these and many more factors in the design & operating philosphy might make a difference too. Shall we scrap these 'unsafe' contraptions? It MIGHT make a difference (in fact, it's arguable that only operating FAR25 or equiv, under public transport type rules, using airline transport pilots would make a difference. The cost, however, has never been acceptable).
The problem is that you're insisting on services that are largely irrelevent to typical GA operations, that impose restrictions on operations (what if they're not there when you need, or wish, to fly?), add cost (who pays for the equipment, maintenance & training? What about when some can't attend on that day/weekend?) yet make negligable difference to safety rates.
Whilst I have no problem with a voluntary scheme - if someone feels they like to do such a thing then good luck to them. But to insist on it based on supposition & fallacious argument is not acceptable. IF you can show a significant change in safety rates AND the resources wouldn't be better used elsewhere AND any restrictions as a result are not unnaceptable THEN youy have a point.
As for '...it MAY just make the difference.'......or in fact, as is borne out by demonstrated safety rates and not just supposition, it makes no, or negligable, difference.
You're arguing that just because something *MIGHT* make a difference then it should be done - nevermind that it's been shown to make little or no difference. To follow this logic, then we shouldn't be using these aircraft at all. They have no ability to continue flight if an engine fails (care to consider light twin certification?), no redundant load path requirement, parts retirement based on some buffer against the population failure rate average, etc etc ad nauseum. Changing these and many more factors in the design & operating philosphy might make a difference too. Shall we scrap these 'unsafe' contraptions? It MIGHT make a difference (in fact, it's arguable that only operating FAR25 or equiv, under public transport type rules, using airline transport pilots would make a difference. The cost, however, has never been acceptable).
The problem is that you're insisting on services that are largely irrelevent to typical GA operations, that impose restrictions on operations (what if they're not there when you need, or wish, to fly?), add cost (who pays for the equipment, maintenance & training? What about when some can't attend on that day/weekend?) yet make negligable difference to safety rates.
Whilst I have no problem with a voluntary scheme - if someone feels they like to do such a thing then good luck to them. But to insist on it based on supposition & fallacious argument is not acceptable. IF you can show a significant change in safety rates AND the resources wouldn't be better used elsewhere AND any restrictions as a result are not unnaceptable THEN youy have a point.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 28th Nov 2004 at 02:49.
