Extraordinary initiative by AOPA
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's because the seat isn't marginal, it is taken for granted by the National Party. In fact all, or most political effort is put into the marginal arena at the expense of the so called safe seats.
This indifference to the constituents is not lost on them.
This man is no Kay Hull and any votes AOPA get are those McCormack won't. He needs reminding of this.
This indifference to the constituents is not lost on them.
This man is no Kay Hull and any votes AOPA get are those McCormack won't. He needs reminding of this.
As a truckie,....beware of politicians promising the world while handing out cartons of beer and pizzas...demand the reform be done Before backing off the political pressure.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fun to play with a few numbers related to the CASA budget. 180m works out to approximately:
$5,800 per pilot per year
or
$12,000 per aircraft per year
or
$210,000 per AOC per year
or
$1.80 per passenger movement, i.e. about $300 for a full 737 from Melbourne to Sydney.
No wonder cost recovery is so damaging for Australian aviation.
Of course CASA would argue that the costs are spread around between pilots, aircraft owners, AOC holders etc. so the numbers are not that large but the reality is that whichever way you spread it, the costs fall on the same participants.
The only one that is semi-independent is passenger movements - people wouldn't notice a couple of dollars on a ticket. Unfortunately the airlines do notice $300 on a 737 load, and they are the ones with the lobbying budget to shift costs to somebody else.
For comparison, if the car registration and licensing authorities cost $12,000 per car, their budget would be about 160 billion per year.
This does not include any Airservices figures.
$5,800 per pilot per year
or
$12,000 per aircraft per year
or
$210,000 per AOC per year
or
$1.80 per passenger movement, i.e. about $300 for a full 737 from Melbourne to Sydney.
No wonder cost recovery is so damaging for Australian aviation.
Of course CASA would argue that the costs are spread around between pilots, aircraft owners, AOC holders etc. so the numbers are not that large but the reality is that whichever way you spread it, the costs fall on the same participants.
The only one that is semi-independent is passenger movements - people wouldn't notice a couple of dollars on a ticket. Unfortunately the airlines do notice $300 on a 737 load, and they are the ones with the lobbying budget to shift costs to somebody else.
For comparison, if the car registration and licensing authorities cost $12,000 per car, their budget would be about 160 billion per year.
This does not include any Airservices figures.
But what price air safety? We should strive for safety in the air, at any cost.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety does not have an infinite budget, hence we really have to call it 'affordable safety'. There comes a time when whatever we are spending our $$ on hits a limit. That's why some of us that can afford a classy car buy one, or perhaps that is our ego?
In relation to aviation safety, yes it does come at a cost, but there needs to be limit as spending big does not ensure 100% safety which is not achievable. (unless you stay in bed all day!)
In relation to aviation safety, yes it does come at a cost, but there needs to be limit as spending big does not ensure 100% safety which is not achievable. (unless you stay in bed all day!)
I agree completely.
Affordable safety is an unavoidable fact of life.
All that’s happening in GA in Australia is that as the costs of regulatory compliance and airport and airways usage go up, the number of people who can afford it goes down.
Affordable safety is an unavoidable fact of life.
All that’s happening in GA in Australia is that as the costs of regulatory compliance and airport and airways usage go up, the number of people who can afford it goes down.
Thread Starter
No no no. The National Parties policy was quoted by previous Deputy PM John Anderson. It’s very clear
“ I don’t think you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. Safety
is something that has the highest priority- it is not a question of cost.”
The human power to self delude is unlimited!
Mr Anderson then went on to Chair a mining company while Mr Vail went on the Virgin board at $200k a year.
“ I don’t think you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. Safety
is something that has the highest priority- it is not a question of cost.”
The human power to self delude is unlimited!
Mr Anderson then went on to Chair a mining company while Mr Vail went on the Virgin board at $200k a year.
I think there is a danger of pitching it as affordable safety as it gets spun into cut price safety by those with other agendas and makes the whole debate about money and misses the point of what serves what.
Aviation provides a net benefit to our nation and safety underpins the viability of the industry, not the other way around.
We need safety to be effective and appropriate or the industry suffers as does aviation's communal benefit.
Appropriate and effective safety certainly means managing cost but also means maximising convenience and minimising loss of benefit. Bang for buck. Not all bucks or all bangs.
Aviation provides a net benefit to our nation and safety underpins the viability of the industry, not the other way around.
We need safety to be effective and appropriate or the industry suffers as does aviation's communal benefit.
Appropriate and effective safety certainly means managing cost but also means maximising convenience and minimising loss of benefit. Bang for buck. Not all bucks or all bangs.
And who dictates what 'safety' you should get ?
It should be a tripartite ?thing, by all those involved with integrity, honesty and genuine co-operation. Pilots, engineers, regulator
The people in the cockpit, who will be first to arrive at the scene of any accident have a serious interest. Like wise with those that put spanners on the machines we fly in .
We take it on trust they all do there job properly.
Unfortunately the current regulator has no integrity, is dishonest and has created such an overwhelming tsunami of complex, convoluted and contradictory regs, it actually make it less safe. They've LONG forgotten the KISS principle. More regs =safer.
Its rampant rubbbish... but it sustains a whole creche of trough dwellers, kidding themselves THEY are the only ones that can do 'safety'
And theres many a strict liability barb on the CAsA fence to hang up the unwary.
Going political is the only way that might get some change. But dont hold yr breath.
Probably best to fill yr lungs with fresh maritime air and go sailing.
A Cirrus owner told me yesterday...enough of the BS, I'm buying a Catamaran.!
Says it all really.
It should be a tripartite ?thing, by all those involved with integrity, honesty and genuine co-operation. Pilots, engineers, regulator
The people in the cockpit, who will be first to arrive at the scene of any accident have a serious interest. Like wise with those that put spanners on the machines we fly in .
We take it on trust they all do there job properly.
Unfortunately the current regulator has no integrity, is dishonest and has created such an overwhelming tsunami of complex, convoluted and contradictory regs, it actually make it less safe. They've LONG forgotten the KISS principle. More regs =safer.
Its rampant rubbbish... but it sustains a whole creche of trough dwellers, kidding themselves THEY are the only ones that can do 'safety'
And theres many a strict liability barb on the CAsA fence to hang up the unwary.
Going political is the only way that might get some change. But dont hold yr breath.
Probably best to fill yr lungs with fresh maritime air and go sailing.
A Cirrus owner told me yesterday...enough of the BS, I'm buying a Catamaran.!
Says it all really.
Thread Starter
Jonkster. You are correct. It will be spun that way by some in the media.
So does that mean you can never tell the truth?
However the whole debate IS about money. The only limit to risk reduction is the money available.. Unless you can get a subsidy from non flying taxpayers the money available will be limited by what those who pay for it can afford..
So does that mean you can never tell the truth?
However the whole debate IS about money. The only limit to risk reduction is the money available.. Unless you can get a subsidy from non flying taxpayers the money available will be limited by what those who pay for it can afford..
Aroa:
That has been amenable to mathematical calculation for at least Thirty years! Insurance companies do it all the time.
1. Calculate the cost of an aircraft accident - take a sample, work out the actual costs of a variety of accidents and average them out. You CAN put a price on human lives, when I was working in an oil terminal mid 70's the figure was $4 mllion.
2. Now that you have the cost of an accident say for a light aircraft, regional jet, jumbo, etc. Multiply by the probability per year. Say for a jumbo, once every ten years - annual probability of 10%.
That figure in dollars is the expectation cost associated with that event in todays dollars (NPV - net present value). This figure is negative, it is the notional cost of accidents each year.
3. Compare safety activities with their associated budgets and expected impact on the accident rate by calculating the expectation. Use discounted cash flow on the budget to arrive at a cost in todays dollars(NPV).
4. If the impact of what you propose has a positive NPV - in other words it reduces the overall cost of accidents, then the safety measure is worth doing. If the NPV is zero its a worthless idea - no value. If its negative, can it.
For example, you can use this tool to compare things like training, ADSB, CTAFs', rewriting regulations, etc.etc.etc.
Any actuary can show you how to do this. They do it every day to set insurance premiums. I could write an example if pushed.
And who dictates what 'safety' you should get ?
1. Calculate the cost of an aircraft accident - take a sample, work out the actual costs of a variety of accidents and average them out. You CAN put a price on human lives, when I was working in an oil terminal mid 70's the figure was $4 mllion.
2. Now that you have the cost of an accident say for a light aircraft, regional jet, jumbo, etc. Multiply by the probability per year. Say for a jumbo, once every ten years - annual probability of 10%.
That figure in dollars is the expectation cost associated with that event in todays dollars (NPV - net present value). This figure is negative, it is the notional cost of accidents each year.
3. Compare safety activities with their associated budgets and expected impact on the accident rate by calculating the expectation. Use discounted cash flow on the budget to arrive at a cost in todays dollars(NPV).
4. If the impact of what you propose has a positive NPV - in other words it reduces the overall cost of accidents, then the safety measure is worth doing. If the NPV is zero its a worthless idea - no value. If its negative, can it.
For example, you can use this tool to compare things like training, ADSB, CTAFs', rewriting regulations, etc.etc.etc.
Any actuary can show you how to do this. They do it every day to set insurance premiums. I could write an example if pushed.
Thread Starter
Sunfish. Good thinking but the problem with this is while we humans will accept lots of deaths in small numbers , say from road deaths, we have problems with larger numbers at once.
In effect a person in a road death may be valued at $4m but we demand something like many times that in aviation. Just results in more total deaths as charter becomes so expensive that more and more are forced on to the roads.
In effect a person in a road death may be valued at $4m but we demand something like many times that in aviation. Just results in more total deaths as charter becomes so expensive that more and more are forced on to the roads.
Dick, the costs are calculable and form the basis for insurance premiums. For example the A380 and B747 premiums are calculated on the basis of a fully loaded aircraft crashing at midday in the middle of Manhattan or London times the extremely small probability of it happening.
What we are actually calculating is safety benefit in todays dollars.
Example: Initial ADSB capital costs + installation costs including time lost + annual servicing and recurring costs less time savings in routing, etc, etc. over ten years expressed as a Net present value at a discount rate of say, 5% = X$. it's a simple sum.
Then the second equation Cost of safety times accident rate without ADSB Cost of safety times accident rate with ADSB. If the saving is bigger than the cost of ADSB then its a worthwhile initiative, if not it does not provide benefit commensurate with cost.
What we are actually calculating is safety benefit in todays dollars.
Example: Initial ADSB capital costs + installation costs including time lost + annual servicing and recurring costs less time savings in routing, etc, etc. over ten years expressed as a Net present value at a discount rate of say, 5% = X$. it's a simple sum.
Then the second equation Cost of safety times accident rate without ADSB Cost of safety times accident rate with ADSB. If the saving is bigger than the cost of ADSB then its a worthwhile initiative, if not it does not provide benefit commensurate with cost.
Last edited by Sunfish; 14th Apr 2018 at 06:59.
