The most irresponsible comment by a journalist dealing with BA038
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonsense it is not. You clearly have no understanding of how cost-benefit analysis is undertaken day in, day out in so many other areas. OK, so perhaps two DC8s are examples of successful open water ditchings of underwing-engined (sorry, forgot that bit first time) civil jets.
But if the same cost-benefit analysis were applied to life jackets as is applied to pretty much any other area of transport safety (the UK government, for example, has a price of about GBP1M per fatality prevented as what they will pay for road improvements, or at least they did a few years ago when last I researched this in detail) then they would be gone. The same amount of money as is spent on carting all those life jackets around every day to save perhaps one life a year on average would be far, far better spent on a myriad of other things to much better effect (like finding a cure for AIDS or something). And that's regardless of the environmental impact of doing so. In many airlines in my part of the world the money could be far better spent on pilot training and evaluation - far, far more lives are lost in aircraft due to pilot error than are saved by life jackets.
But if the same cost-benefit analysis were applied to life jackets as is applied to pretty much any other area of transport safety (the UK government, for example, has a price of about GBP1M per fatality prevented as what they will pay for road improvements, or at least they did a few years ago when last I researched this in detail) then they would be gone. The same amount of money as is spent on carting all those life jackets around every day to save perhaps one life a year on average would be far, far better spent on a myriad of other things to much better effect (like finding a cure for AIDS or something). And that's regardless of the environmental impact of doing so. In many airlines in my part of the world the money could be far better spent on pilot training and evaluation - far, far more lives are lost in aircraft due to pilot error than are saved by life jackets.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid the analysis doesn't necessarily make it a benefit. There are very few fires on aircraft as well, so why not remove the extinguishers they only provide 90 seconds or so of total extinguishing capacity in any event. Remove the liferafts the weight of one exceeds the weight of all the lifejackets, the Titanic paved the way for that cost benefit.
The problem with safety is that it will nearly always have a disproportionate cost, because it generates no return, until the fateful day when suddenly it does. Fortunetaly regulation sets the requirement. A few posts back you stated that :
As has been shown here you are quite wrong.
Your cost benefit analysis argument is little more than a gamblers tip. One accident where (like white star line in 1912) you kill people because you took the viewpoint that aspects of safety are too expensive or unnecessary will likely destroy the operators business and have major cost implications for the industry. The old adage that, if you think safety is expensive just wait until you see what an accident costs ! is probably truer in aviation than in many other industries.
The money saved in lifejackets would not be spent on better training or evaluation, it would be used as a cost saving. That is why such analysis is undertaken. The cost of transporting millions of litre bottles of alcohol from one foreign duty free emporium to another airport has no cost benefit to the airline. Nor does it have a positive environmental impact. Yet it goes on every day all around the world.
Money spent by governments on road safety is not really comparable in the sense that 300 people killed on a road is a statistic, whereas 300 people killed in an aircraft accident is a newsworthy tragedy with a visual impact. The consequences of the former will have little or negligable effect on a government, whereas the latter will likely not only have enormous cost repercussions, but may also destroy the operating company.
Cost benefit analysis is therefore of little relevance in how it operates in so many other areas, because in civil aviation safety matters there are factors such as regulation, history and public confidence, that have a distorting influence.
The problem with safety is that it will nearly always have a disproportionate cost, because it generates no return, until the fateful day when suddenly it does. Fortunetaly regulation sets the requirement. A few posts back you stated that :
There has never been a landing of a commercial jet with under wing engines on open water in a way where the safety briefing had any relevance whatsoever.
Your cost benefit analysis argument is little more than a gamblers tip. One accident where (like white star line in 1912) you kill people because you took the viewpoint that aspects of safety are too expensive or unnecessary will likely destroy the operators business and have major cost implications for the industry. The old adage that, if you think safety is expensive just wait until you see what an accident costs ! is probably truer in aviation than in many other industries.
The money saved in lifejackets would not be spent on better training or evaluation, it would be used as a cost saving. That is why such analysis is undertaken. The cost of transporting millions of litre bottles of alcohol from one foreign duty free emporium to another airport has no cost benefit to the airline. Nor does it have a positive environmental impact. Yet it goes on every day all around the world.
Money spent by governments on road safety is not really comparable in the sense that 300 people killed on a road is a statistic, whereas 300 people killed in an aircraft accident is a newsworthy tragedy with a visual impact. The consequences of the former will have little or negligable effect on a government, whereas the latter will likely not only have enormous cost repercussions, but may also destroy the operating company.
Cost benefit analysis is therefore of little relevance in how it operates in so many other areas, because in civil aviation safety matters there are factors such as regulation, history and public confidence, that have a distorting influence.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DXB
Age: 43
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any sensible cost benefit analysis would remove life jackets from commercial jets - the huge environmental cost of the extra fuel needed to carry millions of them around the sky each day is way out of proportion to an infinitessimally small theoretical benefit. They are there as a hangover from the flying boat days when they did have a justifiable purpose
Perhaps that would explain why, to date, they are still available under every seat. Alternately, Billy Conollys line about "archeologists thinking there was a river here", is appropriate...
Finally - Just how much of a "Flotation Aid" are the seat back cusions?
Regards
Paul
Cost/benefit? I'm sure the reason the pilots don't have bang-seats is just to concentrate our minds 
ChristiaanJ,
Another useful thing would be a practice slide at the airport. Even those who didn't try it could see that it is less frightening than it looks and, as a bonus, it would keep the kids occupied
I'm always a bit concerned that, in an evacuation, people would try to slowly sit down on the slide instead of 'jump and sit'. You just keep moving and drop your bottom onto the nice soft slide and off you go. There is a decelleration patch at the bottom which will slow you down to a slow running dismount.
Any CC been involved in a real evac able to report on how pax used the slides?
ChristiaanJ,
Another useful thing would be a practice slide at the airport. Even those who didn't try it could see that it is less frightening than it looks and, as a bonus, it would keep the kids occupied
I'm always a bit concerned that, in an evacuation, people would try to slowly sit down on the slide instead of 'jump and sit'. You just keep moving and drop your bottom onto the nice soft slide and off you go. There is a decelleration patch at the bottom which will slow you down to a slow running dismount.
Any CC been involved in a real evac able to report on how pax used the slides?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not underwing engines, but nevertheless an example where life jackets came in 'useful'.
Early '70s, a BAC 1-11 suffered a compressor stall during take off from Corfu and overshot the end of the runway, into the water (the runway sticks out into a bay).
Water 'only' 6 to 10 feet deep, but the non-swimmers sure were grateful for those life jackets!
One fatality - an old lady who had a heart attack - but without life jackets there might well have been more.
Early '70s, a BAC 1-11 suffered a compressor stall during take off from Corfu and overshot the end of the runway, into the water (the runway sticks out into a bay).
Water 'only' 6 to 10 feet deep, but the non-swimmers sure were grateful for those life jackets!
One fatality - an old lady who had a heart attack - but without life jackets there might well have been more.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity, do cabin crew get trained in evacuating a ditched airframe in real water, as per current offshore training for oil workers - they get ditched and turned upside down in a heli simulator...Just curious as to whether a real ditching would be a totally unknown situation, in terms of having water present, for the CC, as I know they do get trained in smoke filled environments and evacs from an aircraft standing on solid ground.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Near Finningley
Age: 67
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try to be within 7 rows of an exit and I do count the rows. I don't find the arm waving bit (exits here and here) very useful as the direction is too vague - the card and a quick look around are more useful.
I do watch the life-jacket bit as not all jackets have the same fastenings, although like others here I am not sure of the benefit compared to, say, a smoke hood.
And while we're on the subject of safety - rear facing seats please. The more recent business class seats include rear facing seats and it would be interesting to know how SLF in general feel about them. I believe that rear facing seats are intrinsically safer than forward facing ones and I assume that it is a belief that customers want to face forward that prevent these being a standard fit. When I travel by rail I always try to sit in a rear facing airline type seat - rear facing to stand a chance of recovering quicker (either minutes or days) from a crash and not a table seat as I don't want to be hit by the passenger opposite. Rail passengers seem to be quite happy with rear facing seats so how about it?
I do watch the life-jacket bit as not all jackets have the same fastenings, although like others here I am not sure of the benefit compared to, say, a smoke hood.
And while we're on the subject of safety - rear facing seats please. The more recent business class seats include rear facing seats and it would be interesting to know how SLF in general feel about them. I believe that rear facing seats are intrinsically safer than forward facing ones and I assume that it is a belief that customers want to face forward that prevent these being a standard fit. When I travel by rail I always try to sit in a rear facing airline type seat - rear facing to stand a chance of recovering quicker (either minutes or days) from a crash and not a table seat as I don't want to be hit by the passenger opposite. Rail passengers seem to be quite happy with rear facing seats so how about it?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iansmith,
Re rear facing seats...
I think most people like to be seated traveling forwards. Lets call it "seeing where you're going" ? Or whatever other instinct comes into play?
Pax: "so why is the seat the wrong way round?".
"Ah madam/sir, it's for your safety. You have a better chance of survival in a crash".
Oh, great. Remind the SLF of a potential crash everytime she/he sits down....
Think of buses/coaches. Pretty nasty accident statistics. But are any of the seats rear-facing?
In the French TGV, about half the seats DO face backwards. Interesting. Somehow, there it's accepted. But then, the TGV is seen as exceptionally safe (with reason).
An aircraft is still seen as "not safe" (whether that's justified is not the question here).
So an additional reminder of being prepared for a crash anytime is maybe not a good idea.
Not to mention that I have this nagging memory that rear-facing seats have their own problems, and if you go seriously through all the 'lies, damn lies, and statistics', you find there are very few crashes where rear-facing seats would have made a significant difference.
Re rear facing seats...
I think most people like to be seated traveling forwards. Lets call it "seeing where you're going" ? Or whatever other instinct comes into play?
Pax: "so why is the seat the wrong way round?".
"Ah madam/sir, it's for your safety. You have a better chance of survival in a crash".
Oh, great. Remind the SLF of a potential crash everytime she/he sits down....
Think of buses/coaches. Pretty nasty accident statistics. But are any of the seats rear-facing?
In the French TGV, about half the seats DO face backwards. Interesting. Somehow, there it's accepted. But then, the TGV is seen as exceptionally safe (with reason).
An aircraft is still seen as "not safe" (whether that's justified is not the question here).
So an additional reminder of being prepared for a crash anytime is maybe not a good idea.
Not to mention that I have this nagging memory that rear-facing seats have their own problems, and if you go seriously through all the 'lies, damn lies, and statistics', you find there are very few crashes where rear-facing seats would have made a significant difference.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in crashes like runway overruns rear facing seats would make planes safer...in terms of worse accidents though the forces are too high for it really matter which way the seats are facing. The RAF VC10 fleet has rear facing seats.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Contacttower
I think in crashes like runway overruns rear facing seats would make planes safer...
In terms of worse accidents though the forces are too high for it really matter which way the seats are facing.
The RAF VC10 fleet has rear facing seats.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made the point about runway overuns because I remember reading the report into the crash of the Air France A340 and noting this bit:
Extract from the report:
So maybe there's something in it...
The two crew members who had suffered serious impact injuries were able to perform their emergency duties effectively. Passengers who incurred impact injuries were ambulatory during the evacuation. One of the cabin crew, seated in the same general area as the crew and passengers who incurred serious impact injuries, was not injured. This cabin crew's seat was aft-facing; the other seats were forward-facing.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Contacttower
So maybe there's something in it...
And now that you mention it, there would be a very good case for all CC seats facing to the rear. Not sure if that's the case these days?
Did you ever read Nevil Shute's "No Highway"?
Rear-facing seats.
We seem to have got onto this now.
There's a lot of biased advice around to show that forward or rear facing seats are safer, or not, generally put about by the protagonists of one approach or the other.
The fact is that passengers, under normal circumstances, seem to much prefer forward facing seats in any form of transport, it is the natural thing to do.
RAF rear-facing seats date back to the days of poorer seat attachments and seat belts which could fail, things have moved on here.
The key issue in a high-speed deceleration for injury is not so much pax being thrown against seat in front as other, unsecured items being thrown against pax. And conventional seating does offer protection against this where rear-facing seats do not. Catering equipment, hand baggage, etc will go flying during an impact.
One recent issue with forward-facing seats that has passed the CAA by (as so much seems to do nowadays, apart from my taxes and fees to pay for their lifestyle) is the installation of in-flight entertainment boxes beneath seats, right where pax legs/feet are and will be bounced around during any collision. I cannot believe how aluminium boxes with sharp edges and ridiculously sharp corners have been allowed to be fixed right alongside where people's lower limbs are. In a car design this would make it illegal in a second.
We seem to have got onto this now.
There's a lot of biased advice around to show that forward or rear facing seats are safer, or not, generally put about by the protagonists of one approach or the other.
The fact is that passengers, under normal circumstances, seem to much prefer forward facing seats in any form of transport, it is the natural thing to do.
RAF rear-facing seats date back to the days of poorer seat attachments and seat belts which could fail, things have moved on here.
The key issue in a high-speed deceleration for injury is not so much pax being thrown against seat in front as other, unsecured items being thrown against pax. And conventional seating does offer protection against this where rear-facing seats do not. Catering equipment, hand baggage, etc will go flying during an impact.
One recent issue with forward-facing seats that has passed the CAA by (as so much seems to do nowadays, apart from my taxes and fees to pay for their lifestyle) is the installation of in-flight entertainment boxes beneath seats, right where pax legs/feet are and will be bounced around during any collision. I cannot believe how aluminium boxes with sharp edges and ridiculously sharp corners have been allowed to be fixed right alongside where people's lower limbs are. In a car design this would make it illegal in a second.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you ever read Nevil Shute's "No Highway"?
One recent issue with forward-facing seats that has passed the CAA by (as so much seems to do nowadays, apart from my taxes and fees to pay for their lifestyle) is the installation of in-flight entertainment boxes beneath seats, right where pax legs/feet are and will be bounced around during any collision. I cannot believe how aluminium boxes with sharp edges and ridiculously sharp corners have been allowed to be fixed right alongside where people's lower limbs are. In a car design this would make it illegal in a second.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the grainy footage of the last minute of the flight, the tail must have struck the ground first.
