Panamfanatic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
TOPIC: Are the current air safety regulations enough to prevent, or atleast minimize deaths in airplane disasters?
POSITION: No they are not enough.
1) Air traffic control system is aging and outdated
2) Airlines keep adding more routes
3) Passenger demand will increase dramatically
4) Budget air carriers will cut corners to save money
5) Runways and airports are becoming more crowded
6) Skies will become more crowded
This is the topic of my 700 point english essay. I need some insight into what everyone thinks about this, so i can integrate opinions on this subject into my paper.
SUPPORTS: (where my supports come from)
1) Air traffic control system is aging and outdated -- controllers giving wrong/misleading information
2) Airlines keep adding more routes -- will congest the skies
3) Passenger demand will increase dramatically -- will cause airlines to add routes -- which will inturn congest the skies
4) Budget air carriers will cut corners to save money -- ValuJet disaster
5) Runways and airports are becoming more crowded -- air disasters where planes crash into each other -- because of misleading info from air traffic control
6) Skies will become more crowded -- will cause mid-air collissions
I would like to hear everyones opionions on this and if anyone has any more supports or topics that i should add into my paper.......
Monte From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1611 times:
You have listed several challenges to the air safety. However, in order to prove that regulations are inefficient in preventing disasters you have to look at the long-term trends in accident statistics. These statistics do not show a significant increase in accident rate due to deregulation, low-fare airlines, increased congestions, etc.
Air safety procedures can never be 100% safe, but it is diffucult to claim that they are not sufficient to "prevent/minimize deaths". Beside that, there is a cost factor (risk/benefit analysis) involved... ex. ATC is outdated, but upgrading it would be outrageously expensive, and that money can be spent to save more lives elsewhere (road safety comes to mind).
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
"TOPIC: Are the current air safety regulations enough to prevent, or at least minimize deaths in airplane disasters?"
Just my 2 cents, but I think the above topic (a good one, mind you) and the 6 support points you mention are not in context with each other--apples and oranges, said another way...
Some of the support points I can agree with as general statements (excluding #4). Most of them don't directly involve safety and regulations (as in FARs), per se, but are perhaps more related to valid traffic, airspace, customer service, and infrastructure issues. The various entities involved may well have "regulations" of sorts (procedures, programs, etc.), but again, their correlation with "safety" is a little longer a stretch.
As far as Part 121 domestic/flag airline flight operations themselves go, my personal opinion is that the existing FARs (and company regulations) themselves are just fine--the problem exsists in the awareness, application, and compliance aspects by some personnel.
For example, FAR 121.563 states, in essence, that if an aircraft system malfunctions in-flight, the PIC is supposed to ensure that the irregularity gets entered into the logbook at/by the end of that flight. Some write-ups end up grounding aircraft where they sit, which is particularly inconvenient if no parts and company mechanics are there. To prevent this from occurring, *some* crews have been known to not write stuff up and "carry" the item until they get to someplace where repairs can be accomplished with less muss and fuss. There are all sorts of psychological reasons why this occurs, and it's another "human factors" issue.
Now, if an accident/incident resulted from the inop system's failure (because it was needed), it'd be difficult to assess that more regulations were needed to "solve" the problem, versus compliance with existing regs already on the books.
Sometime a few weeks after the Valujet crash in the 'Glades, NTSB Member John Goglia was quoted saying something to the effect of: "We relay upon the moral character of everyone involved with the system to ensure safety" and I think he was dead on. Just as some folks perceive "truth" as telling lie but not getting caught, so too do some believe that ignoring a reg/policy and having nothing adverse happen proves that it was "safe."
Does blowing through an active school zone at 110mph (and not killing a kid) demonstrate "luck" or "safety"?
Panamfanatic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
Thanks everyone for comments. My essay is not strictly limited to the "regulations" that will prevent air disasters. I can also branch off on things...Things that could cause deaths in air accidents, and with stricter rules/regulations could reduce them. Like airlines adding more routes and more passengers flying. If someone put a regulation on how many routes and planes and flights airlines fly, the skies would not be as congested and airports would not be as congested. With the skies less congested there might be a possibility of a reduction in mid-air disasters...does LaGuardia ring a bell?
I look forward to add some of your comments into my essay!