|Quoting longhauler (Reply 23):|
How about two B747s, both passenger ... one had only 100 passengers the other 515 passengers. Because there is greater liability in the one carrying more passengers should that one be held under stricter rules???
This is generally the basis of different rules for different sized transportation companies worldwide - a fishing guide in a bass boat is working under a different set of rules than Carnival Cruises, yet both are providing transportation and entertainment on the water.
|Quoting par13del (Reply 26):|
The difference is money not risk, folks mix the two up to hide the money issue.
People might 'hide' the money issue just to keep the noise down, but, it is always a money issue (well, almost always as the exception is cases where it becomes political...which is still a money issue as it might cost less to do something unreasonable / uneconomic / nonsensical but which keeps people happy - regardless of your political views, I am sure everyone has their own examples of government waste or stupid rules that make no sense, but were put in place to make 'the other guy' happy).
|Quoting kalvado (Reply 30):|
Last line does affects cost-benefit analysis more than anything else.
Absolutley right - actuaries will have ways to quantify the risk, but in most places that operate operate airliners, the number of people involved is by far the most significant cost factor.
Proof of how hard it is to change the math with airliners is the 'worst case' scenario ever experienced where three large airliners were crashed into buildings and yet the number of fatalities was much less than anyone would have imagined possible beforehand. So, counting the occupied seats in the plane is still a very, very good indication of the total risk.
Risk definitely has many aspects - and regardless of the terms, it comes down to the combination of the possibilities (chances of it happening) and the severity (when it happens, what is the range of likely outcomes), Frequency and Severity are two pretty common terms, and need to be measured independently and then combined in the analysis of Risk.
During the analysis, the money definitely gets included in the math - for some really good reasons actually. One reason is that for things like aircraft accidents, the cost is (sadly) well understood for just about every scenario imaginable, and also for a few scenarios that should not be imaginable (ie 9/11). More important though is that the $ needs to be included in order to make sure that the costs are being incurred in the right place...there is only so much cost that can go into 'anything' and still be worth doing, so you need to make sure the money is going into the right place - it might save more cargo pilots if they had newer planes vs an extra couple hours sleep for example, so then any new rules should retire older airframes. More realistically, it might be a lot safer for cargo pilots if more work (and therefor $) went into making sure haz mat rules were better enforced instead of adding sleep time - or perhaps maybe splitting the difference would work better. Regardless, without cinverting 'risk' into $ or some other common unit of reference, there would be no way to decide where the best investments are.
|Quoting kalvado (Reply 32):|
It's not that anyone wants to push _you_ into mistakes - it's that _your friend_ may have some extra cushion against mistakes.
Agree completely - air cargo is amazingly safe when compared to many / most other methods of moving stuff around. Sure it can and probably be 'more safe', but it is pretty good already...and based on risks and costs, maybe (?) it actually does not need to be as safe as people movers (as far as I know, no other industry is already as safe for the workers as the civil transport category aircrew!).
|Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 37):|
It's also legal and perfectly within regulations for a pilot to take off in a cessna 172 and fly straight into a level IV thunderstorm
IFR maybe, but not VFR