Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[P3_Super_Bee]

Where does this stop? Setting up one SAR on an island in west bumble fuck,just east of south bumble fuck,and not far from north bumble fuck for the remote event of a crash is insane.

Best thing I've heard in a long time LOL....

176 million isn't much

Nope drop in the hat compared to the USCG SAR budget of 1.1 BILLION a year...

[SYDCBRWOD]

Bob, to be fair to Evan, he contends that it should be the tourist industry at East Bum Fuck International Airport providing the moola, not the airlines. Whatever, the result is the same - holidays become more expensive, trade will decrease, the money will be spent on a capability that may get used one or twice a century. Evan of course has not addressed any of those locations that are located next to the ocean but have bugger all tourism, yet are served by RPT services. Port Headland in WA probably has a couple of mum and dad motels - most services are to service the US defence facility or the mining industry. Yes, I suppose they could be charged the SAR surcharge, but FFS where do you draw the line? Who administers this charge per person? Who decides whether the next small town which has a hotel, but no airport should pay - his entire idea is a clusterfock on the scale of the UN. Your point Bob is well made but unlikely to get through. Evan is on a one man crusade on this issue and logic will not deflect him.

[Evan]

What profits? Despite what you might think, yes theres a dollar amount to human life.

http://finance.aol.com/quotes/delta-air-lines-inc-del/dal/nys

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/JetBlue-Announces-Second-prnews-2639809226.html?x=0&.v=1

The best one is probably south west. 176 million isn't much when you take into acount shareholders,future debt owed,bond holders,the cost of adding new planes or major retro fits,etc.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=luv

So taking that 176 million dollar profit southwest made in 08 you honestly expect them to provide SAR for up to 700 people at every airport they serve without modern and well trained SAR. The entire 176 million would be gone just setting up an adequate base in the comoros. You have to purchase equipment,boats and Heli's,initial training,recurrency training,they need to be based somewhere,etc. I mean why 700 people why not 300 or so. Well since they should have response to any and every emergency with their planes you need to take into acount mid-airs. Where does this stop? Setting up one SAR on an island in west bumble fuck,just east of south bumble fuck,and not far from north bumble fuck for the remote event of a crash is insane. Especially considering the volume of traffic probably going to the island. The route would probably just get cut. There are many routes to many rural airports that would face the axe,essentially alienating whole countries.
Why not take a far better and cheaper route. Pay pilots a bit better,and increase the hiring standards and recurency testing and training. I mean most crashes,and I believe this one are largely the result of human error. Better pilots on all routes the airline runs will decrease the chance of an accident not just in remote areas,but everywhere. Since its rare to survive an airliner crash,why not spend the money on prevention. Not saving 2 or 3 lives.

Bob, we have to say this so often we need an acronym: RTT (read the thread). How can we have a fair discussion if you keep misrepresenting the terms of my appeal? Let me restate two important points:

1) I proposed earlier in this thread, after learning that there is a significant port just south of the airport, that Comoros airport (and any other airport served by flag carrier airlines) should have in place a plan to mobilize their existing resources, boats harbored there, to respond to an emergency ditching, to rescue any survivors that might be struggling to continue living. This would involve the same sort of training as your basic volunteer fire department, only with a specialization for water search and rescue. It would not cost a whisker of what you are claiming.

2) The financing comes from the industry, not the airline. It can come from grants, surcharges, fees or taxes collected by the industry. For example, a hazardous destination surcharge could be added to the cost of such flights, or to all flights in a given region. There are a number of ways to achieve funding, and lord knows there are already a host of surcharges going for other needs.

Also: Most international airlines are not benevolent public services; they operate for profit. It there was no profit in it, the investors would go into a different line of business. Even during times when profits are non-existent, there is an overall forecast for profitability. Concern for the lives of passengers must always be a mandatory expense on the balance sheet, just as fuel and maintenance are. You pay to play. In this case probably very little.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Bob, we have to say this so often we need an acronym: RTT (read the thread). How can we have a fair discussion if you keep misrepresenting the terms of my appeal? Let me restate two important points:

1) I proposed earlier in this thread, after learning that there is a significant port just south of the airport, that Comoros airport (and any other airport served by flag carrier airlines) should have in place a plan to mobilize their existing resources, boats harbored there, to respond to an emergency ditching, to rescue any survivors that might be struggling to continue living. This would involve the same sort of training as your basic volunteer fire department, only with a specialization for water search and rescue. It would not cost a whisker of what you are claiming.

2) The financing comes from the industry, not the airline. It can come from grants, surcharges, fees or taxes collected by the industry. For example, a hazardous destination surcharge could be added to the cost of such flights, or to all flights in a given region. There are a number of ways to achieve funding, and lord knows there are already a host of surcharges going for other needs.

Also: Most international airlines are not benevolent public services; they operate for profit. It there was no profit in it, the investors would go into a different line of business. Even during times when profits are non-existent, there is an overall forecast for profitability. Concern for the lives of passengers must always be a mandatory expense on the balance sheet, just as fuel and maintenance are. You pay to play. In this case probably very little.

People could read the thread, but they'll just find that your idea has been progressively scaled back to the point where it is basically useless. But keep pushing it...

[TeeVee]

"Only respiratory arrest"? Intentionally let some people die in order to prevent other people from becoming critical? I hope no one practices this reverse triage when I'm on the wrong end of a disaster. The idea is to treat the most life-threatening conditions first, and to not waste your time on less serious injuries while those in the greatest need perish.

And I'll bet bob would also want to be saved...

You do not comprehend what triage in a real disaster is all about. It is hard to cope with the idea of letting someone die, who, in other circumstances, you might spend near to an hour trying to resuscitate. And that is the point. While you screw around trying to save someone who is clinically dead or damn near it, you can prevent five others from becoming statistics. It's all about numbers. But not about money.

oh and by the way, when there is an event like a plane crash, tons of resources are re-allocated to the crash and all non-life threatening calls to 911 are essentially ignored. At least that's the way it is in NYC, a place with tons of resources.

[Evan]

People could read the thread, but they'll just find that your idea has been progressively scaled back to the point where it is basically useless. But keep pushing it...

Rescuers going out in boats to arrive at the scene before people drown. Tell me please how that is 'useless'.

[bob12312357]

Bob, we have to say this so often we need an acronym: RTT (read the thread). How can we have a fair discussion if you keep misrepresenting the terms of my appeal? Let me restate two important points:

1) I proposed earlier in this thread, after learning that there is a significant port just south of the airport, that Comoros airport (and any other airport served by flag carrier airlines) should have in place a plan to mobilize their existing resources, boats harbored there, to respond to an emergency ditching, to rescue any survivors that might be struggling to continue living. This would involve the same sort of training as your basic volunteer fire department, only with a specialization for water search and rescue. It would not cost a whisker of what you are claiming.

2) The financing comes from the industry, not the airline. It can come from grants, surcharges, fees or taxes collected by the industry. For example, a hazardous destination surcharge could be added to the cost of such flights, or to all flights in a given region. There are a number of ways to achieve funding, and lord knows there are already a host of surcharges going for other needs.

Also: Most international airlines are not benevolent public services; they operate for profit. It there was no profit in it, the investors would go into a different line of business. Even during times when profits are non-existent, there is an overall forecast for profitability. Concern for the lives of passengers must always be a mandatory expense on the balance sheet, just as fuel and maintenance are. You pay to play. In this case probably very little.

1) An aircraft SAR at night in the open ocean is very diffrent from the training a vlounteer firefighter recieves. THink more along the lines of Coast gaurd training, or harbor patrol. Even they aren't capable of performing an open ocean SAR for 300 living people. Not that 300 people would survive the impact. YOur talking hours for a boat or heli to get to the area. Then they have 2 find survivors in what is either a floating wreck littered with dead thats half submerged,or bobbing in the water scattered to gosh knows where the currents will take them. It costs a great deal more then the lives are worth to have a tenth of the rescue forces available for another survivor or 2 who most likely were nearing death anyway. It's just not cost effective or practical to save a few lives in a 3rd world country at the expense of at least a hundred million, but prob more. Just look at the coast gaurd budget. Even they are supplemented in emergencies by highly trained PD harbor patrol,aviation,and diving units. Add that on top of a 1.1billion dollar budget and we're talking more then the GDP of that country for a century.
2)Have a several hundred dollar surcharge on every ticket going to a 3rd world country and people will stop going or find other means. Thus the route will be eliminated entirely from any airlines schedule.
Have what we have in the US with that 9/11 security surcharge of a few bucks a ticket. Then have the goverment pickup the other 95% of the tab. You can't tax a person living in comoros heavily since they make around $1.25 a day. So the goverment will put there foot down and say "You don't want to come here,fine we can't afford it anyway!"
3) You make no sense. In one message your describing the airlines as rich greedy bastards. In the next they are just hard working companies trying to make a buck. The airlines pay a good portion of all revenue on passenger safety. From crew training,to rigorous maintence,to security,etc. They spend enough preventing the major events to worry about a 1 in a hundred trillion scenario. What if Sully ditched the plane in the middle of the atlantic? All aboard would have most likely died, even with a landing as smooth as his. The plane would have sank,people would get hypothermia in minutes,those that didn't mercifully drown would have frozen to death. Do you suggest hypersonic hovercraft be invented to prevent this...

[bob12312357]

And I'll bet bob would also want to be saved...

Not at the cost of ten million dollars. I fly in mountains and woods in Va,Pennsylvania,and Virgina. The engine quits, I make a miracle landing and live I know I will most likely die of exposure. It's a risk I'm willing to take. I don't thin Mr. Fossett went out excpecting anyone to find him if he went down. It was just a tiny risk he was willing to take and lost. After all, isn't it true the only thing certain in life is death? There is just a point where if letting me die can save 2 others you just have to do it. It's the real world, not Evans fantasy world. PEOPLE DIE!

[Evan]

1) It's just not cost effective or practical to save a few lives in a 3rd world country at the expense of at least a hundred million, but prob more. J

Where are you you talking about? How can volunteer rescue training in boats that already exist cost a hundred million dollars?

If you mean to dissuade me, ditch the hyperbole and address the reality of what I am suggesting. Many of these French nationals that perished were friends and family of the Comoros natives, and I'm certain they would have needed no incentive to go out and search for survivors, had they the means and the organization. A simple open boat with an outboard could have been on the scene within an hour, not six hours as it happened. It's not ideal, but it might have raised the survivor rate nonetheless. To leave them helpless for hours after the crash is unconscionable.

[bob12312357]

Rescuers going out in boats to arrive at the scene before people drown. Tell me please how that is 'useless'.

An intact plane isn't coming down in an ocean. A rowboat with a boy scout first aid kit isn't gonna do jack. You have currents to contend with,debris hiding people,the fact that most people are already dead. Ok, you use the commercial fishing industry. I will admit that the majority of commercial vessels are more then willing to help and save lives and routinely go out of there way to administer assistance. Who treats the crew members who are permanetly psychologically damaged and can no longer work or function? This was just some poor schmuck trying to pay for his daughters college. Now he sees hundred of dead bodies and parts. Infants with intestines hanging out ripped in half,wedding pictures in dead peoples pockets,dozens of arms,legs and torsos floating. A pretty 6 year old girl in a flower girl dress with a stump on her neck where her head use to be. Is it fair to this poor commercial fisherman to be traumatized by something he never signed up to do... What if the totally untrained and mentally unprepared rescuer saves one persons life, then goes home and kills himself? How about taking the untrained rescuer taking his family with him to meet his higher power?

[Evan]

An intact plane isn't coming down in an ocean. A rowboat with a boy scout first aid kit isn't gonna do jack. You have currents to contend with,debris hiding people,the fact that most people are already dead. Ok, you use the commercial fishing industry. I will admit that the majority of commercial vessels are more then willing to help and save lives and routinely go out of there way to administer assistance. Who treats the crew members who are permanetly psychologically damaged and can no longer work or function? This was just some poor schmuck trying to pay for his daughters college. Now he sees hundred of dead bodies and parts. Infants with intestines hanging out ripped in half,wedding pictures in dead peoples pockets,dozens of arms,legs and torsos floating. A pretty 6 year old girl in a flower girl dress with a stump on her neck where her head use to be. Is it fair to this poor commercial fisherman to be traumatized by something he never signed up to do... What if the totally untrained and mentally unprepared rescuer saves one persons life, then goes home and kills himself? How about taking the untrained rescuer taking his family with him to meet his higher power?

Bob, what's wrong with you? Is that kind of macabre response called for? Did I ever suggest a rowboat with a boy scout first aid kit? No, I didn't. If you have no interest in having a functional debate on the issue, than why do you respond? Now I'll say this one more time, read my posts and respond to what is contained in them. Do not misrepresent my suggestions. Do not take my opinions and elevate them into absurdities. If you disagree with what I've suggested, you need only say so.

[TeeVee]

Not at the cost of ten million dollars. I fly in mountains and woods in Va,Pennsylvania,and Virgina. The engine quits, I make a miracle landing and live I know I will most likely die of exposure. It's a risk I'm willing to take. I don't thin Mr. Fossett went out excpecting anyone to find him if he went down. It was just a tiny risk he was willing to take and lost. After all, isn't it true the only thing certain in life is death? There is just a point where if letting me die can save 2 others you just have to do it. It's the real world, not Evans fantasy world. PEOPLE DIE!

you know what bob, i'm not buying your altruism a bit. i think you are a bit untruthful here. sorta sounds to like an atheist in a fox hole: no God until you are about to get killed. you are most likely the only one on this board who would rather drown than be rescued.

have you ever seen someone die in real life? were you there, up close and personal? have you ever been to a disaster?

[Curtis Malone]

Well, actually, my point is being missed. The money involved would have NOTHING to do with the government or the people of Comoros. The money would be provided by and for and within a for-profit industry that has implicit obligations to its customers, you know, the people that support it, the ones they can't leave floating for five hours with no hope of rescue.

Or you must tell those passengers in very clear terms that, despite the modern appearance of the airplane, they are flying into a remote destination with no functional search and rescue capabilities should something untoward occur...

The industry does commonly support airport facilities and their improvement, but that's not usually done directly. The authority responsible for the airport charges landing and/or slot fees and that money is used to maintain/improve the airport. I don't know what the arrangement is on the island in question, but I would tend to agree that if it comes to air carriers footing the bill for emergency services, they'll likely just abandon the route.

As for your suggestion for a disclaimer during boarding, I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but I wonder when else would such a disclaimer be appropriate. Would an airline be obligated to advise its passengers that they're about to fly into an airport that has fewer than 10 (5, 7, 8, pick a number) fire trucks or an airport that's further than 6 (or whatever) miles from the nearest hospital etc etc.

I'm not sure what the answer is, it's just that what you're suggesting seems less than feasible.

[bob12312357]

[quote=TeeVee;523500]you know what bob, i'm not buying your altruism a bit. i think you are a bit untruthful here. sorta sounds to like an atheist in a fox hole: no God until you are about to get killed.Been there,still don't believe in him you are most likely the only one on this board who would rather drown than be rescued. No problem being rescued,just not at the cost of 1/3 my countries GDP

have you ever seen someone die in real life? TWICEwere you there, up close and personal?ONE SMASHED 140MPH INTO A GAURDRAIL ON HIS ZX-14,THE OTHER WAS AN OLD GUY WHO FELL AN CRACKED HIS HEAD LIKE A WATER MELON,SAW ANOTHER GUY GET AN ON THE SPOT AMPUTATION FROM A CAR HOOD ON HIS BIKEhave you ever been to a disaster?A DISASTER AS IN MAY PEOPLE DEAD AND INJURED NO, PLENTY OF BIKE AND CAR CRASHES AS I RIDE/DRIVE WIT SOME NUTTERS[/quote]

[TeeVee]

Kudos for seeing dead people. No one, except maybe the truly insane and the terminally ill, have a desire to die. I would bet every penny I will ever make, that given the right scenario, you would be crying to be rescued--at any cost.