Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[SYDCBRWOD]

I would bet every penny I will ever make, that given the right scenario, you would be crying to be rescued--at any cost.

Do you drive the latest S Class Mercedes Benz? If not, why not? This safety regardless of the costs approach should be applied to all areas of your life shouldn't it? After all you are at more risk on the roads than you are on an airliner. I would bet every penny that you will ever make that when a 58 tonne B-Double truck loses steering control and is coming directly at you with its brakes locked and getting larger every millisecond in your windscreen that you wish you didn't save some money and buy a Geo Metro, you had instead borrowed money up to the eyeballs (list price here in Australia starts from $201,810 for the S320 CDI) to purchase the 'Benz. (fair analogy?)

I'm guessing that you do not drive a 2009 S Class Mercedes Benz. Why? I've just outlined a senario as likely to happen as being dumped in the ocean, and surviving the crash of a passenger jetliner. Why apply the double standard?

Don't know about you but where I live Earthquakes are not at all common. However the house I live in adheres to building codes that do not account for once in 1000 year earthquake events. I assume my home whilst strong enough 99.99% of the time may collapse if a sufficient earthquake magnitude were experienced. Why do you think it is that the building authorities did not mandate that the home survive a 1 in a million year quake?

Cost/benefit ratio's. Why have you at some stage jaywalked (I'm assuming you have here) - it would be much safer if slower to wait at the pedestrian crossings. Instead often people elect to trade off that safety and a possible jaywalking fine (rarely policed) for the benefit of saving some time.

This is what I do not understand about the arguments raised by yourself and Evan. The odds of being involved in an airborne incident are slim. The odds of being on board an airliner that goes down over a body of water (given that probably most flights are over land I'd guess) are slimmer still. The odds of surviving such a catastrophy are miniscule, yet no expense is to be spared providing a rescue service that will in all probablility never be used? The largest aircraft in the air today can seat roughly 1000. Say two full A380's configured in this all economy layout hit each other and managed to both ditch without casualties in the ocean. Lets say none of the life vests or escape slides worked and the Comoros Islands rescue service as proposed by Evan (a corordinated organisation of fishing boats) rescued all the people without loss! Fantastic! Result!

Now lets say it costs $20,000 per year for each airport near the ocean to maintain these services. Lets say there are 60 airports just in Australia alone that require this service - then we are looking at $1.2M per year to maintain this capability. Now scale that figure by however many airports there are in the world ajacent to water, and the cost would have to be around 100 times more. $120M per year. Any idea what sort of difference that money would make if ploughed into disaster relief/clean drinking water for the third world etc? You'd save well over 2000 people per year. And all the figures I've listed above look seriously conservative to me. What you guys don't seem to understand is that you have focussed on an event that has incredibly low odds of it happening with an ongoing cost of negating the problem being extremely high. COST/BENEFIT RATIO.

[P3_Super_Bee]

Do you drive the latest S Class Mercedes Benz?

~SNIP~

What you guys don't seem to understand is that you have focussed on an event that has incredibly low odds of it happening with an ongoing cost of negating the problem being extremely high. COST/BENEFIT RATIO.

Well said!!!!!!!!!!

[EconomyClass]

I don't think there is a single costlevel for protection. There is a whole raft of appropriate precautions, and therefore there is a whole range of costs. If a Mercedes isn't the right one, how about a bicycle or scooter?

[TeeVee]

Do you drive the latest S Class Mercedes Benz? If not, why not? This safety regardless of the costs approach should be applied to all areas of your life shouldn't it? After all you are at more risk on the roads than you are on an airliner. I would bet every penny that you will ever make that when a 58 tonne B-Double truck loses steering control and is coming directly at you with its brakes locked and getting larger every millisecond in your windscreen that you wish you didn't save some money and buy a Geo Metro, you had instead borrowed money up to the eyeballs (list price here in Australia starts from $201,810 for the S320 CDI) to purchase the 'Benz. (fair analogy?)

I'm guessing that you do not drive a 2009 S Class Mercedes Benz. Why? I've just outlined a senario as likely to happen as being dumped in the ocean, and surviving the crash of a passenger jetliner. Why apply the double standard?

Don't know about you but where I live Earthquakes are not at all common. However the house I live in adheres to building codes that do not account for once in 1000 year earthquake events. I assume my home whilst strong enough 99.99% of the time may collapse if a sufficient earthquake magnitude were experienced. Why do you think it is that the building authorities did not mandate that the home survive a 1 in a million year quake?

Cost/benefit ratio's. Why have you at some stage jaywalked (I'm assuming you have here) - it would be much safer if slower to wait at the pedestrian crossings. Instead often people elect to trade off that safety and a possible jaywalking fine (rarely policed) for the benefit of saving some time.

This is what I do not understand about the arguments raised by yourself and Evan. The odds of being involved in an airborne incident are slim. The odds of being on board an airliner that goes down over a body of water (given that probably most flights are over land I'd guess) are slimmer still. The odds of surviving such a catastrophy are miniscule, yet no expense is to be spared providing a rescue service that will in all probablility never be used? The largest aircraft in the air today can seat roughly 1000. Say two full A380's configured in this all economy layout hit each other and managed to both ditch without casualties in the ocean. Lets say none of the life vests or escape slides worked and the Comoros Islands rescue service as proposed by Evan (a corordinated organisation of fishing boats) rescued all the people without loss! Fantastic! Result!

Now lets say it costs $20,000 per year for each airport near the ocean to maintain these services. Lets say there are 60 airports just in Australia alone that require this service - then we are looking at $1.2M per year to maintain this capability. Now scale that figure by however many airports there are in the world ajacent to water, and the cost would have to be around 100 times more. $120M per year. Any idea what sort of difference that money would make if ploughed into disaster relief/clean drinking water for the third world etc? You'd save well over 2000 people per year. And all the figures I've listed above look seriously conservative to me. What you guys don't seem to understand is that you have focussed on an event that has incredibly low odds of it happening with an ongoing cost of negating the problem being extremely high. COST/BENEFIT RATIO.

no, i drive a bmw 528i. and i'm not sure the s is much safer. seriously, do you think an s would have any chance against a 58 ton truck? having said that, why not get rid of lifejackets on board? very expensive to purchase, must be replaced every few years...

the slippery slope runs both ways. i read that the seat bolts on modern aircraft are designed to stand up to some small fraction of what automobile seat bolts can. hell why not save even more and make them out of begasse?

here's one: since the rate of successful pre-hospital cardiac resucitation is around 5%, why bother? imagine how much drinking water we could produce with the money we would save on defibrilators, drugs, soft supplies etc!!!!

1.2 million is a lot to protect the entire country?????

[SYDCBRWOD]

no, i drive a bmw 528i. and i'm not sure the s is much safer. seriously, do you think an s would have any chance against a 58 ton truck? having said that, why not get rid of lifejackets on board? very expensive to purchase, must be replaced every few years...

Depends how hard the final impact is. You'll note I compared the safety levels of the S class with a Geo Metro. Would you agree that the latest Mercedes Benz S class would be safer in a major accident than youur car? Why do you not drive one?

As to lifejackets, I believe they have a longer life than a few years (but I'll grant you that the CO2 cartidges and batteries may have to be replaced in this time). Apart from that service cost, they are a one off purchase as opposed to a continual expense. Also, life jackets can be used if the aircraft comes down on a dam, a river, close to an airport or in the middle of an ocean 2000 miles from any human habitation. Spending money to have some form of rescue boat service near airports only leaves vast tracks of the ocean uncovered.

the slippery slope runs both ways. i read that the seat bolts on modern aircraft are designed to stand up to some small fraction of what automobile seat bolts can. hell why not save even more and make them out of begasse?

Evidence? It may be that the rails and structure of the aircraft floor could not withstand stronger bolts anyway. Perhaps a LAME could assist here?

here's one: since the rate of successful pre-hospital cardiac resucitation is around 5%, why bother? imagine how much drinking water we could produce with the money we would save on defibrilators, drugs, soft supplies etc!!!!

(BrianW999, help!) I think that 5% figure refers to if CPR only is applied (say in an area where no outside help is available). If CPR is used to keep blood and oxygen circulating until medical help arrives, then when the medical dudes get stuck in I think the survival rate improves tremendously 20-30%?

1.2 million is a lot to protect the entire country?????

OK, I seriously underestimated here - that probably wouldn't pay for the lunches of the government department responsible for ensuring it is implemented - minimum 20 -50 million per year here. Trainers flying arround the country, accommodation, allowances, equipment etc.

Whatever, my point still remains, cost/benefit ratio.

[Evan]

Do you drive the latest S Class Mercedes Benz? If not, why not? This safety regardless of the costs approach should be applied to all areas of your life shouldn't it? After all you are at more risk on the roads than you are on an airliner. I would bet every penny that you will ever make that when a 58 tonne B-Double truck loses steering control and is coming directly at you with its brakes locked and getting larger every millisecond in your windscreen that you wish you didn't save some money and buy a Geo Metro, you had instead borrowed money up to the eyeballs (list price here in Australia starts from $201,810 for the S320 CDI) to purchase the 'Benz. (fair analogy?)

Unfair analogy. Analogous arguments are tricky, and most often unfair. A more fair analogy here would go something like this:

You and your family are driving in your S Class Mercedes along a tourist toll-funded highway into a poor, small town (population 5000) in a third world country and you suddenly lose control and hit a tree. The car is destroyed but somehow you and your family manage to crawl from the wreckage. You are relatively uninjured and feel incredibly lucky to be alive. It is very cold, but you see the lights of the town a couple miles down the road so you assume you will be rescued soon.

The people of the town have witnessed your crash. They desperately want to go out and help you but they have no ambulance. Some people have trucks for the work they do, but nobody knows where the people with the keys are.

Hours pass, and slowly, one by one, your family members succumb to the cold and die from hypothermia. Eventually, someone in the town manages to find someone with some keys and drives out to get you, six hours later, but only you have survived.

You ask them, what took you so long? They tell you they have no plan for rescuing people on the highway because a crash is very rare.

Along comes a man in a crisp new suit from the highway department. You ask him why the people of this town have no means to rescue the victims of a crash, or even to bring them in from the cold until help arrives—not even a simple contingency plan to use one of those trucks sitting by the roadside. He tells you the highway department has decided that this would not be a justifiable use of highway funds collected from drivers like you.

As he drives off, you notice that he is also driving an s-class mercedes, with the highway dept. logo on the side.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Unfair analogy. Analogous arguments are tricky, and most often unfair. A more fair analogy here would go something like this:

You and your family are driving in your S Class Mercedes along a tourist toll-funded highway into a poor, small town (population 5000) in a third world country and you suddenly lose control and hit a tree. The car is destroyed but somehow you and your family manage to crawl from the wreckage. You are relatively uninjured and feel incredibly lucky to be alive. It is very cold, but you see the lights of the town a couple miles down the road so you assume you will be rescued soon.

The people of the town have witnessed your crash. They desperately want to go out and help you but they have no ambulance. Some people have trucks for the work they do, but nobody knows where the people with the keys are.

Hours pass, and slowly, one by one, your family members succumb to the cold and die from hypothermia. Eventually, someone in the town manages to find someone with some keys and drives out to get you, six hours later, but only you have survived.

You ask them, what took you so long? They tell you they have no plan for rescuing people on the highway because a crash is very rare.

Along comes a man in a crisp new suit from the highway department. You ask him why the people of this town have no means to rescue the victims of a crash, or even to bring them in from the cold until help arrives—not even a simple contingency plan to use one of those trucks sitting by the roadside. He tells you the highway department has decided that this would not be a justifiable use of highway funds collected from drivers like you.

Evan, No. TeeVee made the statement that apparently he would be crying out to be rescued regardless of the cost. I was simply pointing out to him that if cost was no object why is it that he doesn't apply that same standard to the rest of his life? He is far more likely to be killed in a car crash that in an air incident on an RPT flight. He is many many more times more likely to die in a car accident than being involved in a survivable ditching scenario withing 10km's of an airport. So why has he made the decision to not drive the absolute latest and safest automobile on the road? Because he has made a personal cost/benefit analysis and decided the safety features he has in his BMW (a reasonably safe choice) are good enough.

Airliners have double and triple redundant systems, pilots are made to take medicals to try and minimise the risk of a medical malady affecting their performance, aircraft are equipped with life rafts, slides that act as rafts, and passenger life jackets. Most airports that the vast majority of airliners fly into have some form of organised SAR capability at some level. Now you want to ensure there is some form of SAR organisation so that if the Comoros situation happens again there will be some form of organised response. OK, commendable to think that way, but what will happen if the next aircraft drops say 50Nm short of the Comoros airport. There was no distress call in this instance - despite the dollars you have just committed to organise the fishing boats, all these people will die as nobody will know they had dropped into the sea, and fishing boats could not get out there in time. So, Evan's new improved idea, picquet boats every 50Nm on all overwater legs? My point is where does it stop?

In your egalitarian desire to see that all locations should be capable of rescuing people, what about those locations like Gander Newfoundland, where even if the plane landed 2 nautical miles from shore, the water temperature will kill them all before the local fishermen have even been woken up, got dressed, got their crew together and down to the docks let alone started their engines and started out to pick up survivors. As this location obviously requires a much faster response, who will pay the cost of a fleet of 20 rescue helo's and crews on standby in the unlikely event an aircraft with 200 pax drops into the ocean?

Maybe all aircraft regardless of need should have at least 4 engines - that way Cap'n Sullenberger may have only lost 2 of 4 engines and this oh so dangerous ditching on the Hudson could have been avoided.

But hang on, the British Airways Jumbo lost all 4 donks due to ingesting volcanic ash - maybe then aircraft need not only 4 jet engines but another 4 turboprops as backups....Where does it stop Evan?

How many times in the last 30 years has there been a large scale loss of lives of survivors from drowning or sharks within sight of their intended destination? Maybe twice or three times? How many passenger flights have successfully completed their trips over water in the past 30 years?

Cost. Benefit. Ratio.

As he drives off, you notice that he is also driving an s-class mercedes, with the highway dept. logo on the side.

With this analogy, are you suggesting the authorities of the Comoros Islands are rolling in money (i.e. buying S class 'Benz), yet neglecting SAR? If you are I think you are mistaken, the local 'highway department' would more likely be driving a third hand honda stepthrough.

[Evan]

With this analogy, are you suggesting the authorities of the Comoros Islands are rolling in money (i.e. buying S class 'Benz), yet neglecting SAR? If you are I think you are mistaken, the local 'highway department' would more likely be driving a third hand honda stepthrough.

I'll say this for the absolute last time, and then I'll quit trying to make my point to a remedial reading forum:

The responsibility and the funding for what I propose are both shouldered by the industries and the interests that serve Comoros, not Comoros itself, not the people of Comoros, not the government of Comoros. These are private, for-profit industries that are owned by s-class driving capitalists.

The funding I'm speaking of is already destined to be used within the industry. It will never be used for humanitarian purposes so you can stop giving me that argument.

In addition, there is international assistance available. The government of Comoros has two relatively modern patrol boats, two helicopters and two twin-engine turboprops. The Mil Mi-14 is designated for SAR. These were undoubtably acquired with the help of grants or donations or some sort of international assistance from outside their borders. These financial programs are very specific in their mission. You can't use them for clean drinking water. There are other grant programs for health and human services, and you can't buy helicopters with them. This is how the world operates.

The relative isolation of the Comoro Islands had made air traffic a major means of transportation. One of President Abdallah's accomplishments was to make Comoros more accessible by air. During his administration, he negotiated agreements to initiate or enhance commercial air links with Tanzania and Madagascar. The Djohar regime reached an agreement in 1990 to link Moroni and Brussels by air. By the early 1990s, commercial flights connected Comoros with France, Mauritius, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Madagascar. The national airline was Air Comores. Daily flights linked the three main islands, and air service was also available to Mahoré; each island had airstrips. In 1986 the republic received a grant from the French government's CCCE to renovate and expand Hahaya airport, near Moroni. Because of the absence of regularly scheduled sea transport between the islands, nearly all interisland passenger traffic is by air.
More than 99 percent of freight is transported by sea. Both Moroni on Njazidja and Mutsamudu on Nzwani have artificial harbors. There is also a harbor at Fomboni, on Mwali. Despite extensive internationally financed programs to upgrade the harbors at Moroni and Mutsamudu, by the early 1990s only Mutsamudu was operational as a deepwater facility. Its harbor could accommodate vessels of up to eleven meters' draught. At Moroni, ocean-going vessels typically lie offshore and are loaded or unloaded by smaller craft, a costly and sometimes dangerous procedure. Most freight continues to be sent to Kenya, Reunion, or Madagascar for transshipment to Comoros. Use of Comoran ports is further restricted by the threat of cyclones from December through March. The privately operated Comoran Navigation Company (Société Comorienne de Navigation) is based in Moroni, and provides services to Madagascar. )

Where does it end? How about 25 nautical miles from the airport. Beyond that, I can accept the excuse of limited resources. But not a couple miles out, in full sight of land, and after been eye-witnessed going down. Not six hours. Not when a number of passengers have miraculously survived the crash only to perish slowly because nobody had a boat available at an island airstrip next to a commercial seaport.

[SYDCBRWOD]

I'll say this for the absolute last time, and then I'll quit trying to make my point to a remedial reading forum:

You may wish to take that remedial reading class yourself. If you meant the industries and interests, next time don't make your half arsed analogy a government department Vis: "Along comes a man in a crisp new suit from the highway department." and
"As he drives off, you notice that he is also driving an s-class mercedes, with the highway dept. logo on the side."

The responsibility and the funding for what I propose are both shouldered by the industries and the interests that serve Comoros, not Comoros itself, not the people of Comoros, not the government of Comoros. These are private, for-profit industries that are owned by s-class driving capitalists.

OK, lets assume these funds are borne by the filthy rich capitalists who in turn pass on the costs to their tourists. These capitalists will not want to do this as it will add to the costs of their operation (even if its only a dollar or two per tourist). No true capitalist wants to see an additional tax being imposed, particularly as this will then make their operation slghtly less competitive than say a similar tourist resort that has not imposed the same levy on the Maldives. These capitalists will be suspicious that this $2.00 per head tax could soon be a $10.00 per head tax (happened before can certainly happen again when it comes to taxes). Before you argue that it is in fact a selling point and in the hotel's interests to do so (the perceived safety dividend for the customer) most customers when it comes down to it chose price over safety. For proof of that look at the take-up rates of optional airbags and safety systems in cars. The only people who seem to consider this to be a brilliant way to spend money are you and Tee Vee. The capitalists will further argue that as the government has helicopters, aircraft and patrol boats and they no doubt pay company taxes as well as their employees paying income taxes that the government had better use its available resources a bit better in future.

The funding I'm speaking of is already destined to be used within the industry. It will never be used for humanitarian purposes so you can stop giving me that argument.

In addition, there is international assistance available. The government of Comoros has two relatively modern patrol boats, two helicopters and two twin-engine turboprops. The Mil Mi-14 is designated for SAR. These were undoubtably acquired with the help of grants or donations or some sort of international assistance from outside their borders. These financial programs are very specific in their mission. You can't use them for clean drinking water. There are other grant programs for health and human services, and you can't buy helicopters with them. This is how the world operates.

So the government of the Comoros has these resources and yet they had not deployed a patrol boat to act in a SAR role at this airport. Why I wonder? Cost benefit ratio. These craft are probably employed doing something useful like fisheries protection, patroling against illegal immigration etc. Also why were these SAR helo's not deployed immediately to the crash scene? The Comoros group is only around 140Nm from the furthest points - roughly an hour's flying time - why were the Mi14's not used? It looks like the government of the Comoros just need to get their act together - some additional training in flying at night and a Nitesun. If these airframes are set up for SAR they should already have the necessary winch and crew.

Where does it end? How about 25 nautical miles from the airport. Beyond that, I can accept the excuse of limited resources. But not a couple miles out, in full sight of land, and after been eye-witnessed going down. Not six hours. Not when a number of passengers have miraculously survived the crash only to perish slowly because nobody had a boat available at an island airstrip next to a commercial seaport.

Which begs the question why this local fishing fleet that you propose to utilise didn't get off their arses and go looking for these survivors. Maybe it's because this fleet doesn't exist and you'll have to admit that you need to provide and crew a rescue boat at massive cost.

I also like how your compassion for souls lost at sea is bottomless up to the 25Nm mark, but you wash your hands at that point. How is a native fishing boat (that's your proposal remember) going to navigate out 25 miles in total darkness and hope to find survivors. If they do have a fishing fleet it probably consists of small wooden hulled boats powered by a single cylinder diesel. They lack lights, nav aids, electrics and have a top speed of around 5 knots - so its going to take them 5 hours anyway. Yet money is going to be 'invested' in training these locals to be the on the scene SAR facilities.

When planning a military operation a risk analysis is done. Risks are categorised on a matrix with the degree effect that risk has from mild, a vehicle getting a flat tyre for example, through moderate - losing a vehicle to enemy fire, to catastrophic a 1 mile wide meteorite falling from the sky and wiping everybody out. On the other axis is plotted the liklihood of these risks occurring, in the above example depending on terrain there may be a high likelihood of a flat tyre, so the plan needs to allow for time and materials to change said tyre. Losing a vehicle is possible so it can mean taking operational spares, whereas the last risk (rock from space) is so remote that it can be discounted.

Civvy organisations work on a similar system, except you substitute risks to include bomb attacks, mid air collisions, fire in the terminal etc. On the incredibly remote side of the risk analysis matrix would be an aircraft coming down in the sea. Sure it may be considered, but only after money is devoted to the more likely risks such as bomb detection equipment a sprinkler system for the terminal and backup radio systems etc.

I will say this also for absolutely the last time: COST. BENEFIT. RATIO.

[Curtis Malone]

I'll say this for the absolute last time, and then I'll quit trying to make my point to a remedial reading forum:

The responsibility and the funding for what I propose are both shouldered by the industries and the interests that serve Comoros, not Comoros itself, not the people of Comoros, not the government of Comoros. These are private, for-profit industries that are owned by s-class driving capitalists.

You may have a valid point that the airport at Comoros ought not receive airline service due to its poor facilities. What I find hard to agree with is your assertion that the "industries" ought to finance such facilities. It sounds to me as though you're advocating air carriers getting into the airport management business, something they've not historically done and are likely not very good at.

[Evan]

You may have a valid point that the airport at Comoros ought not receive airline service due to its poor facilities. What I find hard to agree with is your assertion that the "industries" ought to finance such facilities. It sounds to me as though you're advocating air carriers getting into the airport management business, something they've not historically done and are likely not very good at.

I'm advocating that the aviation industry, not individual carriers, and international coalitions provide funding for basic minimal safety provisions through grants, surcharges, destination fees or whatever other means they deem appropriate. As long as these costs are spread out over a large organization of for-profit interests, they will not be burdensome to any individual enterprise. You'll notice, for instance, the the modernization and expansion of the Hahaya airport was accomplished through a grant from the French government, not from the Comoros treasury and not from any individual operator.

[Curtis Malone]

I'm advocating that the aviation industry, not individual carriers, and international coalitions provide funding for basic minimal safety provisions through grants, surcharges, destination fees or whatever other means they deem appropriate.

By international coalitions I assume you mean IATA or similar. How many carriers service the airport in question?

You'll notice, for instance, the the modernization and expansion of the Hahaya airport was accomplished through a grant from the French government, not from the Comoros treasury and not from any individual operator.

That's where that kind of funding usually comes from, governments and not industry itself. The industry, of course, usually pays taxes, which fund the government.

[Evan]

Also why were these SAR helo's not deployed immediately to the crash scene?

FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT. Remember page 2?

Which begs the question why this local fishing fleet that you propose to utilise didn't get off their arses and go looking for these survivors. Maybe it's because this fleet doesn't exist and you'll have to admit that you need to provide and crew a rescue boat at massive cost.

Organization. And not necessarily wooden fishing boats. Moroni is a commercial seaport. Or didn't you bother to read that part?

At Moroni, ocean-going vessels typically lie offshore and are loaded or unloaded by smaller craft

I also like how your compassion for souls lost at sea is bottomless up to the 25Nm mark, but you wash your hands at that point.

It doesn't, and I don't, but you have to compromise somewhere.

I will say this also for absolutely the last time: COST. BENEFIT. RATIO.

Yes, the benefit far outweighs the cost.

[Evan]

By international coalitions I assume you mean IATA or similar. How many carriers service the airport in question?

Or the ICAO, or any other available infrastructural grants or financing sources targeting developing nations.

That's where that kind of funding usually comes from, governments and not industry itself. The industry, of course, usually pays taxes, which fund the government.

These grants are also often directed at the behest of private industry to accommodate trade.

[TeeVee]

Depends how hard the final impact is. You'll note I compared the safety levels of the S class with a Geo Metro. Would you agree that the latest Mercedes Benz S class would be safer in a major accident than youur car? Why do you not drive one?

hmmm, in any appreciable impact i doubt any car would fare much better than any other against 58 tons. let's be real.

personally i think the s class is overrated. the reason i don't drive one is a matter of preference. the 528 outdrives the overweight and bloated s class. interestingly, i could not find any rating of the s class online. and while i doubt it is not a very safe car, i have no way to compare it to mine, which admittedly did not fare as well as some cheaper cars like subaru.

As to lifejackets, I believe they have a longer life than a few years (but I'll grant you that the CO2 cartidges and batteries may have to be replaced in this time). Apart from that service cost, they are a one off purchase as opposed to a continual expense. Also, life jackets can be used if the aircraft comes down on a dam, a river, close to an airport or in the middle of an ocean 2000 miles from any human habitation. Spending money to have some form of rescue boat service near airports only leaves vast tracks of the ocean uncovered.

yes, they are a one of purchase. but when is the last time they were actually used? even in the US Air Hudson river ditching they were not needed. Passengers put them on but no one got wet. waste of weight and money. so are the life rafts that must weigh several hundred pounds...

Isn't it true that most air disasters occur close to airports? I think so. Hence, having rescue operations in the vicinity makes financial sense. Heck following some of the logic i'm reading here, why have fire rescue at every airport??? talk about billions of wasted dollars! you could just call the local fire departments and save millions at every airport!

Evidence? It may be that the rails and structure of the aircraft floor could not withstand stronger bolts anyway. Perhaps a LAME could assist here?

No evidence at all. I said that I read it somewhere or maybe I saw it on TV.

(BrianW999, help!) I think that 5% figure refers to if CPR only is applied (say in an area where no outside help is available). If CPR is used to keep blood and oxygen circulating until medical help arrives, then when the medical dudes get stuck in I think the survival rate improves tremendously 20-30%?

ok it's been several years so my memory was not quite accurate. turns out that give or take a few percent, pre-hospital intervention in cardiac arrest only results in around 15% survival. according to bob's theories, the insane amount of money spent saving so few people is not justified. and yes, using cpr alone results in a much lower survival rate. however, adding advanced life support, which uses essentially the same drugs administered in hospital, adds literally thousands of dollars.

OK, I seriously underestimated here - that probably wouldn't pay for the lunches of the government department responsible for ensuring it is implemented - minimum 20 -50 million per year here. Trainers flying arround the country, accommodation, allowances, equipment etc.

Whatever, my point still remains, cost/benefit ratio.

So i guess you believe that you can place a value on human life. not that you would be the only one...actuaries do it for a living and lawyers ger rich (sometimes) off of these figures. still, Evan's original point, which I agreed with, is that spending some money on some system, however primitive, is worth it.

cheers