Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[SYDCBRWOD]

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

Fine, then substitute another vehicle - maybe a BMW 5 series coming at you at 40 MPH - would you rather face the impact in a Geo metro or an S class Benz?

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.

This is not a matter of which is better to drive, we are talking about safety here - unquestionably a 2009 model S Class benz will be safer than your older smaller BMW. If you consider safety is a 'no cost is too high' proposition as you have stated earlier, why aren't you driving a Benz, or at least a (safer) Subaru? Surely you owe it to your passengers. The odds of being involved in a life threatening crash on the roads would be far higher than ending up in the water and surviving the crash somewhere remote where there is no SAR.

Incidentally, the W140 was the last S class to be considered overweight and overkill, the W220 and W221's that succeeded 'the barge' are substantially more nimble (if no lighter).

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...

The life jackets and life rafts are useful over any body of water. What you and Evan want would not have saved the passengers of AF447 if some had survived. Potentially, life jackets and life rafts would. In the case of the ditching in the Hudson, many passengers 'got wet' as the fuselage was breached and the ditching switch was not pushed (closing the vents and openings), so the plane started to sink quite quickly. Quite a few passengers had to be dragged out of the Hudson or were dragged out of the river onto the escape slides which were used as rafts.

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!

I'd say that airport fire tenders would get 10 to 50 times the 'trade' of a rescue boat crew unfortunately.

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.

In Australia heart disease/heart attack kills thousands every year, probably tens of thousands. Even if the number saved is 'only' in the hundreds - that equates to thousands saved every few years. How many are in a position to be saved by a rescue boat service as you propose every year around the world? Last year in Oz it was zero. And the year before and before that. 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

Fine, it's a free world - we'll agree to disagree on this. I think you will find you'll be pushing a dead cause (no pun intended) as there are not many, after viewing the costs and the potential increase in safety, that would consider it a good trade off.

[Evan]

The life jackets and life rafts are useful over any body of water. What you and Evan want would not have saved the passengers of AF447 if some had survived. Potentially, life jackets and life rafts would.

In a crash like this, there would be no time for life-vests and rafts, but you are missing the most essential point of this issue. The girl who was rescued was in the water for six hours and suffering from exhaustion and hypothermia. She reported hearing other voices around her at first, but they died off over time. If there were other survivors, they most likely succumbed to exhaustion and hypothermia, particularly if they were injured. Life vests, even if there was time to put them on, would not protect them from hypothermia. If no rescue were on the way, they would only prolong their suffering. Just as you need oxygen masks and life-vests, you need a plan to get people out of the water within a certain period of time.

Let me just say that any airport firefighting team situated next to a large body of water should have, at minimum, powered inflatables with searchlights as standard equipment. These are not so expensive. The French government can afford them.

[SYDCBRWOD]

but you are missing the most essential point of this issue.

No not missing the most essential point - as I stated before if a plane crashed even 2nm off say Gander Newfoundland, boats are not going to be sufficient - a fleet of 20 choppers on standby would be the only way to rescue 200 people in water of around zero degrees before they die from Hypothermia. Your idea of having a team of trained volunteers and there boats is not going to work here. Who will pay for a fleet of 20 choppers on standby 24 hours a day (Gander is a divert destination on transatlantic flights)? Given the A380's can fit up to 1000 pax, does this mean that to achieve your goal that we need 100 helo's on standby? That would be the only way to save 1000 pax in the water in sub zero temps before they die of hypothermia.

Or do we cease flying the atlantic in winter as the possible divert destination does not have sufficient helo's on standby to save the pax and crew in the event the aircraft ditches within 25nm of the airport?

No, I have not missed the most essential point, that point is unfortunately cost and the likelihood of that service being needed.

[Evan]

No not missing the most essential point - as I stated before if a plane crashed even 2nm off say Gander Newfoundland, boats are not going to be sufficient - a fleet of 20 choppers on standby would be the only way to rescue 200 people in water of around zero degrees before they die from Hypothermia. Your idea of having a team of trained volunteers and there boats is not going to work here. Who will pay for a fleet of 20 choppers on standby 24 hours a day (Gander is a divert destination on transatlantic flights)? Given the A380's can fit up to 1000 pax, does this mean that to achieve your goal that we need 100 helo's on standby? That would be the only way to save 1000 pax in the water in sub zero temps before they die of hypothermia.

Or do we cease flying the atlantic in winter as the possible divert destination does not have sufficient helo's on standby to save the pax and crew in the event the aircraft ditches within 25nm of the airport?

No, I have not missed the most essential point, that point is unfortunately cost and the likelihood of that service being needed.

What about 8-10 miraculous survivors of an 'unsurvivable' crash?

[SYDCBRWOD]

What about 8-10 miraculous survivors of an 'unsurvivable' crash?

Then I guess 1 helo on standby will be sufficient. Who is going to write to the airlines to ensure that any perfect 'sullenberger' ditching is deliberately stuffed up to ensure 90% of the people are killed? I can see the situation now:

"Good evening Folk's this is your captain, yes we have managed to regain control despite losing 3 out of our 4 engines, stalling 3 times and doing near supersonic speeds just as we pulled out. At the moment I am about to put the aircraft down gently just off Gander as we cannot make the runway, can all of the passengers except rows 1 and 2 in Business please take off their seat belts and sit normally, Rows 1 and 2 in Business please don your life jackets and take up crash positions. Just before I pull off a miraculous landing I will be deliberately dipping a wing into the sea so the airframe will cartwheel and break up, I have to do this as Gander only has 1 chopper on standby as under the 'EvanVee safety upgrade act' there was only sufficient funding for one helo, and I must ensure that only 10 pax survive the ditching. After all, we cannot have you guys surviving the crash only to die of hypothermia. After we hit, the copilot and I have sidearms and will kill anybody fortunate enough to survive who is not seated in rows 1 or 2. Thanks for flying Take A Chance Airlines."

So this is your solution -to ensure this can be affordable and cost effective enough so you win the arguement you will only cater for saving 8 to 10 pax in these circumstances? This is madness.

Here's another idea. Don't bother spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to ensure a few unfortunate survivors who were desperately unlucky enough to be in an aircraft that crashes somewhere remote with poorly organised SAR. (I'm still wondering why if people saw the aircraft go down in the Comoros, somebody at the police station/control tower/911 centre didn't mobilise the resources at the commercial seaport you alluded to earlier and get boats on the scene - sounds like nobody even used their common sense to me and they may have saved some of those survivors that supposedly drowned). How about instead these hundreds of millions of dollars annually are spent on other safety improvements.

This is my last on this because, frankly, this is boring.

[Evan]

This is my last on this because, frankly, this is boring.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars...A fleet of 20 choppers on standby 24 hours a day...A380's with 1000 pax...Picquet boats every 50Nm on all overwater legs...A catastrophic a 1 mile wide meteorite falling from the sky and wiping everybody out...

I can see why you're bored. You have quite the imagination.

[TeeVee]

SYD, first off, I am not a commercial carrier responsible for millions of lives in my car every year. i rarely have passengers, but even if i did, i certainly do not owe them a ride in the "safest" car in the world. btw, where exactly does it say that MB is the safest? I can't seem to find any tests on the S class.

As for the S being overweight, that is my opinion...my taste. i admittedly am not an MB expert or anywhere near. i just like the BMW better. oh, and they gave me a much better deal on my lease than MB could even dream of giving me!

We were talking about airport safety equipment and you morphed the thread into being one about cost benefit ratio for everything. believe it or not, i do understand your point and agree with you in general. but i also agree with Evan's point specific to COmoros and similar locales. if commercial carriers are going to offer regular service there, they ought to ensure a bare minimum of safety equipment and services.

the pretext that most airline crashes are not survivable is not an excuse. because if it is, then get rid of all safety equipment as it just wastes space, weight, fuel and money.

oh, and why is landing on a lake more survivable? and please don't say waves...the great lakes have monster waves.

i watched the video of the US air debacle for what seemed like an eternity and dont remember anyone using their life vests for flotation. of course some people got wet. sully was allegedly wading through waste deep water in the a/c escorting the last of the passengers out. still, the life vests were useless appendages. i suspect each one of those vests cost the airline around $200 to purchase if not more. when have the EVER been used?

[TeeVee]

Then I guess 1 helo on standby will be sufficient. Who is going to write to the airlines to ensure that any perfect 'sullenberger' ditching is deliberately stuffed up to ensure 90% of the people are killed? I can see the situation now:

"Good evening Folk's this is your captain, yes we have managed to regain control despite losing 3 out of our 4 engines, stalling 3 times and doing near supersonic speeds just as we pulled out. At the moment I am about to put the aircraft down gently just off Gander as we cannot make the runway, can all of the passengers except rows 1 and 2 in Business please take off their seat belts and sit normally, Rows 1 and 2 in Business please don your life jackets and take up crash positions. Just before I pull off a miraculous landing I will be deliberately dipping a wing into the sea so the airframe will cartwheel and break up, I have to do this as Gander only has 1 chopper on standby as under the 'EvanVee safety upgrade act' there was only sufficient funding for one helo, and I must ensure that only 10 pax survive the ditching. After all, we cannot have you guys surviving the crash only to die of hypothermia. After we hit, the copilot and I have sidearms and will kill anybody fortunate enough to survive who is not seated in rows 1 or 2. Thanks for flying Take A Chance Airlines."

Hysterical! thanks for the laugh i needed it!

[EconomyClass]

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars...A fleet of 20 choppers on standby 24 hours a day...A380's with 1000 pax...Picquet boats every 50Nm on all overwater legs...A catastrophic a 1 mile wide meteorite falling from the sky and wiping everybody out...

I can see why you're bored. You have quite the imagination.

Small towns have volunteer fire departments. I think I've said this before, but is it necessary to use equipment with no other purpose than to wait for the first plane crash?

[Evan]

Small towns have volunteer fire departments. I think I've said this before, but is it necessary to use equipment with no other purpose than to wait for the first plane crash?

Better than that, they have equipment for the event of a weapon of mass destruction, which is also kinda of a rare occurrence...

This is an outline of the 2003 grant budget for WMD Preparedness for the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

FY 03 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (SHSGP)

TOTAL FUNDING FOR FY 03: $9,001,000.00
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FY 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program has allocated the Commonwealth of Kentucky $9,001,000.00 in funding for the following areas:

Equipment: $6,316,000.00
Exercises: $1,579,000.00
Training: $474,000.00
Planning: $632,000.00

This included a bomb robot and support equipment and a mobile command vehicle. They probably look great in a parade, and that's about it.

Now how much will a my SAR proposal cost again?

[SYDCBRWOD]

Better than that, they have equipment for the event of a weapon of mass destruction, which is also kinda of a rare occurrence...

This is an outline of the 2003 grant budget for WMD Preparedness for the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

FY 03 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (SHSGP)

TOTAL FUNDING FOR FY 03: $9,001,000.00
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FY 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program has allocated the Commonwealth of Kentucky $9,001,000.00 in funding for the following areas:

Equipment: $6,316,000.00
Exercises: $1,579,000.00
Training: $474,000.00
Planning: $632,000.00

This included a bomb robot and support equipment and a mobile command vehicle. They probably look great in a parade, and that's about it.

Now how much will a my SAR proposal cost again?

Bomb robots get deployed on a fairly regular basis here, bomb robots are not just used on WMD. I know this as one of my mates works in the bomb squad. Money well spent. Either that or you can volunteer to do the close reconniasance and defusing tasks if you think of this as a waste of money.

[Evan]

Bomb robots get deployed on a fairly regular basis here, bomb robots are not just used on WMD. I know this as one of my mates works in the bomb squad. Money well spent. Either that or you can volunteer to do the close reconniasance and defusing tasks if you think of this as a waste of money.

On a 'fairly regular basis' in Kentucky?

[Curtis Malone]

...i also agree with Evan's point specific to COmoros and similar locales. if commercial carriers are going to offer regular service there, they ought to ensure a bare minimum of safety equipment and services.

I also agree with his main point on that, but I'm not willing to suggest that the carriers (through some sort of a mythical association or "industry group") should finance such equipment and services. That is a government function and if said government is not in position to provide such equipment/services then perhaps the airport shouldn't be served. Expecting the airlines to foot the bill for airport preparedness seems to me somewhat unreasonable.

[SYDCBRWOD]

On a 'fairly regular basis' in Kentucky?

Probably. They get fairly regular callouts here in Australia, yet I wouldn't think our threat of domestic terrorism is as high as the US.

Whenever there is an unclaimed bag (particularly in places like airport terminals and major shopping centres) the wheelbarrow (robot) will be used to check the bag/ package.

[Evan]

Probably. They get fairly regular callouts here in Australia, yet I wouldn't think our threat of domestic terrorism is as high as the US.

It's higher than Kentucky. Comoros has had more heavy airliner ditchings than Kentucky has had WMD terrorist attacks. But, it's good to be prepared. That's my point.

------------------

Back to my point. Two semi-rigid 6m inflatables on trailers with Honda 90hp outboards, pilot consoles and light bars with searchlights: approx $25,000-$30,000 each. That price includes basic VHF and emergency gear. Add training, exercises, maintenance and planning (in the Comoros) and you're looking at maybe $150,000, probably less. Not a significant expense for the industry or government grant budgets.

These are fast boats. The idea is to provide a minimum means to get people out of the water (8-10 per boat) and get them quickly to shore where they can be treated for injuries. The boats could also carry inflatable liferafts similar to the ones on aircraft to allow others to survive while awaiting rescue (2 each, 4 total).

If a large number of survivors are in the water, then the aircraft will have landing mostly intact and will have it's own inflatable chutes and rafts as well.

If a crash has even 10 survivors, and the investment was $150,000, is a human life worth $15,000?