posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pmsumner at 10:05pm on 10/08/2003
pmsumner at 10:05pm on 10/08/2003I've just finished watching the "Crowded Skies" ducumentary on risks of ground collisions at airports. I am shocked. Such a simple thing, basic checks missed, forgotten, ignored or not applied and 200 people lose their lives.
To give a basic overview - there was an accident at Milan airport a coupla years back where a private jet and an SAS jet collided on the runway, the SAS jet travelling at around 100 m.p.h., in dense fog.
The cause? One of many: The ATC didn't seem to know where one of the checkpoints was when the private jet pilot stated his position. Another one? Milan had no ground radar. They couldn't see the planes through the fog. Even though they'd bought a new radar system with collision detection built in, from a Norwegian company in 1994!
I find this type of thing deeply shocking, where negligence and "can't be arsedness" and a lack of basic safety features cause hundreds of people to die.
To give a basic overview - there was an accident at Milan airport a coupla years back where a private jet and an SAS jet collided on the runway, the SAS jet travelling at around 100 m.p.h., in dense fog.
The cause? One of many: The ATC didn't seem to know where one of the checkpoints was when the private jet pilot stated his position. Another one? Milan had no ground radar. They couldn't see the planes through the fog. Even though they'd bought a new radar system with collision detection built in, from a Norwegian company in 1994!
I find this type of thing deeply shocking, where negligence and "can't be arsedness" and a lack of basic safety features cause hundreds of people to die.
shocked
(no subject)
However, I'm disgusted by remarks like this when they're used to defend negligence cases. When someone 'loses their life', it's 100% of their life, not 1% of 100 peoples' lives.
I'll stand down from the lecturn now...
(no subject)
When a single air crash can kill 500 people, more if an airborne plane hits land and populated areas, safety has to be the only consideration.
I would hope that nobody would ever use a statement like "99% of people travel safely by air, it's only these poor souls who perished because they were unlucky" to defend crap safety. It's feeble.
It's a subject close to my heart, I find air travel and safety to be fascinating and what with my (kindof) ambitions of becoming an Air Traffic geezer I've taken a real interest in it.
Oh yes indeedy
'tis also a subject I find interesting and I caught most of that documentary, too. I recommend that you read "The Tombstone Imperative", a book that casts a cynical light on exactly what gets changes made.
Yup, it's that old chestnut about costs of upgrades versus cost of projected number of deaths due to *not* doing something.
Re: Oh yes indeedy