Scantlings

Just about every sailor must be wondering why a crashing airplane doesn't release an EPIRB or similar? Is it too hard to do, or do the airlines not want to carry the weight of something so rarely used?

I read that there were various proposals for something like an EPIRB that would be launched before a crash/dunking. The article said that it was too expensive given the rarity of airplane crashes.

We all know that air travel is the safest way to travel, and it seems that when something does go wrong it gets a lot of press and everyone gets excited. But the actual fatality statistics don't seem to compel anyone to spend money on what is viewed as a non-problem.

Comparison of flying vs driving:

Wikipedia: The likelihood of a fatality (per passenger) estimated for this trip (assuming a total of 40 miles driven to and from the airports), is about 8–9 times greater when driving than when flying.[9] Also notice that in this scenario a fatality is 2.5–5 times more likely on the drive to the airport than on the flight itself.[10]

Rail and motorcoach accidents also account for fatalities, although public transportation is far less dangerous than driving a personal vehicle.

Note: the above is for driving in the US, driving in other places in the world tends to be more dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States

The cost/benefit ratio looks different post MH370 than before.

I think it's probably the fact of the virtual non-survivability of heavy aircraft crashes. That is also what makes such a big deal out of the crashes that do happen - they are almost invariably such total catastrophes that they have to draw a lot of attention.

Lots of "little" car crashes all over add up to more deaths by far but they just don't have the spectacular visibility of air disasters.

Beau,

I think it is important to narrow the TYPE of flying when talking about air safety. Unfortunately, many people read the statements that you posted and apply them to ALL types of flying.

As I am sure you know, small piston airplane flying has a very high fatality rate. A rate that is much worse than automobile travel (it is more in the realm of motorcycle travel).

On the other hand if you only look at U.S. MAJOR airline travel, then the fatality rate is basically zero as there has only been one death since 2001. It was Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 that overran an icy runway and hit a vehicle on a street, killing a boy. This is Southwest airline's only fatality in their history (began in 1967). Amazing.

In my not so popular opinion, major airline travel has become TOO safe. What I mean is that some of the effort and money spent making MAJOR airline travel almost perfectly safe, should have been spent making other modes of transportation safer.

-US Major airline deaths since 2001 = 1 (ok, 4 if you count the 3 girls that died in the Asiana crash at SFO)
-US road deaths since 2001 = 426,547.

Steve

Steve,

You correct, the numbers I cited are for major commercial scheduled flights. I agree that the focus of money and effort on safety is primarily based on news media coverage, not on actually saving lives. Busses always get a lot of attention after a Scholl bus crashes, even though the kids are far safer in a school bus than they are in their parents car.

Regarding crashes of big airplanes, while I agree that it'd be nice to find them quicker, the probability of saving anyone is really small. So unlike a EPIRB that leads rescuers to a life raft full of seasick sailors, I fear such a device for a big airplane would just lead us to bodies.

Regarding car safety, we're about to start going in the wrong direction. Cell phone usage, specifically txting and email, is now killing more people than drunk driving (I maybe remembering this data for just folks from 20-30 years old). It would be TRIVIAL for a phone to stop functioning when it's moving and that would save a lot of lives. But it would be so intensely unpopular that I doubt it'll happen. At the LEAST the phone should stop displaying email, txt and the web when moving faster than about 5mph. But consumer groups are already ranting about things like: "You'll punish the passengers!" Give me a break!

B

For aviation, ELTs (Emergency Location Transmitters) are basically the same as marine EPIRBS except have to meet more stringent certifications and some are designed to start transmitting upon aircraft impact. From what I can find on the interwebs they come in similar versions to marine units and seem to be priced a bit higher, but not out of reach for light aircraft owners. From reading news reports of light aircraft crashes in our area it seems at least some of them have ELTs. I believe commercial aircraft rely on their black boxes for emergency location but I could be wrong on that. Steve or others can confirm.

There is a good case to be made that our safety thinking for automobiles is misdirected- we focus on the vehicles and making them safe in an accident, and don't spend enough on operator errors. Places that focus on operator behavior have better outcomes than those that focus on the vehicles.

Reading an article in the newspaper today, it sounds like the newest airliners are required to report their position every 15 minutes. That would be about every 125 miles. Some airlines track every 2 minutes which is more like every 15 miles. These systems were turned for on MH370, I believe.

Tucky wrote:There is a good case to be made that our safety thinking for automobiles is misdirected- we focus on the vehicles and making them safe in an accident, and don't spend enough on operator errors. Places that focus on operator behavior have better outcomes than those that focus on the vehicles.

Yes! But I suspect a more likely out come will be the transition to electronic assisted collision prevention as well as car to car data sharing.

SemiSalt wrote:Reading an article in the newspaper today, it sounds like the newest airliners are required to report their position every 15 minutes. That would be about every 125 miles. Some airlines track every 2 minutes which is more like every 15 miles. These systems were turned for on MH370, I believe.

Semi

As I understand it, the default "health and status" reporting is every 15 minutes. The equipment is standard for me production aircraft and serves to provide updated equipment status to allow operators to plan corrective maintenance and minitor system health. It is not a requirement to activated the reporting and it comes at a cost to the carrier. For a number of accidents, the info had proven invaluable in crash investigations. For Air France, out of radar contact over the south Atlantic, it was the first indication that the aircraft had crashed and allows search teams to begin their localization. For MH 370, Malaysian Airlines did not have the system activated but it turns out that it defaults to a contact check in (are you there?) hourly and that lead to the Doppler analysis and potential lines of position.

System isn't required but certainly potential useful, particularly if polled frequently. That said, it would not have helped in locating this latest crash (found 6 miles from loss of radar contact). It would have helped in the MH 370 loss but that is truly a black swan event. 100,000 commercial flights per day over 50,000 unique aircraft. I "mystery loss" in recent memory. Until there is a foolproof tracker that stays enabled despite crew actions and is perfectly safe (can't short and start a fire), another MH 370 is still possible.

ASDB already provides great data as long as the aircraft is in radar contact and the transponder is turned on. It can be disabled by the crew. I support mandatory check in on oceanic flights where you leqve radar contact (essentially anytime the aircraft is 200 miles or more from land) and the equipment exists to do that. To make it useful, you would have to poll at that 2 minute frequency or even at 1 minute to better localize the wreckage. That would tell us where MH-370 went but not change the outcome.

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded. A career in aviation where I've buried a few friends, attended memorial services for missing ones and participated in search missions, both successful and unsuccessful can do that to you. I accept that there are situations and places on the globe where aircraft can disappear. Invariably, it's a crash thatwas not survivable. Folks calling for perfect information that only provides closure without changing the outcome are understandable but ultimately, a rare crash of a commercial aircraft is still probably non survivable and all the EPIRBS in the world won't change it other than generating literally thousands of false alarms per year.

Probably a bit preachy but I tend to be pretty pragmatic.

LarryHoward wrote:

SemiSalt wrote:Reading an article in the newspaper today, it sounds like the newest airliners are required to report their position every 15 minutes. That would be about every 125 miles. Some airlines track every 2 minutes which is more like every 15 miles. These systems were turned for on MH370, I believe.

Semi

As I understand it, the default "health and status" reporting is every 15 minutes. The equipment is standard for me production aircraft and serves to provide updated equipment status to allow operators to plan corrective maintenance and minitor system health. It is not a requirement to activated the reporting and it comes at a cost to the carrier. For a number of accidents, the info had proven invaluable in crash investigations. For Air France, out of radar contact over the south Atlantic, it was the first indication that the aircraft had crashed and allows search teams to begin their localization. For MH 370, Malaysian Airlines did not have the system activated but it turns out that it defaults to a contact check in (are you there?) hourly and that lead to the Doppler analysis and potential lines of position.

System isn't required but certainly potential useful, particularly if polled frequently. That said, it would not have helped in locating this latest crash (found 6 miles from loss of radar contact). It would have helped in the MH 370 loss but that is truly a black swan event. 100,000 commercial flights per day over 50,000 unique aircraft. I "mystery loss" in recent memory. Until there is a foolproof tracker that stays enabled despite crew actions and is perfectly safe (can't short and start a fire), another MH 370 is still possible.

ASDB already provides great data as long as the aircraft is in radar contact and the transponder is turned on. It can be disabled by the crew. I support mandatory check in on oceanic flights where you leqve radar contact (essentially anytime the aircraft is 200 miles or more from land) and the equipment exists to do that. To make it useful, you would have to poll at that 2 minute frequency or even at 1 minute to better localize the wreckage. That would tell us where MH-370 went but not change the outcome.

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded. A career in aviation where I've buried a few friends, attended memorial services for missing ones and participated in search missions, both successful and unsuccessful can do that to you. I accept that there are situations and places on the globe where aircraft can disappear. Invariably, it's a crash thatwas not survivable. Folks calling for perfect information that only provides closure without changing the outcome are understandable but ultimately, a rare crash of a commercial aircraft is still probably non survivable and all the EPIRBS in the world won't change it other than generating literally thousands of false alarms per year.

Probably a bit preachy but I tend to be pretty pragmatic.

I am a fan of pragmatic. Thanks Larry. Interesting read.

Cherie320 wrote:

Tucky wrote:There is a good case to be made that our safety thinking for automobiles is misdirected- we focus on the vehicles and making them safe in an accident, and don't spend enough on operator errors. Places that focus on operator behavior have better outcomes than those that focus on the vehicles.

Yes! But I suspect a more likely out come will be the transition to electronic assisted collision prevention as well as car to car data sharing.

Heaven forbid we should expect people to actually be able to drive when they get their license.

SloopJonB wrote:

Cherie320 wrote:

Tucky wrote:There is a good case to be made that our safety thinking for automobiles is misdirected- we focus on the vehicles and making them safe in an accident, and don't spend enough on operator errors. Places that focus on operator behavior have better outcomes than those that focus on the vehicles.

Yes! But I suspect a more likely out come will be the transition to electronic assisted collision prevention as well as car to car data sharing.

Heaven forbid we should expect people to actually be able to drive when they get their license.

This has been a pet peeve of mine. If the insurance companies, state governments and other interested parties could get together and develop nationwide driver training programs along the lines of the Bondurant street driving program the accident rate would drop significantly.

JoeP wrote:

SloopJonB wrote:

Cherie320 wrote:

Tucky wrote:There is a good case to be made that our safety thinking for automobiles is misdirected- we focus on the vehicles and making them safe in an accident, and don't spend enough on operator errors. Places that focus on operator behavior have better outcomes than those that focus on the vehicles.

Yes! But I suspect a more likely out come will be the transition to electronic assisted collision prevention as well as car to car data sharing.

Heaven forbid we should expect people to actually be able to drive when they get their license.

This has been a pet peeve of mine. If the insurance companies, state governments and other interested parties could get together and develop nationwide driver training programs along the lines of the Bondurant street driving program the accident rate would drop significantly.

This. Good programs exist but the insurance companies don't seem to think they are worthwhile (no discounts offered to encourage them). We live in a rural area but I travel to major urban centers fairly often. I shudder to think of teaching a young person to drive in Dallas, Atlanta, NY metro, LA, etc.

I'm amazed at the number of people who can't merge, ride the last lane, tailgate to an extreme and the my favorite trick of actively blocking a lane change or merge - including the 1 finger salute when they succeed. I have sufficient rally and autocross trophies to tell me I'm pretty good at the mechanics of driving but I like to think I am pretty defensive and considerate on the road. I feel pretty alone a lot of the time.

Then, there are the commuters with newspapers, books or magazines propped up on the wheel. That, or the "groom while driving women (and occasionally men).

If I were king for a day, dumb driving would be a major offense. Second conviction would have folks walking.

Larry, I believe that almost everything you've described is already against the law. You know we have some folks we pay to enforce those laws.... wonder where they are... ??

I have done a lot of driving in Europe and particularly in Germany. As I'm sure you know, there are areas of the Autobahn that have no speed limit but there are also areas that have limits. My experience in Germany is that folks simply obey the law - period. They don't pass on the right, they move over when faster traffic comes up behind them, they basically obey the law - imagine that.

Our 'Merican attitude that there are some laws you have to obey and many that you don't is at the root the problems you've described. In a place where all the laws are enforced and everyone knows that the Law Officer will nail them for ALL of the laws they're breaking, you don't get the nonsense you've described (at least not very much).

I really got a giggle out of a German friend who was riding up from Santa Cruz to San Francisco with me in my 996 Turbo. We were doing about 95 with occasional bursts to 110 MPH and some VERY conspicuous slowdowns to 70 where I knew the Bears hide along interstate 280. He asked why I was driving so erratically? I told him we had to slow down to avoid getting a ticket. He was APPALLED! He was furious with me for breaking the law. He had assumed that because I was blowing along at high speeds that Americans had come to their senses and raised the speed limit on roads that were clearly designed for it. He had one really simple question that I haven't ever figured out how to answer: "How can you tell which law can be broken and which law can not?"

For some reason I can't understand we 'Mericans simply ignore laws that we (and the cops) agree we aren't going to follow or enforce (like passing on the right and driving too slowly in the fast lane). This is opposed to simply getting rid of laws that no one obeys and that the cops don't enforce. A great example of this the speed limit on 280 - it should be 85 MPH. If it were 85 and the cops actually enforced it and the laws against passing on the right and moving over when holding up traffic, there would be a lot more happy people and far fewer accidents.

Somehow, we as a country have developed a dual standard. The laws you're really supposed to obey and those you're not. So exactly how does one tell the difference??

Passing on the right: I grew up and learned to drive in New Jersey. Passing on the right was not permitted and rarely seen in NJ, but we were warned that it was OK in New York, and we should look out for it. I think there may have be relaxation of the passing on the right prohibition in either NJ or CT or both possibly due to highways with more than two lanes. In any case, it's pretty common in CT nowadays.

I live about a mile from the Merritt Parkway. It was in built in the late 1930s. I suppose the speed limit at that time was 40 or 45 mph. As recently as 1970, it was 50 mph, and is now 55 mph. On an average commuting morning, you can be going 70 in the right lane and get passed by a steady stream of faster vehicles. (It is cars only, no trailers. No semi-trailers [low bridges].)

Merritt Parkway is one of my favorite public roads! I used to take a red-eye to Europe or a very early flight to the Left Coast and drive down from CT on the Merritt to JFK. That combined with my proclivity for renting fast cars yielded some record breaking runs. 0330 and there are almost no cars, and no cops, on the Merritt. Some of those turns can be slick with water and leaves!

That's a great road and damned beautiful too.

Some idiot put up a sign on 280 in the SF Bay area that said: "Worlds most beautiful highway" I snorted the first time I saw it. Clearly the author had never drive the Merritt or any of a dozen highways in the French and German Alps.



Then again - sometimes it's a big slippery.

There's a theory of traffic speed & flow called the 85th percentile. It postulates that 85% of drivers drive at a safe & reasonable speed for the conditions. If speed limits are set at the 85% level traffic flows better. Note: the 85% level is well above most current speed limits.

I live near and make daily use of a stretch of the #1 highway (Trans Canada). When this piece was built in the early 70's the cars using it were on bias tires and drum brakes for the most part and the limit was 70 MPH. Now it's 55 (90 KPH) and no-one pays any attention to the speed limit. Typical traffic flow is around 70 MPH and the people who DO obey the posted limit are a hazard - 1/2 tide rocks.

It's what we get for having traffic laws set for political reasons instead of traffic reasons.

Speed limits are a funny thing. One can always make the case that it will be safer to drive more slowly - with standing still in your car being about the safest speed. duh!

What doesn't seem to enter into the conversation is that the GOAL is to GET SOMEPLACE. The Germans have this as close to right as I've seen. Holding up traffic should be an offense.

So, why in the world don't folks who design and control highways do the obvious, at least on toll or other restricted roads. When one enters the road the speed that traffic is traveling is posted (electric sign so that it can be changed based on weather etc...). You aren't allowed to drive on these roads unless you travel at EXACTLY this speed - period. If the sign says 60 MPH, you go 60 MPH. No slowing down to look at your phone, book or makeup mirror. No speeding up to show you've got Mad Race Skills. You go 60 MPH. If you want to drive some other speed take a different road.

Clearly, once everyone is going the same speed, the highway can carry VASTLY MORE cars safely as they can pack together and really fly. This does mean, of course, that the road will eventually get full. When it's "full" more people can't get on - period. Ya, I know that sucks if you don't live in an area where the road fills up and are along the way someplace, but even that could be addressed with specialized lanes like the ones that run from Dulles Airport into Washington DC. Imagine three or four sets of those lanes basically gathering cars from areas and expressing them to someplace. There could even be transfer queues between these various express lanes, but you'd be required to wait for a gap and then you'd be REQUIRED to drive at the speed of the lane you're entering.

Obviously, this would work really well. But it requires that folks sacrifice their individuality, that they accept that if it was going to take 2 hours to get somewhere it really was going to take 2 hours and you couldn't "make up" for having left late by driving faster.

Frankly, I think this is why autonomous cars will be successful. We'll be able to pack them nose-to-tail and have them all go the same speed about 2 feet apart. It'll freaky at first, but eventually we'll realize that (like trains) we don't need a gap between cars. I don't think humans can be trained to obey the law to this extent. We'll need computers for this to work.

In maybe 15 years, all traffic on limited traffic highways will be computer controlled, a la the Google driverless cars. Travel will be safer but boring. No thrill left on the open road.

I've been thinking about traffic . . . . . +1 to the Merritt/Wilbur Cross being a great road (I have a book on the bridges over that highway- everyone is different).

The 85% rule is well documented statistically. Maine just increased the speed limit on a large portion of the Turnpike from 65 to 70. They Turnpike Authority has control rather than the state and when challenged by the "safety lobby" cited this statistic. The speed on the road (I drive it every day) has changed only a tiny bit, mostly due to the slowest percentile speeding up a little, which makes the road safer, especially if they are in the middle lane, which is increasingly common.

I don't think we should expect the insurance industry to want to improve driver training. They don't mind more expenditures as long as they get to charge the premiums. In the states that have "assigned high risk" pools for folks with speeding convictions they like to give the impression that insurance companies are reluctant to insure these people when actually they love the increased premiums. It is well proven that having speeding convictions does not increase accident risk much at all, especially in relation to the increased premiums. Having accidents is the main indicator of having more risk for future accidents.

Our government has promoted the illusion for years that forcing automobile manufacturers to make cars safer is not a public expenditure- meaning most people think that money comes from that manufacturers and way to many think it comes from their profits. If we acknowledged the truth it might be easier to switch some of the spending from the cars to the drivers, but we need mandatory economic education first:-).

SemiSalt wrote:In maybe 15 years, all traffic on limited traffic highways will be computer controlled, a la the Google driverless cars. Travel will be safer but boring. No thrill left on the open road.

Definitely coming but I dpubt that it will happen that soon. All cars would need to be equipped with the proper equipment to do so. There will still be a lot of older cars which can't be retrofitted.

Seattle has electronic speed signs set up every half mile or so for the last several miles into the city on I-5. Each lane can have a different speed displayed. Traffic can be regulated for best flow. I hear that some cities in Europe do this.

An interesting read on the subject of traffic is "Traffic. Why We Drive The Way We Do (And What it Says About Us)" by Tom Vanderbilt. I just discovered he also has a blog http://www.howwedrive.com.

Tucky wrote:Our government has promoted the illusion for years that forcing automobile manufacturers to make cars safer is not a public expenditure- meaning most people think that money comes from that manufacturers and way to many think it comes from their profits. If we acknowledged the truth it might be easier to switch some of the spending from the cars to the drivers, but we need mandatory economic education first:-).

Yeah - good luck with that. Some years ago there was a statistically significant survey done in Canada that asked how Government should get the deficit under control. The options were;

1. Increase taxes
2. Decrease spending
3. Use their own money

Only one guess which one a majority (60% range) picked.

Rather horrifying level of ignorance and a pretty good example of why the voters are held in such contempt by pols.

Welcome to the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Sorry, can't get it to embed. We should enjoy our freedom to drive as we wish while it lasts.

The Merritt Parkway - very exciting in the Winter with those short on ramps and people speeding in the slow lane.

Seattle has electronic speed signs set up every half mile or so for the last several miles into the city on I-5. Each lane can have a different speed displayed. Traffic can be regulated for best flow. I hear that some cities in Europe do this.

Many EU highways do this, especially in Germany where the speeds can go from unlimited to 120 or slower in a very short distance. One thing about the German highways is that when there is an accident, it's a real yard sale.

SloopJonB wrote:...snip....

...pretty good example of why the voters are held in such contempt by pols.

I'm pretty sure the feeling is quite mutual.

On second thought, the picture I painted of the Merritt Parkway traffic is misleading. It holds only when going against the commuter traffic. If going west/south in the AM, it's a parking lot. Vice versa in the evening. Same with the CT Tpke.

The Merritt still has stop signs and short or negligible acceleration lanes at many of the entrances. If you try to travel in the right lane, you find yourself being slowed to 35 for an entering car every few miles. If you try to travel in the left lane, you have to travel well above the speed limit.

SemiSalt wrote:On second thought, the picture I painted of the Merritt Parkway traffic is misleading. It holds only when going against the commuter traffic. If going west/south in the AM, it's a parking lot. Vice versa in the evening. Same with the CT Tpke.

The Merritt still has stop signs and short or negligible acceleration lanes at many of the entrances. If you try to travel in the right lane, you find yourself being slowed to 35 for an entering car every few miles. If you try to travel in the left lane, you have to travel well above the speed limit.

Sounds like the Autostrada, the scariest roads I have ever driven on.
On ramps start at 90 degrees to the main route, turn a sharp right, then accelerate to over 120km in about 100 yards.
Then merge with Italian drivers.

And it's even worse in the right lane as these cars appear suddenly on your right and barge in.

Most are two lane roads, so the only safe lane is the fast lane!

Havn't driven the Merritt, but have driven the I95 to CT and back to NY, those trucks take no prisoners.

Not sure where to put this, but there has been enough thread drift that it probably doesn't matter. A fellow Morgan 4/4 owner went for a drive. Probably took the wrong car for the road he was driving on. Speed limits and traffic, of the automotive type, weren't the problem.

Probably needed a kidney transplant after that drive.