They have found both the black boxes from the Airfrance flight, reading the coverage I spotted this:

“Depending on how much data can be retrieved and how clearly it pinpoints the cause of the crash, lawyers say information from the black boxes could lead to a flood of liability claims.”

This seems a bit confusing to me.

I thought that you were automatically compensated by the airline in the event of a family member being killed in a plane – something to do with the montreal convention? So does this mean that family members are still waiting as there is no proof of who to blame? Very sad if so.

Or is this liability that the airline will claim form the manufacturers of failed parts or maybe maintainence companies etc. Explain please…

Doh found this which explains it I think.

There could be claims from AF against Airbus, if the aircraft was at fault. If it was the pilots, then a reverse claim could happen. Damage to reputation etc

I was concerned from the passenger point of view, and can see from that wikipedia link that they automatically get 140kusd compensation fro loss of family member. Which ain’t much, shame. So I can see that families may want to sue for more which I think they can.

families may want to sue for more

… because as everyone knows, money for exotic holidays and a bigger house makes the tragic loss of a family member all better again 🙄

… because as everyone knows, money for exotic holidays and a bigger house makes the tragic loss of a family member all better again

or maybe the person killed was the families main breadwinner and a mother and three kids are left destitute because of it?

Or even a mother and father are killed? And the grandparents are left with an awful responsibility?

There are countless scenarios where the death of one person leads to hardship and suffering that a decent bit of cash could alleviate.

140kusd would last my family about 3 years.

That’s why people with responsibilities should get life insurance…

Indeed, but sometimes these things go wrong, anyway the life insurance companies often find ways to wriggle out of it. Are you saying that it’s your own fault if you get killed in a plane?

Anyway it’s laughable that I am even discussing this with either of you. I don’t care what you think, luckily the courts in most countries see it in a different light than you do.

How many members of your family were on the plane then?

None, how many of yours were?

That’s why people with responsibilities should get life insurance…

Daft perpetuation of the use of insurance to justify poor safety/proceedure too.

None, how many of yours were?

None. But I’m not the one having a strop over it.

Anyway it’s laughable that I am even discussing this with either of you. I don’t care what you think

Scotchegg I appreciate your advice, thanks. In future I’ll not comment on things I am interested in for fear of tweaking your moral compass.

or maybe the person killed was … etc etc

Yes, I know. But I can’t be bothered typing considered and well-thought-out discussions on an interwebs forum.

Plus it always strikes me as an odd thing that in situations like this somebody somewhere’s trying to put a cash value on it. Bit like comments regarding the NHS – we’re always quoted the cost of treating this and that, how much ill people cost the country etc etc.

Peoples lives and wellbeing always seem to be reduced to a pie chart by the bean-counters.

Alright then, one more time

Anyway it’s laughable that I am even discussing this with either of you. I don’t care what you think

And yet here you are again…

OK joao3v16 now you have made more sense to me, I think we are on the same page here. I agree re bean counters etc, how will any amount of money replace your loved ones? I must have misread your post because rolling eyes ( 🙄 )seemed to make some kind of moral judgement about peoples desire to claim more from the airlines in the event of the airline killing their relative.

I think we are actually on the same page. Did you know that optional safety features on aircraft are based on this value placed on life?

So if a safety issue feature reduces the chances of a fatal crash, then a comparism is made between the cost of installing the feature versus the chances of it happening and the number of lives likely to be lost.

So if it costs more to install/operate than what they predict they will have to pay in compensation, then they will not install it. TWA800 made this fact a bit more public.

Scotchegg alright then one more time. Sod off, you small minded moron. If you cannot contribute in a sensible fashion then keep your beaky moronic brain out of it.

Oh well, if you’re going to take the intellectual high road…

coffeeking – Member
That’s why people with responsibilities should get life insurance…
Daft perpetuation of the use of insurance to justify poor safety/proceedure too.

If you think the only way you can die unexpectedly is through someone else’s negligence then fair enough don’t bother. My comment wasn’t about a specific incident.

As for aeroplane crashes then sure negligence comes into play in a lot of them but there’s also a lot that come down to either a combination of factors that are near impossible to foresee or are freak accidents (multiple bird strikes etc.)

So if a safety issue feature reduces that chances of a fatal crash then a comparism is made between the cost of installing the feature versus the chances of it happening and the number of lives likely to be lost

Never heard such rubbish in my life. You obviously are not involved in aircraft development!

LHS if you read my post you will note I said I said “optional”. And yes I am not involved in aircraft development, from your reaction I can see you are not either.

And yes I am not involved in aircraft development

Quite obviously, and yes I am involved in aircraft development thanks.

Please name me one “optional” safety feature which the Air Worthieness authorities state is not required on modern commercial aircraft.

If there is a one in a billion chance of a catastrophic event happening to an aircraft then it is designed out, believe me the authorities are not interested in cost benefit analyses!

May I slope across to the rail industry for a mo (without getting told off…?).

IIRC, advanced train protection has been considered and rejected on cost grounds in the UK a number of times. It was considered ‘cheaper’ to pay out for the few fatal accidents they have in that industry rather than paying £B’s to avoid them at source.

Surely there must be some sort of cost/safety benefit analysis going on in aviation. It’s a competetive market and I’m certain manufacturers build planes that meet regulatory minimums whilst being as £££ competitive as possible?

boblo. That’s exactly my point I once read about this whilst trying to cure my fear of flying, it just made me worse. I’m trying to find the link so I can tell LHS off.. Or he could open his mind and enter the discussion..

EDIT on re reading what I said I think I may have insinuated that that the value paid in compensation is used for this cost benefit analysis, when in fact it is what is known as the value of a statistical life (or something like that) which is much much bigger than this 140kUSD, and its value is constantly being argued over.

LHS will probably say the regulatory minimums are sufficient to make flying as safe as it can reasonably be…..

LHS just google “aviation safety cost benefit analysis” it is everywhere.

I like this site which is quite obviously biased but it is also pretty informative.

LHS will probably say the regulatory minimums are sufficient to make flying as safe as it can reasonably be…..

Far from it, and in many ways there is never a minimum when it comes to the Air Worthieness authority. Nothing is ever classed as “sufficient” when it comes to safety. The rail and airline industry are very different industries. I have good friends who work at Interfleet, network and Angel and we have good discussions on the vast difference in terms of train carriage safety. In the rail industry the safety emphasis is placed more on the system control of the network rather than the trains themselves.

I’m not going to google anything, I work closely with Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and a range of military platform providers so know exactly what goes on in the industry rather than read some un-informed garbage of the web.

You were going to give me an example were you not?

Surely there must be some sort of cost/safety benefit analysis going on in aviation. It’s a competetive market and I’m certain manufacturers build planes that meet regulatory minimums whilst being as £££ competitive as possible?

No.

Yes there is lmgtfy

If you present a design to the air worthiness body and they tell you to re-design or add safety features due to a potential safety issue, its not an option no matter what you think, you’re component / plane will not fly unless you comply.

OK. So how does one manufacturer ensure it is more competitive than another if there are no ‘minimums’ to achieve? Every standard has a pass point or qualification point, that is normally considered the ‘minimum’ requirement. Companies doen’t usually go to great lengths to over deliver against these as it costs them dearly.

I think you’re probably referring to the constant evolution of standards in aviation as a lack of minimum. It is clear the industry goes to great lengths to investigate incidents to ensure nil repeats.

However, if there really are no commercial imperitives, why did the A380 that lost vital bits over Bhatam recently find it was unable to land and stop properly? Surely if cost were no object (not just monetry cost but weight, competitiveness etc) they would have had more than 1 redundant system which would have allowed continued control of the bits that wouldn’t work after the parts of the primary and secondary hydraulic systems were taken out by escaping Rolls Royce parts.

I’m interested by the way, not trying to be argumentative.

<edit> Just seen the above response. So a design is created to satisfy the Air Worthiness bods. That design will be the minimum a company can submit and still pass. It won’t be gold plated, copper bottomed surely (unless a client requires it) or the resultant product will be more expensive than its rivals. Surely standard market driven design in a regulated environment?

I’m not going to google anything, I work closely with Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and a range of military platform providers so know exactly what goes on in the industry rather than read some un-informed garbage of the web.

Can you not see how ironic this above is when you then write this below.

You were going to give me an example were you not?

There are countless documents there backing up what I say. You won’t look because you don’t want to back down. It’s only an internet discussion, I’ve been wrong countless times, but you cannot convince me that every safety feature is installed no matter what the cost, none of us would be able to afford to fly.

for example here is a paper that discusses the whole concept (as related to govt policy, not just air transport, but it discusses air transport). clicky

However, if there really are no commercial imperitives, why did the A380 that lost vital bits over Bhatam recently find it was unable to land and stop properly?

Or you could look at it from the other side that through a robust safe and multiple redundant design, even with the loss of critical functionality due to a catastrophic engine failure the A380 was still able to land safely.

OK. So how does one manufacturer ensure it is more competitive than another if there are no ‘minimums’ to achieve? Every standard has a pass point or qualification point, that is normally considered the ‘minimum’ requirement. Companies doen’t usually go to great lengths to over deliver against these as it costs them dearly.

There is always a minimum to acheive, this is layed down by the air-worthieness authority, this is usually a combination of worst case material condition, worse case tolerancing, worst case environmental conditions and a multiple factor of the life of the aircraft, anything from 1.5 to 8.

Yes aircraft safety, and reliability is constantly improving, like any engineering solution. And as technology increases so the regulations need to get firmer too. Now for example, if you have multliple control computers for redundancy, they can’t be identical due to the potential for common mode failure, in fact the company responsible for the design has to design two different types of hardware, code 2 different types of software with different resources just to ensure the 1 in a billion worst case scenario can never be realised.

Companies doen’t usually go to great lengths to over deliver against these as it costs them dearly.

A companies reputation is built on its ability to stay out of the press by providing a safe and reliable design. If a single component failure brings down an aircraft then not only are the employees up on manslaughter charges, the whole company will be reduced to rubble overnight.

There are countless documents there backing up what I say. You won’t look because you don’t want to back down

Had a quick look at the top few, nothing in there which states a policy where safety is compromised due to a cost decision, in fact a lot of the policy, certainly the EU side of things are aimed at improving safety by getting companies to spend more on upgrading existing fleet and systems.

LHS – Member

And yes I am not involved in aircraft development

Quite obviously, and yes I am involved in aircraft development thanks.

I thought you were involved with making helmets? Wide ranging brief?

I thought you were involved with making helmets? Wide ranging brief?

I am a boring old fart with my hands in many pies.

LHS, that’s a long and interesting post and none of it I would disagree with (apart from the 1 in a billion because I don’t believe that). Unfortunately none of it contradicts the position that air safety is based on a cost benefit analysis valuing a human life against the cos of installing and operating air safety features.

LHS this statement by you proves that what I say is true

certainly the EU side of things are aimed at improving safety by getting companies to spend more on upgrading existing fleet and systems.

. How can safety be improved by persuading companies to spend more, if they already incorporate all safety features no matter what the cost?

How can safety be improved by persuading companies to spend more, if they already incorporate all safety features no matter what the cost?

By retrofitting existing fleet with modern safety features. An aircraft is designed for 25-30 year life and so any new technology which is developed for new platforms could in some instances be retrofitted.

737, 747, 757, A318, 319, 320 etc don’t have a lot of safety features that modern designs like the A380, 787, CSeries etc are incorporating.

LHS – Member

There is always a minimum to acheive, this is layed down by the air-worthieness authority,

Thank you. that’s all I was driving at. The standards are laid down by the Air Worthiness bods and the manufacturers have to meet these whilst developing products people wish to buy.

The reputational point is slightly spurious as there’s no point providing the ‘best’ (i.e. ‘safest’ but most expensive) product if no one buys it and the company goes belly up… F1 is a good example of development at almost any cost in a regulated environment however, they don’t have to worry about selling their wares just winning. This could not apply to products people buy.

As far as I’ve read, the A380 was short of a number of vital controls when it landed (ailerons, flaps, thrust reversers and they had to drown a runaway engine) and it landed almost at the end of the paved runway section in Singapore. This ‘may’ not have been the case if additional redundancy was built in, over and above what the Airworthiness brigade wanted but would have added weight, complexity and cost. These things could adversly affect Airbuses ability to flog it against Dreamliner etc (assuming it ever goes fully into production).

To assume any commercial industry is totally immune to the power of the market is possibly a little naive. Sorry.

To assume an commercial industry is totally immune to the power of the market is possibly a little naive. Sorry.

Apology accepted, you would know more if you worked in the industry.

LHS – Member
How can safety be improved by persuading companies to spend more, if they already incorporate all safety features no matter what the cost?
By retrofitting existing fleet with modern safety measures. An aircraft is designed for 25-30 year life and so any new technology which is developed for new platforms could in some instances be retrofitted.

737, 747, 757, A318, 319, 320 etc don’t have a lot of safety features that modern designs like the A380, 787, CSeries etc are incorporating.

You only answered

how can safety be improved by persuading companies to spend more

and not

if they already incorporate all safety features no matter what the cost?

OK. I’m not looking for an argument. I don’t work in aviation but I do work in business’s in regulated environments.

I know what people do to be competitive and I cannot believe the aviation industry is any more altruistic than any other industry.

I’ll go back to my orginal statement, the assumption is that when met, the Airworthiness requirements make flying as safe as it ‘can be’ within a framework that can actually operate and be managed. If manufacturers do any more, they risk making themselves extinct which is a highly unlikely scenario.