Re: Cost of Weight - was Inert Gas in Fuel Tanks

From: (Gerard Foley)
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1996 03:11:04 GMT
References:   1
View raw article
  or MIME structure

RD Rick ( wrote:

: The sci.aeronautics moderator wrote:

: >Since airliners aren't falling out of the sky with great regularity
: >because the ullage isn't filled with inert gas, I'd say that it's not
: >likely to happen.  Maybe someone would like to ask the FAA, NTSB, and
: >major airlines what their criterion (price per life) is?  Also ask the
: >airlines how much money they're saving on those plastic bottles, of
: >course.  MFS]

: I've heard a $Million for a life.  We will someday be able to add the
: totals on VJ and TW800.  :(

   There has been an opinion given on this thread that too much is
spent on aircraft safety as compared with other threats to life.  In
addition to any hypothetical price given for early death, the aviation
industry required a particular low accident rate to protect its very
existence.  When other modes of transportation were available, the
passengers might stop buying tickets.

   I was on board an extremely crammed train that included what the
Pennsylvania Railroad called the Cincinnati Limited a day or two after
a DC3 failed to make it into Cincinnati Airport.

   I think there is less concern now than then because there isn't any
train any more, so we put up with risk, and the expenditure for safety
is based more on economics and less on the need for marketing.  There
is, of course, a tendency to equate accident proneness with particular
airlines or aircraft, so there is a competitive reason for TWA and
Valuejet to avoid accidents, as there is for Boeing, M-D and Airbus.
[Sci.aeronautics moderator's note: We're wandering farther from
aeronautics than even I can justify for sci.aeronautics, so further
postings on this aspect of the thread should probably go only to
sci.aeronautics.airliners, subject to the moderator's judgement.  MFS]