That depends on just how low the probability is. If the stance is that all regulations and recommendations are equally important to enforce, then the move is bureaucratic (or a political reaction to adverse publicity). If defects with the highest probability (even though still low) to cause a crash are enforced strictly while the least likely don't carry as high a priority, then it's good enforcement.I agree with what you say Bob, but what is the use of the FAA/other authorities if recommendations? can be stretched to suit the individual.
It seems most air crashes are the result of (low probability) or the ability to stretch
The reason they didn't 'demand' a fix via an FAA Airworthiness Directive is because McDonnell Douglas voluntarily issued a service directive to fix the door themselves. In fact, the Turkish plane was still on the assembly line and documents showed the modifications had been made, even though they hadn't. Regardless of who issued the directive, it's not going to do any good if someone falsifies the documents*.Wasn't it American Airlines that had the crash with the DC-10 cargo door .
And the FAA decided not to demand a fix until the Turkish airline plane crashed and killed another 350 people a few years later?
Looking at the stats, if anything, those rates are too high to compare to airline fatalities. But it is tough to find stats low enough to compare with airliner fatalities, so those will do fine.That's kind of a silly example since the fatality rates are so low (although reducing pedestrian fatalities are the reason for the emergency call boxes by the side of the interstate, but those are usually in the heavily travelled parts that also have lighting).
No....So have planes become so safe and crashes so rare that the FAA/CAA is just pointless bureaucracy?
Yes, but, if the FAA went away, you can bet the airlines would start testing the waters to see just what kind of crash rate is acceptable to the passengers. Standards would drop unutil an unacceptably high number of planes dropped.Are the checks more about making sure the correct paperwork is in place rather than any actual safety consideration, like NASA and the shuttle.
Market forces! Like McDonalds finding out exactly how bad a burger is acceptable to customers!No.... Yes, but, if the FAA went away, you can bet the airlines would start testing the waters to see just what kind of crash rate is acceptable to the passengers.
I'm sure that's for an automatic payout in a freak accident. If negligence can be established no court is going to keep to that limit.The goverment does limit the airline's liability to $25k/passenger - so in a crash the plane is worth more than the passengers, and the plane is insured.
That's the kind of economic analysis that ended the Pinto, though. Execs are supposed to be smart enough to see past the crash itself and see the secondary effects. You know, the part where people stop flying the airline that has a crash every other week.Market forces! Like McDonalds finding out exactly how bad a burger is acceptable to customers!
The goverment does limit the airline's liability to $25k/passenger - so in a crash the plane is worth more than the passengers, and the plane is insured.