|
|
|
||||||||
Airline Safety's Price Tag
Does it surprise you to hear a pilot say
that airline safety has its limitations, and that those limits are to a large
extent determined by the price tag that comes attached to every proposed safety
innovation. Well, it's true! We may not like hearing that but it is the reality
of the world in which we live. Putting a limit on how much shall be spent to
prevent injury or death has become so common that neither the public nor the
mainstream media pay much attention any longer. As with all corporations,
airlines are profit-making entities vitally concerned with their bottom-line.
And this concern has been magnified by the wildly competitive and unregulated
environment that has existed since the early 1980s.
In the years since airline deregulation more than 140 airlines have
disappeared into the bankruptcy abyss, and the trend continues today as
airlines come and go. We should not be surprised that airline safety has a
price tag, for Congress has ordained that the FAA consider costs before
imposing new safety regulations upon the industry. While certainly true that
such cost-benefit-analysis are sometimes skewed for political reasons, just as
often that is not the case. Why? Because some proposed safety innovations
clearly do not meet the test of economic realities.
Unfortunately, whenever we address the
issue of cost-benefit analysis as it affects the preservation of life, we are
confronted by a most unpleasant question. A question so unpleasant that we flee
from asking it, but ask it we must: How much is one human life worth?
A world aviation body (ICAO) touched upon that question back in 1926
when it set a value of $75,000. Seventy years later (Nov. 1996) this amount was
increased to $146,000. Such a sum, of course, is distinct from monetary damages
that may be awarded because of negligence, etc. Understandably fearful of
facing such a stark question, the FAA has hesitated to promulgate any
regulations requiring child-restraint seats for toddlers riding aboard
airliners, notwithstanding pressure from other federal agencies to do so. They
cite as their reason the fact that only 9 free-riding, unrestrained children
under age 2 have perished in airline accidents over the past 15 years, and 7 of
those 9 would have died restrained or not. While many may revolt at such a
hard-hearted approach to human life, we need to recognize that in almost every
major American city an equal number of toddlers perish every year in family
swimming pools for lack of simple parental attentiveness. Should government
then mandate that all family pools will be surrounded by toddler-proof barriers
and alarm systems that sound when a child falls into the pool?
Whether the FAA does or does not
eventually mandate child safety restraints, it will have effectively set a
value on a human life. If, for example, their analysis determines that nine
childrens' lives can be spared over the next 15 years at a cost of $9 million,
a value of $1 million is placed on each life. But what if the cost is
determined to be $100 million per life? Who will pay the costs? Will parents be
forced to buy an additional ticket, plus a restraining seat for their child?
Or, will airlines be required to eat the costs? Faced with its dual mandate to
protect both life and airline economic stability, it's easy to understand the
FAA's dilemma. For them it's a no-win situation. The best solution for the
agency is that the issue dies on the vine so as to spare it the ordeal of
having to set a value on such precious lives.
But as a society we have long engaged in
putting a value on human life? The truth is, we do it on a daily basis. With a
federal government awash in debt and deficits, and national healthcare costs
soaring out of control, Americans are dying and suffering daily for want of
unaffordable healthcare. That's just one example, but just like the FAA, we
prefer not to see our collective selves in such a stark light. The point here
is not to expose the darker side of our societal nature, but simply to point
out the concept of economic restraints upon air safety and the necessity for
getting the biggest bang for the buck. Or, to put it another way, why spend
$100 million to save ten lives when that same money might be applied to save a
hundred. So let us not be deluded into believing that where human life is
concerned, money is no object. Like it or not, everything in our society
revolves around money. In fact, money has become our secular God.
So in all your future ponderings
regarding airline safety, let me suggest keeping this one thought in mind: Our
primary aim should not be to ensure that we shall survive the aftermath of an
airline crash, but rather to prevent the crash before it happens. With that
principle in mind, let's ask ourselves: How many of the 600,000 highway deaths
over the past 15 years might have been prevented if we had spent more money
teaching people how to drive safely, soberly, and defensively, rather than
filling a 100 million automobiles with exploding airbags. Perhaps someone will
take the time to figure out the cost, but if I had to guess I'd put the cost of
saving those 1350 lives somewhere in the range of $100 million each, and that's
not counting those who have been killed by the exploding airbags.
Having lived with airline safety for a lifetime, I've naturally come
to some conclusions. And among the most important conclusion is that most
airline accidents do not occur because an engine fails, or a faulty cargo door
knocks a gaping hole in the fuselage, or the top of B-737 peels open in flight,
etc. etc. etc. Most airline accidents occur because otherwise competent
individuals make careless and easily preventable human errors. Just like those
drivers who plod up and down our highways killing nearly 40,000 people annually
and injuring millions more. But whether in the air or on the ground, the
overwhelming bulk of our efforts over many years have been directed at "fixing
things," while precious little has been directed at "fixing people." As one
whose life experiences have consistently verified that people are indeed
teachable, I am at extreme odds with those running our safety asylums who
apparently believe otherwise. The crying need today is for us to put more money
and effort into finding out why people make what can best be termed "stupid"
errors. It's time we focused more upon the human factors that lead to
accidents, and less upon how to insure survivability after the fact. If we stay
our present course, it is inevitable that some safety "expert" will soon
suggest the installation of airbags in every airliner seatback. Where? Between
the video poker machine and the telephone, of course.
Finally, however, there is one safety device installed in every
airline seat that if properly used may save only a few lives, but will prevent
countless injuries. It's called a SEATBELT! As scores of passengers have
discovered recently on a number of flights, only dummies fail to keep their
belts fastened at all times when seated.
