FWIW – My two Bob...
For consideration – the following aircraft, depending on the distance to travel may carry the following number of SOB.
737 – up to 200 passengers.
747 – up to 400 passengers.
767 – up to 375 passengers.
777 – up to 550 passengers.
787 – op to 330 passengers.
My point is a simple one: if a 747 should end up in a situation which potentially placed those lives at risk or even harm, the roof would be off the building. Should a 777 with 500 SOB suffer an engine failure; or, a 737 lose directional 'control'; or should a 787 lose steering on the ground; the same rules would apply - to the roof.
Why? - Well they are carrying fare paying members of the public, who bought a ticket in good faith. The aircraft operate in and are aware of an 'elevated' risk level environment; which can become hostile at times. Risk mitigation is a base tenet of air operations. Delivering passengers safely to destination is an essential element. Why? Well consider the fall out should a major carrier 'lose one', resulting in the death and injury of hundreds, due to a repetitive, documented, reported multiple times - system failure; one of which they were made fully aware yet failed to rectify.
The Harbour ferries operate in an elevated risk environment; i.e. at 'sea'. They also carry hundreds of people. People who are entitled to the very highest standards of risk reduction; hundreds swimming, hurt, burned or killed in a crippled ferry v hundreds killed or harmed in an aircraft accident – There's no difference in the toll, fall out and backlash; except, the airline could fully demonstrate an ethical safety culture; the State would lose a government – at very least, due to shabby 'safety' management, poor risk mitigation and denial that despite being forewarned – the worst case happened, despite it being completely preventable. The legal boys and girls would eat 'em alive.....
The long lists and repetitive history of ferry passengers being placed at risk would not be tolerated by the public, the government or the tax payer who fund the so called 'safety watchdogs' if it was an air operation. Agreed - a 'one off' failure of a steering system – bad, but tolerable provided there was no repeat; a one off bad report on welding quality; or engine failure; or safety system oversight – all not a problem – provided they remain 'one off', demonstrated and certified 'sorted'. But that is just not happening, is it. Repetitive systems failure; indicates a serious failure in 'safety management', poor reporting, and an inability to remove the high risk elements; and, a dismal failure in responsibility to the public to ensure crew, machine and passengers are, demonstrably, made as 'safe as humanly possible' – under the conditions.
OTSI need to get a grip, earn their keep by making certain that the 'risk level' is made as low as possible. They have the power, the mandate and the public money to make sure that no-one even gets worried, let alone harmed on a simple across the harbour boat ride. The current situation would be farcical if it weren't so bloody serious.
My two bob, spent as pleased me best...
For consideration – the following aircraft, depending on the distance to travel may carry the following number of SOB.
737 – up to 200 passengers.
747 – up to 400 passengers.
767 – up to 375 passengers.
777 – up to 550 passengers.
787 – op to 330 passengers.
My point is a simple one: if a 747 should end up in a situation which potentially placed those lives at risk or even harm, the roof would be off the building. Should a 777 with 500 SOB suffer an engine failure; or, a 737 lose directional 'control'; or should a 787 lose steering on the ground; the same rules would apply - to the roof.
Why? - Well they are carrying fare paying members of the public, who bought a ticket in good faith. The aircraft operate in and are aware of an 'elevated' risk level environment; which can become hostile at times. Risk mitigation is a base tenet of air operations. Delivering passengers safely to destination is an essential element. Why? Well consider the fall out should a major carrier 'lose one', resulting in the death and injury of hundreds, due to a repetitive, documented, reported multiple times - system failure; one of which they were made fully aware yet failed to rectify.
The Harbour ferries operate in an elevated risk environment; i.e. at 'sea'. They also carry hundreds of people. People who are entitled to the very highest standards of risk reduction; hundreds swimming, hurt, burned or killed in a crippled ferry v hundreds killed or harmed in an aircraft accident – There's no difference in the toll, fall out and backlash; except, the airline could fully demonstrate an ethical safety culture; the State would lose a government – at very least, due to shabby 'safety' management, poor risk mitigation and denial that despite being forewarned – the worst case happened, despite it being completely preventable. The legal boys and girls would eat 'em alive.....
The long lists and repetitive history of ferry passengers being placed at risk would not be tolerated by the public, the government or the tax payer who fund the so called 'safety watchdogs' if it was an air operation. Agreed - a 'one off' failure of a steering system – bad, but tolerable provided there was no repeat; a one off bad report on welding quality; or engine failure; or safety system oversight – all not a problem – provided they remain 'one off', demonstrated and certified 'sorted'. But that is just not happening, is it. Repetitive systems failure; indicates a serious failure in 'safety management', poor reporting, and an inability to remove the high risk elements; and, a dismal failure in responsibility to the public to ensure crew, machine and passengers are, demonstrably, made as 'safe as humanly possible' – under the conditions.
OTSI need to get a grip, earn their keep by making certain that the 'risk level' is made as low as possible. They have the power, the mandate and the public money to make sure that no-one even gets worried, let alone harmed on a simple across the harbour boat ride. The current situation would be farcical if it weren't so bloody serious.
My two bob, spent as pleased me best...