Define – “At risk.”
What a question. However it was posed following some fairly heated discussion at the IOS indaba today. It is; and it stands, as a fair question subject to more ‘debate’.
Of course the secondary question which – logically – must follow is “when?”
Where does one begin (and end) to analyse “risk”?
Well, it seems as if it’s who you talk to and the specifics of the ‘situational’ analysis. For example; you might live in a two story house, with the Dunny on the ground floor. Bladder wakes you at midnight – 14 stairs to walk down – bathroom floor maybe slippery are you at ‘risk’? Well, yes you are, add a bottle of plonk to the matrix and the risks increase – exponentially. Your insurance company will know – down to the last drop in the bottle, where to question. They know, logically, mathematically and financially the level of ‘risk’ variance and they do insure you as being ‘sober’. Break a leg at 0.4 breath test = all good. Break your fool neck at 0.6 – Sayonara insurance. Risk matrix rules.
So, to business. We cannot blame the insurance companies, they are a business run for profit. Fine – we are living in a ‘capitalist’ democracy after all. These companies have investors who expect a return on monies invested – fair enough I’d say. Cold, hard, unassailable business logic. So far so good.
Which brings us to the point of this ramble. Insurance companies must be canny, shrewd and to some extent, ruthless, depending on the ‘law’ they operate within. But, to an operation like CASA – do these truths apply? In short; they do not.
The amounts of money consumed by CASA – for no tangible ‘safety’ return are truly staggering. I could not care less about the money if – just once – there was a return on the investment. The cold hard facts, statistics and audit prove, categorically, that we pay dearly to live in a fools paradise. There has been no significant change in aviation carnage statistics since peace after WWII.
A simple question: are you more at ‘risk’ driving into work at peak hour than you are on a Qantas 787 flying to the USA or London? That question is an easy one.
So, why is the ‘mystique’ of aviation safety demanding more money, more people and more draconian legislation? Aviation is; statistically, safer than you walking to the corner shop for a pint of milk after dark– true.
The sole focus of the aviation industry, like all other business; is profit; a return to the investors. To do that, the ‘flight’ must be as demonstrably ‘safe’ as possible. So, the last question asked this evening was; what have CASA done – in the last two decades which tangibly reduced the overall body count? The short answer is - nothing.
A King’s ransom has been wasted achieving this state; half a Billion on re-wrote law which has increased the cost of compliance 400 fold – the ‘death rate’ - across the board – unchanged. The notion that total control of the masses could change, one iota, the way thing’s are, passed away with the USSR.
Law – for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (Bader); about say’s it all. We need the safety improvement which will come from a sane, sensible, affordable rule set. 46% of a company revenue expended on ‘compliance’ – for a zero increase safety return – ? Bollocks.
“Yes thank you Charlie – one for the road is completely appropriate.” Cheers………….
![[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg)
What a question. However it was posed following some fairly heated discussion at the IOS indaba today. It is; and it stands, as a fair question subject to more ‘debate’.
Of course the secondary question which – logically – must follow is “when?”
Where does one begin (and end) to analyse “risk”?
Well, it seems as if it’s who you talk to and the specifics of the ‘situational’ analysis. For example; you might live in a two story house, with the Dunny on the ground floor. Bladder wakes you at midnight – 14 stairs to walk down – bathroom floor maybe slippery are you at ‘risk’? Well, yes you are, add a bottle of plonk to the matrix and the risks increase – exponentially. Your insurance company will know – down to the last drop in the bottle, where to question. They know, logically, mathematically and financially the level of ‘risk’ variance and they do insure you as being ‘sober’. Break a leg at 0.4 breath test = all good. Break your fool neck at 0.6 – Sayonara insurance. Risk matrix rules.
So, to business. We cannot blame the insurance companies, they are a business run for profit. Fine – we are living in a ‘capitalist’ democracy after all. These companies have investors who expect a return on monies invested – fair enough I’d say. Cold, hard, unassailable business logic. So far so good.
Which brings us to the point of this ramble. Insurance companies must be canny, shrewd and to some extent, ruthless, depending on the ‘law’ they operate within. But, to an operation like CASA – do these truths apply? In short; they do not.
The amounts of money consumed by CASA – for no tangible ‘safety’ return are truly staggering. I could not care less about the money if – just once – there was a return on the investment. The cold hard facts, statistics and audit prove, categorically, that we pay dearly to live in a fools paradise. There has been no significant change in aviation carnage statistics since peace after WWII.
A simple question: are you more at ‘risk’ driving into work at peak hour than you are on a Qantas 787 flying to the USA or London? That question is an easy one.
So, why is the ‘mystique’ of aviation safety demanding more money, more people and more draconian legislation? Aviation is; statistically, safer than you walking to the corner shop for a pint of milk after dark– true.
The sole focus of the aviation industry, like all other business; is profit; a return to the investors. To do that, the ‘flight’ must be as demonstrably ‘safe’ as possible. So, the last question asked this evening was; what have CASA done – in the last two decades which tangibly reduced the overall body count? The short answer is - nothing.
A King’s ransom has been wasted achieving this state; half a Billion on re-wrote law which has increased the cost of compliance 400 fold – the ‘death rate’ - across the board – unchanged. The notion that total control of the masses could change, one iota, the way thing’s are, passed away with the USSR.
Law – for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (Bader); about say’s it all. We need the safety improvement which will come from a sane, sensible, affordable rule set. 46% of a company revenue expended on ‘compliance’ – for a zero increase safety return – ? Bollocks.
“Yes thank you Charlie – one for the road is completely appropriate.” Cheers………….