Costs of Rescue...

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I believe there is actually a cost per human life that has been nailed down. Unless mistaken at least in Europe if your spouse, Mother, Father etc. is killed say in an airplane accident then your only going to get up to X in money.
I don't know what X is, nor do I know if this is true or not.
I do know that in the FAA determining whether an specific maintenance task (Airworthiness Directive for example) is to be performed, the cost of such task is taken into account along with the probability of the occurrence in a mathematical formula, which sort of puts a cost on life.

Let a Senator have an aircraft accident in Alaska say, and millions will be spent on the search, not so for John Q. Public.

Funny how quickly exorbitant amounts of money will be spent for a celebrity, that wouldn't for just some Tom, Dick or Harry.

The human price tag in the US for years back around 1999-2000 was $1M...now that the housing bubble burst and the banking crisis...maybe it's down to around $800,000.

Personally, I only know a few worth that much....

Especially on a dark and stormy rescue I though the average person was worth about $5.

[boatman61]

Working on Valhalla's premise every sailor rescued at sea would have to pay... just about every mud dweller thinks we're frickin nutz...

[hellosailor]

a64-
"I believe there is actually a cost per human life that has been nailed down."
Yes, and last time I heard (some years ago) the FAA put that at $3.9 million dollars for the average airline passenger. More or less, depending on your age, occupation, etc. but 3.9m on the average, and I'm pretty sure that other agencies outside the US have different figures.
What used to be called "wereguild" meaning, payment for wrongful deaths, is an old concept and a commonly held one.

The FAAs figure is used by the entire US airline industry to evaluate the cost of safety procedures and upgrades. If they figure something like faulty wiring in center fuel tanks (TWA800 was one of dozens of 747's that blew up from this) would cost $500 million to upgrade across a fleet, but leaving the flaw to kill people would only kill 100 more people at a cost of $390 million, then the flaw is left untouched and the hundred people are allowed to die, because statistically, that's more efficient.

It says something about an entire industry, that their goal is cost efficiency, rather than doing their best to keep the passengers safe, doesn't it?

And not to go OT about TWA800, but at least two 747s blew up earlier that same year, but since they weren't IN the US, the US airline industry didn't care.

I suppose that if survivors/estates started to sue boatbuilders over "negligently designed" keels, that might force some changes. Offhand...they could easily embed strain sensors in a hull layup, to show that a keel/hull joint had been stressed (from groundings or other causes) and was likely to fail. Cheaper to embed those, than to pay for wrongful deaths. I wonder if the mythical Prudent Owner (close kin to the mythical Prudent Mariner) "should" really be installing those on his or her own boat instead?

And you may never have noticed, but automotive seat belts already include a deformable section/label, that shows if they've been subjected to high loads. No news here.

[a64pilot]

Thread drift warning

I thought TWA 800 was the ONLY one, there hadn't been any before or since?
See I've had pretty much from day one my own theory about what happened to flight 800
(what a surprise right )

[hellosailor]

"I thought TWA 800 was the ONLY one, there hadn't been any before or since?"
Nope. One of many. BY now I may be misremembering, but IIRC there had been over a dozen before TWA800, including one vaguely around Thailand or India that caught fire at the jetway and burned to the ground about two months before.
And then after literally YEARS of consideration, the FAA decided to allow the vital 747 fleet to continue flying with corrections to be made over something like a fifteen year period during routine overhauls. No immediate actions were required, because the cost would have exceeded the "cost" of gambling on another 250(?) lives.

This is cold actuarial calculation, with "safety" meaning "What's it gonna cost?"

The US also ignored three hijackings in the third world (i.e. Pakistan) in 2001, all stopped by armed air marshals. Which we disbanded in the 1980's because the airline industry said "they cost too much". Then in Sept. 2001 we got the $50+ billion dollar bill for not being able to stop hijackers, the way all those nasty third-world junker airlines [sic] did.

Although, if I'm doing my math right, the cost of ~3300 deaths at $3.9m each, should have come to some 128 billion dollars alone. Way more than what we were told 9/11 "cost". Coulda bought a lot of sky marshals, huh?

[letsgetsailing3]

I don't have a problem with the cost of rescue missions. But I'm not going to pretend there isn't one, or that because government/military budgets are so large overall that we can't figure out what rescue missions cost. That's simply not the case.

[bob_77903]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"I thought TWA 800 was the ONLY one, there hadn't been any before or since?"
Nope. One of many. BY now I may be misremembering, but IIRC there had been over a dozen before TWA800, including one vaguely around Thailand or India that caught fire at the jetway and burned to the ground about two months before.
And then after literally YEARS of consideration, the FAA decided to allow the vital 747 fleet to continue flying with corrections to be made over something like a fifteen year period during routine overhauls. No immediate actions were required, because the cost would have exceeded the "cost" of gambling on another 250(?) lives.

This is cold actuarial calculation, with "safety" meaning "What's it gonna cost?"

The US also ignored three hijackings in the third world (i.e. Pakistan) in 2001, all stopped by armed air marshals. Which we disbanded in the 1980's because the airline industry said "they cost too much". Then in Sept. 2001 we got the $50+ billion dollar bill for not being able to stop hijackers, the way all those nasty third-world junker airlines [sic] did.

Although, if I'm doing my math right, the cost of ~3300 deaths at $3.9m each, should have come to some 128 billion dollars alone. Way more than what we were told 9/11 "cost". Coulda bought a lot of sky marshals, huh?

And you get this information from where, National Inquirer ?

[hellosailor]

Very clever, Bob, but it was all widely reported and available for confirmation WAY BACK THEN. You should be able to find it on the web now, unless someone has been doing revisionist Wiki entries.

You should also be able to find Osama's quotation thanking the United States for being the only major nation that allowed his plan to succeed, by contravening the global directive to keep the cockpit closed and land immediately--regardless of threats from the cabin--and for shutting down the sky marshal program.

Yes, it was that simple. As Pogo said,"...the enemy is us." Denying history won't change it.

letsgo-
"the cost of rescue missions." That's all old history too. In colonial times and even into the 1700's, there were "fire insurance companies" and no fire departments. The burden of firefighting was placed 100% on those who were foolish enough, or unlucky enough, to have a fire problem. And if your home or business was on fire, the local fire companies showed up and started negotiating with you ON THE SPOT if you didn't have the paid membership plaque on your doorpost.

Didn't work too well, mainly because fires spread, and that puts the burden and cost on everyone. (NY, Rome, London, Paris, Chicago, all had major conflagrations involving 1/4 to 1/3 of all structures at least once.)

So, putting the cost of SAR alongside that of fire and police isn't all that unreasonable. Refining it a bit, as New Hampshire has done, even more so. (They'll charge you for doing something foolish, that requires rescue, like getting lost in the woods with zero preparation or consideration for the weather. If your luck just ran out and you were being prudent, there's no charge.)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Working on Valhalla's premise every sailor rescued at sea would have to pay... just about every mud dweller thinks we're frickin nutz...

I believe you are mis-quoting me. Go back and read and I qualified it with people being stuipid or negligent should pay. That's far different from everyone and in no way discounts the premise that there is a significant cost that can be assigned to every rescue.

I also never said it would be pretty or a simple process.

As far as the cost of a human life, I work in traffic engineering. I have the spreadsheet that calculates how many people have to die before we do "X" change at an intersection. It's just impolite to say it out loud but don't think for a second that the numbers haven't been calculated...and that's not a bad thing. I would much prefer limited resources be sent to those options that result in the most lives being spared rather than the emotional incident of the day.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

letsgo-
"the cost of rescue missions." That's all old history too. In colonial times and even into the 1700's, there were "fire insurance companies" and no fire departments. The burden of firefighting was placed 100% on those who were foolish enough, or unlucky enough, to have a fire problem. And if your home or business was on fire, the local fire companies showed up and started negotiating with you ON THE SPOT if you didn't have the paid membership plaque on your doorpost.

Didn't work too well, mainly because fires spread, and that puts the burden and cost on everyone. (NY, Rome, London, Paris, Chicago, all had major conflagrations involving 1/4 to 1/3 of all structures at least once.)

So, putting the cost of SAR alongside that of fire and police isn't all that unreasonable. Refining it a bit, as New Hampshire has done, even more so. (They'll charge you for doing something foolish, that requires rescue, like getting lost in the woods with zero preparation or consideration for the weather. If your luck just ran out and you were being prudent, there's no charge.)

Your first two paragraphs are more talking about strong arm techniques and corruption than assessing cost. If you were politically connected, or paid into the fund, they put out your fires. If you didn't pay the "protection money" they didn't. I don't think too many people these days would advocate or accept that in general, though I've seen similar business practices when people were in need. The old "rainy day means an increase in umbrella prices", or paying ridiculous prices for beer at a sporting event come to mind.

As for your third paragraph, it makes some sense, but there is an equally good argument that this might prevent some people from calling for help, and that's not so good. There's a fine line between advocating responsible behavior and impeding rescue services. The system currently in place, where everyone who can be rescued gets rescued, is probably best.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'm not going to comment on this case but where the person was just plain being stupid and got themselves in a jam, we should go after them for the cost of the rescue.

I'm not going to comment on that complete contradiction.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

a64-
...

The FAAs figure is used by the entire US airline industry to evaluate the cost of safety procedures and upgrades. If they figure something like faulty wiring in center fuel tanks (TWA800 was one of dozens of 747's that blew up from this) would cost $500 million to upgrade across a fleet, but leaving the flaw to kill people would only kill 100 more people at a cost of $390 million, then the flaw is left untouched and the hundred people are allowed to die, because statistically, that's more efficient.

It says something about an entire industry, that their goal is cost efficiency, rather than doing their best to keep the passengers safe, doesn't it?

And not to go OT about TWA800, but at least two 747s blew up earlier that same year, but since they weren't IN the US, the US airline industry didn't care.

...

And you may never have noticed, but automotive seat belts already include a deformable section/label, that shows if they've been subjected to high loads. No news here.

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"I thought TWA 800 was the ONLY one, there hadn't been any before or since?"
Nope. One of many. BY now I may be misremembering, but IIRC there had been over a dozen before TWA800, including one vaguely around Thailand or India that caught fire at the jetway and burned to the ground about two months before.
And then after literally YEARS of consideration, the FAA decided to allow the vital 747 fleet to continue flying with corrections to be made over something like a fifteen year period during routine overhauls. No immediate actions were required, because the cost would have exceeded the "cost" of gambling on another 250(?) lives.

This is cold actuarial calculation, with "safety" meaning "What's it gonna cost?"

The US also ignored three hijackings in the third world (i.e. Pakistan) in 2001, all stopped by armed air marshals. Which we disbanded in the 1980's because the airline industry said "they cost too much". Then in Sept. 2001 we got the $50+ billion dollar bill for not being able to stop hijackers, the way all those nasty third-world junker airlines [sic] did.

Although, if I'm doing my math right, the cost of ~3300 deaths at $3.9m each, should have come to some 128 billion dollars alone. Way more than what we were told 9/11 "cost". Coulda bought a lot of sky marshals, huh?

Gotta call Bullcarp on this.

There is only one 747 hull loss that is likely due to a fuel/air explosion in the CWT, link(s) below. There have been 52 747 losses so far since this type began working, most due to pilot error, structural failures (due to various causes, like repair work), and a few terrorist incidents. Look at the list given.
Granted, f/a explosions have occurred in other types before (not a common event in any case).

Did the FAA and Boeing drag their wings in correcting the possible sources of this probable root cause? Likely so, for the usual bureaucratic, corporate, selfish economic reasons.
But AD's were issued, and changes made. No other incidents like this have since occurred to 747's, or other types AFAIK.

Refer to the Wiki on this:
Boeing 747 hull losses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I was going to make some references to the 911911911 victim settlements, there was a special 'court' set up for that, but that's going off course even more. Those settlements were set, basically, on future earnings losses, and varied somewhat (don't know the $ ranges), so there were 'prices' to lives assigned. How else can it be done?

[hellosailor]

Tx, we can argue numbers all day but the end point remains the same. Previous 747 fuel tank fires were a known issue and widely reported after TWA800, along with the FAA and the US airline industry's position that hey, it doesn't happen often enough to worry about. Personally? I think if it happens once, that's enough, and I'm not flyoing on another one until it is fixed. (Which they should be by now. "Should". Dunno.

letsget-
I don't know if the folks in NH ever considered that point but I suspect they would say that if folks can't figure out whether to call for help at any price, or die of exposure, there's a good case to be made for discouraging them from calling!
Folks tend to be a bit more pragmatic and less concerned about being called politically correct up there.
They also make it clear to anyone entering those areas that there won't be any charge for rescues, unless you've been a real bonehead.

Of course the USCG has a more stringent policy, they'll forcibly return you to port if your vessel is "manifestly unsafe" and they'll stop you and board you where and how they please to confirm your safety compliance. In NH? No, the rangers don't check your pockets or your pack, and they don't send you home if they don't like your parka. They let boneheads be.

[Ryan H]

Can a mod move this thread to the off topic section? They're seriously arguing about airplane crashes now.....

Personally I think we should have billed the Apollo 13 astronauts.... :-P

Does anybody here ever just talk about sailing?

This place is constantly reminding me of Montey Pythons Argument Clinic sketch.....

Sent from my SGPT12 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[hellosailor]

Hey, Ryan, when you want a moderator's attention, you click the red and black exclamation point in a triangle icon that's at the bottom left of every message post.

Oh, wait, that's another OT comment. Try two doors down and to the left.