I had a call yesterday evening from a journalist at
the Daily Telegraph asking me my views on the differing airline responses to
the shooting down of MH17. Apparently some operators are avoiding some conflict
zones like Iraq whereas others are not – indeed some are flying IN to war zones like
Israel. Who should decide and how?
The conflicting pressures of conflict are quite interesting. First and foremost airlines are in business to make a profit so the commercial imperatives are very strong. Avoiding airspace that your competitors are continuing to use is expensive in time and more importantly in fuel. The money men will quite reasonably ask if the airspace is ‘open’ why can’t we fly in it? However, the safety guys like me will be balancing that commercial view with the risk of an attack using our reliable old tools of severity (clearly catastrophic in this case) and probability – but that is the hard one. My view of the probability and yours might differ by a significant margin and so consequently will our assessments of the risk. And even if we do make the case, the airline security team in their black suits and dark glasses may mutter about good intelligence they have, which of course they can’t share with anyone but they happen to know that the risk of an attack is ‘acceptable’.
Today’s meeting in Montreal hosted by ICAO is supposed to come up with some definitive answers to this conundrum but don’t hold your breath – that is the same black hole that the aircraft tracking debate fell in to after MH370 disappeared months ago…
The conflicting pressures of conflict are quite interesting. First and foremost airlines are in business to make a profit so the commercial imperatives are very strong. Avoiding airspace that your competitors are continuing to use is expensive in time and more importantly in fuel. The money men will quite reasonably ask if the airspace is ‘open’ why can’t we fly in it? However, the safety guys like me will be balancing that commercial view with the risk of an attack using our reliable old tools of severity (clearly catastrophic in this case) and probability – but that is the hard one. My view of the probability and yours might differ by a significant margin and so consequently will our assessments of the risk. And even if we do make the case, the airline security team in their black suits and dark glasses may mutter about good intelligence they have, which of course they can’t share with anyone but they happen to know that the risk of an attack is ‘acceptable’.
Today’s meeting in Montreal hosted by ICAO is supposed to come up with some definitive answers to this conundrum but don’t hold your breath – that is the same black hole that the aircraft tracking debate fell in to after MH370 disappeared months ago…
No comments:
Post a Comment