I’d like to say I was surprised, but… I’m not. Read the entire article to get a feel for the serial safety infractions alleged by CASA and keep in mind that endlessly pushing for lower-cost fares does put the squeeze on operating costs, including staff salaries, training, maintenance and so on. In theory however a high-cost carrier could still plunder training and maintenance budgets to increase margins, so it’s not as simple as low cost = higher risk. 

Anyway, immediately below is the most pertinent and informed comment I could find… but click below for the full story in any case…

15 klms north of Avalon is right in the marked GA transit lane (in class G airspace). Single-engine NVFR propeller planes with PPL pilots could quite easily have been there at the same time. To see and evade the traffic the Tiger pilots would have had to pick out the other plane’s navigation lights against the background of Geelong’s city lighting. Even if they did see and avoid, the turbulence created by such a heavy jet would be difficult to handle in a typical GA aircraft at night so close to the ground. Serious turbulence at night must be handled by reference to the artificial horizon because the natural horizon is not visible.A lot of errors must have been made for this to occur. This is indeed an imminent threat to air safety. I imagine the Tiger crew were lost and thought they were closer to Avalon than they really were. That creates a MAJOR risk of a CFIT accident at some aerodromes in Australia.

Tiger Airways faces extinction in Australia over safety fear | Plane Talking

I’ve just about done this to death, but here’s another example of language twisted to suit a purpose. In this example a “journalist” has decided that “safety” is a bolt-on thing, an option; a box that when ticked, renders you “safe”:

Sadly, though, safety is still an option on the most basic Mazda3.

Now no-one believes that, surely, but then again… words have power. Standard car – unsafe. With fresh bright new safety options fitted, safe. What a magical world we live in.

What the journo means is that additional passive safety features that may prove usefully protective in a range of crash situations are an optional extra, at additional cost. In the journo’s view it should not be by choice, rather we should be compelled to have the maximum array of explosive air bags around us at all times. Heaven help bike riders, then. They just lose skin.

Now I do agree cars should be rendered as ‘safe’ as possible, including by the wearing of helmets and multi-point harnesses. But that’s (sadly) not an option – and is often illegal (don’t ask why). Cars should also be agile, smaller, and less powerful; and I also think that we (as drivers) should remain focused, aware and law-abiding on the roads, but that’s apparently less useful than a set of explosive devices.

I’ll do my best to avoid writing about this for a while.

I’ve just about done this to death, but here’s another example of language twisted to suit a purpose. In this example a “journalist” has decided that “safety” is a bolt-on thing, an option; a box that when ticked, renders you “safe”:

Sadly, though, safety is still an option on the most basic Mazda3.

Now no-one believes that, surely, but then again… words have power. Standard car – unsafe. With fresh bright new safety options fitted, safe. What a magical world we live in.

What the journo means is that additional passive safety features that may prove usefully protective in a range of crash situations are an optional extra, at additional cost. In the journo’s view it should not be by choice, rather we should be compelled to have the maximum array of explosive air bags around us at all times. Heaven help bike riders, then. They just lose skin.

Now I do agree cars should be rendered as ‘safe’ as possible, including by the wearing of helmets and multi-point harnesses. But that’s (sadly) not an option – and is often illegal (don’t ask why). Cars should also be agile, smaller, and less powerful; and I also think that we (as drivers) should remain focused, aware and law-abiding on the roads, but that’s apparently less useful than a set of explosive devices.

I’ll do my best to avoid writing about this for a while.

The media loves to digest press releases and spit them back at us, with varying levels of additional balancing research added to counter the spin that the originator intended. Yesterday was the NYT, today it’s Forbes mag: “So all things being equal, if you’re concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car.” Well, that’s the insurance organisation’s spin on it, anyway.

And of course it’s correct – the bigger the crush zone, the less force we experience in a prang. But it’s not the only way to be “concerned about safety”. For example we could simply drive smarter, take fewer risks and obey the road rules more religiously. Sure, accidents happen, but force being mass times acceleration means we could lop off some of that mass, which ironically could mean a smaller car, or ease off on acceleration. But the car industry thrives on acceleration – and emotion. The rational rarely gets a look in when it comes to cars, because “faster” and “more powerful” is portrayed as better. When we couple that with passive safety equipment and a host of gadgets to distract us we get fatter, heavier, bigger and more wasteful cars. And then one person will drive that 5-seater car to work. It’s not rational.

Historically, we made some sort of decision in the 1970s to ditch some proportion of fuel economy in favour of cleaner air, and that indeed made some sense, at least if you don’t consider driving less a valid option. We also dumped weight reduction for passive safety devices like airbags, which also made sense, at least if we don’t consider helmets and harnesses acceptable alternatives. But life isn’t black and white and our choices – or those made for us – have shaped the cars and the carbon pollution we face today. The net result of safety and clean air regulations has been heavier cars with poorer fuel consumption, with bigger, more powerful engines to make up for the extra flab. And more carbon released at every step, from manufacture to the actual driving. Were these the right choices, in the right proportions? Well who knows?

Just to illustrate what we have concocted with these legislated changes, I have a 1982 Alfa Romeo GTV coupe in the garage that weighs 1100kg and is propelled by a twin cam, carburetted 2litre four cylinder motor. That engine (in local Aussie spec) provides 175Nm of torque and 90kW of power (or 12.2 kg per W). For some odd reason we thought such specs not only sufficient but also quite sporty back in 1982. It was also quite expensive, relatively, which helped keep that sort of power out of inexperienced hands. Whereas today with cheap gas and cheaper cars we can get Subaru Impreza Turbo 4WD machines of 195kW/343Nm for much less money. And they weigh a mammoth 1425kg. Despite the weight gain (which has seen the WRX grow from a more reasonable 1200kg when released in the early ’90s) we have here a car with a power to weight ratio of just 7.5kg per W. So it’s waaaaay faster than a 1980′s 4 cylinder Alfa, or a 6 cylinder one for that matter! We could call that progress.

The Alfa was about $15,000 (Aussie dollars) new, which is roughly equivalent to $43k today. The much more potent (but arguably safer and cleaner, if you want to justify these things) WRX is just $39,990 RRP. It could be considered safer, in the passive sense that the forces of any collision will be dispersed away from the humans on board; and it has improved active mechanical and electronic aids to assist in avoiding an accident in the first place. In theory, at least. Balanced against that is the extra weight, meaning more force to disperse, and extra power, meaning both increased acceleration (and thus force) and a greater potential for accessing the additional force. Now that sounds like a lot of fun, but is it safer?

The WRX example is played out in the sedan car market, too. Heavier, faster, more powerful – and bigger – cars – for less money, all wrapped in a purported “safety” blanket. To me it seems a contradiction of terms to have ‘heavier, faster and more powerful’ yet ‘safer’ cars, but you can make a case for anything if you want to sell cars, can’t you?

And of course it’s all about freedom of choice, isn’t it?

The media loves to digest press releases and spit them back at us, with varying levels of additional balancing research added to counter the spin that the originator intended. Yesterday was the NYT, today it’s Forbes mag: “So all things being equal, if you’re concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car.” Well, that’s the insurance organisation’s spin on it, anyway.

And of course it’s correct – the bigger the crush zone, the less force we experience in a prang. But it’s not the only way to be “concerned about safety”. For example we could simply drive smarter, take fewer risks and obey the road rules more religiously. Sure, accidents happen, but force being mass times acceleration means we could lop off some of that mass, which ironically could mean a smaller car, or ease off on acceleration. But the car industry thrives on acceleration – and emotion. The rational rarely gets a look in when it comes to cars, because “faster” and “more powerful” is portrayed as better. When we couple that with passive safety equipment and a host of gadgets to distract us we get fatter, heavier, bigger and more wasteful cars. And then one person will drive that 5-seater car to work. It’s not rational.

Historically, we made some sort of decision in the 1970s to ditch some proportion of fuel economy in favour of cleaner air, and that indeed made some sense, at least if you don’t consider driving less a valid option. We also dumped weight reduction for passive safety devices like airbags, which also made sense, at least if we don’t consider helmets and harnesses acceptable alternatives. But life isn’t black and white and our choices – or those made for us – have shaped the cars and the carbon pollution we face today. The net result of safety and clean air regulations has been heavier cars with poorer fuel consumption, with bigger, more powerful engines to make up for the extra flab. And more carbon released at every step, from manufacture to the actual driving. Were these the right choices, in the right proportions? Well who knows?

Just to illustrate what we have concocted with these legislated changes, I have a 1982 Alfa Romeo GTV coupe in the garage that weighs 1100kg and is propelled by a twin cam, carburetted 2litre four cylinder motor. That engine (in local Aussie spec) provides 175Nm of torque and 90kW of power (or 12.2 kg per W). For some odd reason we thought such specs not only sufficient but also quite sporty back in 1982. It was also quite expensive, relatively, which helped keep that sort of power out of inexperienced hands. Whereas today with cheap gas and cheaper cars we can get Subaru Impreza Turbo 4WD machines of 195kW/343Nm for much less money. And they weigh a mammoth 1425kg. Despite the weight gain (which has seen the WRX grow from a more reasonable 1200kg when released in the early ’90s) we have here a car with a power to weight ratio of just 7.5kg per W. So it’s waaaaay faster than a 1980′s 4 cylinder Alfa, or a 6 cylinder one for that matter! We could call that progress.

The Alfa was about $15,000 (Aussie dollars) new, which is roughly equivalent to $43k today. The much more potent (but arguably safer and cleaner, if you want to justify these things) WRX is just $39,990 RRP. It could be considered safer, in the passive sense that the forces of any collision will be dispersed away from the humans on board; and it has improved active mechanical and electronic aids to assist in avoiding an accident in the first place. In theory, at least. Balanced against that is the extra weight, meaning more force to disperse, and extra power, meaning both increased acceleration (and thus force) and a greater potential for accessing the additional force. Now that sounds like a lot of fun, but is it safer?

The WRX example is played out in the sedan car market, too. Heavier, faster, more powerful – and bigger – cars – for less money, all wrapped in a purported “safety” blanket. To me it seems a contradiction of terms to have ‘heavier, faster and more powerful’ yet ‘safer’ cars, but you can make a case for anything if you want to sell cars, can’t you?

And of course it’s all about freedom of choice, isn’t it?

An insurance “institute” crashes big cars into small ones and declares: …that while driving smaller and lighter cars saves fuel, “downsizing and down-weighting is also associated with an increase in deaths on the highway”. Yet they don’t actually nominate how many extra deaths will result, presumably because the crash scenarios are quite rare and the increase statistically difficult to pin down. Or maybe they are just scared to say.

Perhaps they also realise that big cars use more resources to start with – in manufacture alone – and that combined with their fat-car petrol consumption they will drive us to our destruction anyway. Dead is dead, no matter how we get there.

Now everyone has an axe to grind, and it’s hard to know the truth. You could be forgiven for thinking that an insurance-funded body may actually want to see fewer crashes, and lesser-value claims. However the insurance companies may also just want to instil some fear and trepidation, in hope of raising premiums on smaller cars. Who can tell? In this instance they nominate small cars as the “compromise”, suggesting that people are trading some measure of “safety” for better fuel consumption. Perhaps they should have turned it around and suggested that people who buy larger, thirstier cars are compromising the safety of smaller vehicles and their passengers? So why are small cars seen as the compromise?

Ahh, fact is, there is no absolute “truth”. There are no guarantees, nothing is truly “safe” and all is relative. If a big car hits a truck, they are in the same position as the small car. And if a small car hits a bike rider, well you can see where that will lead. So should we ban bikes and small cars and run out of gas a whole lot quicker? I don’t think so.

So if we accept that they are disadvantaged in size, why not propose a new deal for small cars? Or for bike riders, for that matter? Currently we only get the vehicle safety features we are offered – crumple zones and amazing exploding bags – rather than the roll cages, helmets and harnesses that would make cars truly safer. Indeed, car manufacturers compromise our safety by offering only complex, heavy and sub-optimal passive safety devices that are least likely to reduce car sales. And we are complicit in this by accepting these compromised solutions. Most likely because we don’t want to have helmet hair after a drive to the shops. But in many places (including Australia) bike riders are compelled to wear helmets. It could be time to even up the score.

An insurance “institute” crashes big cars into small ones and declares: …that while driving smaller and lighter cars saves fuel, “downsizing and down-weighting is also associated with an increase in deaths on the highway”. Yet they don’t actually nominate how many extra deaths will result, presumably because the crash scenarios are quite rare and the increase statistically difficult to pin down. Or maybe they are just scared to say.

Perhaps they also realise that big cars use more resources to start with – in manufacture alone – and that combined with their fat-car petrol consumption they will drive us to our destruction anyway. Dead is dead, no matter how we get there.

Now everyone has an axe to grind, and it’s hard to know the truth. You could be forgiven for thinking that an insurance-funded body may actually want to see fewer crashes, and lesser-value claims. However the insurance companies may also just want to instil some fear and trepidation, in hope of raising premiums on smaller cars. Who can tell? In this instance they nominate small cars as the “compromise”, suggesting that people are trading some measure of “safety” for better fuel consumption. Perhaps they should have turned it around and suggested that people who buy larger, thirstier cars are compromising the safety of smaller vehicles and their passengers? So why are small cars seen as the compromise?

Ahh, fact is, there is no absolute “truth”. There are no guarantees, nothing is truly “safe” and all is relative. If a big car hits a truck, they are in the same position as the small car. And if a small car hits a bike rider, well you can see where that will lead. So should we ban bikes and small cars and run out of gas a whole lot quicker? I don’t think so.

So if we accept that they are disadvantaged in size, why not propose a new deal for small cars? Or for bike riders, for that matter? Currently we only get the vehicle safety features we are offered – crumple zones and amazing exploding bags – rather than the roll cages, helmets and harnesses that would make cars truly safer. Indeed, car manufacturers compromise our safety by offering only complex, heavy and sub-optimal passive safety devices that are least likely to reduce car sales. And we are complicit in this by accepting these compromised solutions. Most likely because we don’t want to have helmet hair after a drive to the shops. But in many places (including Australia) bike riders are compelled to wear helmets. It could be time to even up the score.