Sir - Although I invariably agree with the author's point of view when reading the Flight International Comment page, I feel that, in the article "All at sea" (Flight International, 9-15 July), about extended-range twin-engined operations (ETOPS), there are some uncharacteristically sweeping statements with which I do not.
The statement that "-in 30 years, there has not been a single ETOPS-style fatality recorded in business-jet operations" is flawed from a safety point of view. One should not always look historically at statistics when assessing the yardstick of safety. The Zeebrugge ferry disaster in which the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized is a vivid memory for many people, although up until then it had a good safety record.
In aviation, there are the examples of cross-wiring on Boeing 757s, some years ago, and the fuselage peeling away on a Hawaiian Boeing 737, etc. We already know that the industry cannot afford to be 100% safe on combustible fuel mixtures in aircraft fuel tanks. It is better to be pro-active on safety than to be complacent.
The chief executive or president who is the likely passenger on large business jets needs to be assured that his aircraft is at least as safe as the aircraft in which the general public travels in economy class. An often-overlooked point is that employees travelling on corporate aircraft do not have the taken-for-granted choice of airline or aircraft which we lesser mortals have.
All that is needed is one fatality and, with the resultant backlash in the tabloids, the business-jet makers would be hurt just as the industry emerges from recession. I believe in the sensible (but progressive) approach to the regulation of corporate operators (for example, European Joint Aviation Regulations Operations) rather than standing by and waiting until somebody blows the perfect record just to prove how wrong we (or you) were.
Name and address supplied
Brunei
Source: Flight International
