0


空中安全:除了蓝天什么都没有?

Air Safety: Nothing But Blue Skies?
课程网址: http://videolectures.net/mitworld_barnett_as/  
主讲教师: Arnold I. Barnett
开课单位: 麻省理工学院
开课时间: 2010-08-12
课程语种: 英语
中文简介:
虽然阿诺德·巴奈特承认年复一年地解决同样的问题(“他有没有改变他的史蒂夫?”),但他这次宣传了一些新的曲目。尽管如此,巴尼特仍然非常一致,即使在最近的一系列空难之后,他对当前的航空安全状况进行了非常晴朗的评估。随着一系列辩证问题,巴内特通过一系列辩证问题来到达目的地。现在飞行有多安全?这不取决于我们如何衡量航空安全,以及哪些统计数据最具信息性?你可以看一下这样的指标,如每个飞行小时的致命事故,或每10万人离开的船体损失,或乘客死亡的乘客。 Barnett提出了每个随机选择的航班的“不完美但有意义”的死亡风险统计数据,其中包括其他概念上的优势,处理被杀的几率具有“直观吸引力”的因素.Barnett的数字:从2000年到2008年,有人选择随机的美国喷气式飞机将造成2300万人中意外死亡风险(总共6900万次喷气式飞机中有3次坠机)。美国儿童成为总统(百万分之一)的可能性要大于飞行中的死亡人数。从20世纪60年代到今天的死亡风险统计数据稳步改善,由于9/11事件前所未有的悲剧,在当前的十年中趋于稳定。目前,美国航空公司的喷气式飞机死亡风险为千万分之一,其他发达国家的飞机损失约为1400万(发展中国家的航空风险造成的风险更大:150万分之一)。巴奈特说,“尽管最近提出了相反的建议,但地区性的喷气式飞机并不比国家航空公司安全。”虽然“第一次世界喷气式飞机上的致命事故濒临灭绝”,但巴内特担心跑道碰撞会增加,因为全球经济改善。他希望技术进步将解决这些问题。更大的挑战来自恐怖主义,他认为恐怖主义将继续以航空为目标。使用成本效益分析,Barnett不再提出禁止在飞行中使用笔记本电脑的建议,也驳斥了对恐怖袭击采取更快,更有效的应对措施的想法,恐怖袭击通常是集群的。最终,我们的“最佳策略实际上可能是什么也不做,除了希望。”也许我们应该看到航空危险,因为加利福尼亚人认为地震的威胁:采取预防措施,但承认“如果我们是生活必须承担一定的风险将有生命值得冒险。“
课程简介: While Arnold Barnett acknowledges addressing the same questions around flying year after year (“Does he ever change his schtick?”), he advertises some new twists this time ‘round. Barnett remains remarkably consistent, though, in his quite sunny assessment of the current state of aviation safety -- even after a recent string of air accidents. Wielding statistics and the occasional wisecrack, Barnett arrives at his destination by way of a series of dialectical questions. How safe is it to fly now? Doesn’t that depend on how we measure aviation safety, and which statistics are the most informative? You could look at such metrics as fatal accidents per flight hours, or hull loss per 100 thousand departures, or passengers killed to passengers carried. Barnett proposes instead the “imperfect but meaningful” statistic of death risk per randomly chosen flight, which among other conceptual advantages, deals with the odds of being killed -- a factor with “intuitive appeal.” Barnett’s numbers: From 2000 to 2008, someone who chose a U.S. jet flight at random would sustain an accidental death risk of 1 in 23 million (there were 3 crashes in 69 million total jet flights). There’s a much greater likelihood an American child will become president (one in 2 million) than die in flight. Death risk statistics from the 1960s through today have improved steadily, plateauing in the current decade due to the unprecedented tragedy of 9/11. Currently, there’s a one in 10 million risk of death by jet in U.S. flight, around 1 in 14 million for other developed nations (the developing world’s aviation risk poses somewhat greater hazards: one in 1.5 million). Says Barnett,“Despite recent suggestions to the contrary, regional jet flights are not less safe than national airlines.” While “fatal accidents on first world jets are on the verge of extinction,” Barnett worries about an increase in runway collisions, as the global economy improves. He hopes technological advances will address these concerns. The greater challenge comes from terrorism, which he feels sure will continue to target aviation. Using a cost benefit analysis, Barnett dispenses with proposals to ban laptops on flights, and also dismisses the idea of faster, more effective responses to terrorist attacks, which often come in clusters. Ultimately, our “optimal strategy might actually be to do nothing, except hope.” Perhaps we should come to view aviation dangers as Californians regard the threat of earthquakes: Take precautions but acknowledge “we have to take certain risks in life if we’re going to have lives worth risking.”
关 键 词: 空难; 航空安全状况; 恐怖袭击
课程来源: 视频讲座网
最后编审: 2019-05-20:cwx
阅读次数: 61