[SystemSafety] A different Historical Question

[Uma Ferrell]

John and Felix,
Yes- this publication appears to be in Cambridge Core:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=R.W. Howard&eventCode=SE-AU#

1.       Citation also quotes the Aeronautical Journal/Volume 96/ issue 957/ September 1992 published online 01July 2016, pp260-270.

2.       The abstract is available.

3.       The URL reference is a dead end. So the article cannot be reached. Perhaps by bringing this attention to the librarian the error may be fixed.  I have sent them an error report.
Best,
Uma

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of nfr
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 5:55 AM
To: SPRIGGS, John J
Cc: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] A different Historical Question

John,
A paper, Breaking Through the 10e6 Barrier, by R.W. Howard, was published at the International Federation of Airworthiness Conference in Auckland in October 1991. I don’t have the whole paper, but it carried a section on Statistical Safety Assessment Methods and may be helpful to you, if you haven’t already read it.
Felix.


On 22 Mar 2017, at 17:20, SPRIGGS, John J <John.SPRIGGS at nats.co.uk<mailto:John.SPRIGGS at nats.co.uk>> wrote:

Way back in the last millennium, someone did an analysis of aircraft accident data, selected out a set based on various criteria, such as ‘western built’ commercial air traffic in controlled airspace, etc., and came up with a figure for accidents per flight.
On behalf of ECAC, someone applied an improvement factor, truncated the answer to two decimal places and declared a ‘safety target’ of better than 2.31x10^-8 accidents per flight.  At that time, it was conventional to assume an average flight is ninety minutes. This was applied to the result and rounded up to give a target of better than 1.55x10^-8 accidents per controlled flying hour.
I used to have references for these things, but I have lost them (the ECAC targets are quoted in a document called ESARR4 which is still available despite being obsolete in the EU for over a decade). In particular I wanted a reference for the ninety minute flight convention.  This is because I have been shown a standard (not from the commercial air traffic domain) that takes the ECAC targets as the basis for arguing that the average length of a flight is 89.4 minutes, i.e. taking the truncated and rounded results as ‘truth’ …  I would like to challenge it with references.


John






_______________________________________________

The System Safety Mailing List

systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE<mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>


________________________________
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email Information.Solutions at nats.co.uk<mailto:Information.Solutions at nats.co.uk> immediately. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person.

NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system.

Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any losses caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd (company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE<mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170323/56b5e5de/attachment.html>