 Aviation rescue and firefighting in Australia — is it protecting the customer?Graham R. Braithwaite Journal of Air Transport Management, 2001, vol. 7, issue 2, 111-118 Abstract: Aviation is an extremely safe transport mode, yet the accident rate for commercial jet aircraft operations has not changed since the early 1970s. In spite of this, changes within the Australian aviation safety system are allowing safety margins to be reduced in areas such as aviation rescue and firefighting (ARFF). In the name of economic rationalisation, the provision of secondary safety measures such as ARFF has been reduced with the argument of no unacceptable increase in risk. However, with numerous safety improvements still to be adopted following earlier aircraft fires, the decisions on what constitutes acceptable risk in this area seem to be fallible. This paper examines the nature of the risk and the perceptions of the customers of the safety system; the travelling public. Data collected through a survey of 1025 people demonstrates a general lack of awareness about how many airports are covered by ARFF services and what size of aircraft is covered. Data also point towards an apparent willingness to pay extra to assure such facilities are provided. Keywords: Aviation; Regulation; Safety; Risk; Human factors; Rescue and firefighting (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jaitra:v:7:y:2001:i:2:p:111-118 DOI: 10.1016/S0969-6997(00)00037-5 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Air Transport Management is currently edited by Anne Graham More articles in Journal of Air Transport Management from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.