Probabilities are for the Birds

The ash cloud that Eyjafjallajökull has spewed over Europe has brought about all the expected behaviours.  "Gordon Brown under pressure to get Britain flying" screams our The Times.  What a ridiculous headline.  Yep, it is up to him isn't it?

First you have the regulatory bodies, the arms of elected governments.  They have taken the cautious approach of banning almost all flights since they do not really know what the consequences of flying through an ash cloud are.  Erring on the side caution they have determined that jumbo jets filled with 300+ people should not be flying.  After all the job of a government is to protect its citizenry. Understandable.

Airlines, over the last twenty-four hours have also started to take make their voices heard.  We have heard about flights through the ash cloud with airline CEOs on board.  Somehow the fact that the CEO is onboard is meant to alleviate all our fears.  The bottom line for the airlines is not so much a concern for citizenry but rather being able to assure its customers a vital service that the world has grown to depend on - and to show that it is secure.  Oh, and losing $200 million a day is a bit of a drag as well.  Understandable.

So how does one decide whether or not to allowing flying?  Are the airlines right?  Are they being driven by greed or is it true that the regulatory bodies have been over cautious?  Are the facts really well known?  Can they be given the lack of similar events?  Are the regulatory bodies correct in banning all flights?  What is the real danger of that ash?  Is it harmless as some seem to be saying or is it so abrasive that paints gets stripped off planes and engines get clogged (as other are saying)?  Not knowing the impact of on flying is the best thing to do to just ban all flights and wait it our or should it be agreed that certain risks are worth taking?

In the end, as with almost all other decisions, it will be left to "experts" to decide.  They will determine, somehow, whether the risks are worth taking.  They may ask the mathematicians for help as well so that probabilities can be figured out.

We have all heard that flying is safer than driving.  So we fly.  Sure, occasionally a big metal bird comes crashing down but it is a risk we accept.  The probability is that your particular flight will not crash and burn - for that matter chances are you will make it to work safely tomorrow morning.

The decision will be one that will weigh the negatives vs. the positives.  Danger of crashing and burning vs. a safe arrival.  The loss of business by the airlines vs. the greater impact of some downed birds.  The impact on jobs and industry of a halt in air cargo and passenger travels vs. the cost of lives and delays.  People will gauge whether the thirty or so test-flights were representative of the tens of thousands that fly from, to and in Europe on a daily basis.  Who really knows?  Do we need to really know?

They, whomever they are, will decide.  Most will accept the decision, some loud-mouths will not and will let themselves be heard.  The world will go on regardless of the probabilities of failure or success - and regardless of the actual outcomes of the decision.

Let me know what you think about what you have just read. Please and thanks!