Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!hplabsb!bl
From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe"
Message-ID: <3230@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 13:58:45 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.3230
Posted: Mon Jan 13 13:58:45 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 08:10:12 EST
References: <3223@hplabsb.UUCP> <4785@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.aviation:2380 net.politics:12967

> > The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane
> > that is designed to crash?"
> >
> > Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry.
> 
> There was a recent article in Aviation Consumer that picked the airplanes
> in each of several categories with the best and worst safety records.
> In essentially all cases, the safest airplane was the most popular,
> by a fairly wide margin.  Are you still sure safety doesn't sell?

Yes.  Good for Cessna for making their planes safe.  People buy vehicles
for style, comfort, speed, and above all, price.  Safety usually comes
at the bottom of the list.  How many aircraft owners have 5 point seat
harnesses installed?  How many pilots (and their passengers) fly with
crash helmets?

Again in the auto industry, how many people bought seat belts when they
were an option instead of mandatory?  How many people today buy air bags?