Is an assumption here that the 'tripled risk' holds independently for
each plane.
This seems unreasonable if the air traffic authorities concerns had some
substance.
So the theory was, given one plane falls down from an ash cloud, the
chances
that others do increases, rockets even(!).
Hence if there's lots of planes in the sky, lots might fall down -
and then there's all those on the ground on whom they fall.
Ben Torsney
-----Original Message-----
From: A UK-based worldwide e-mail broadcast system mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Bibby
Sent: 21 April 2010 23:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Any volcano ash experts please?
The Civil Aviation Authority has no remit to minimise road-accidents, so
their recent Icelandic actions have been pretty sound.
However, does the gain from grounding airplanes even with a tripled risk
of
falling out of the sky exceed the potential loss from diverting dozens
of
thousands from a very safe form of travelling to road travel, which is
much
more risky?
Do we have a Bayesian methodology to quantify that potential gain or
loss -
and what about interval estimates?
JOHN BIBBY
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|