a cost-benefit analysis - faa fire safety · international aircraft systems fire protection working...

International Aircraft Systems Fire Protection Working Group

A COSTA COST--BENEFIT ANALYSIS BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR THE INSTALLATION OFFOR THE INSTALLATION OF

FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS IN CARGO COMPARTMENTS IN CARGO COMPARTMENTS

OF CARGO AIRPLANESOF CARGO AIRPLANES

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Cargolux_B747-400F.jpg


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisWe would like to thankWe would like to thank

The U.S. Federal Aviation AdministrationThe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

for giving us the opportunity to work on for giving us the opportunity to work on this interesting projectthis interesting project


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisThe NTSB has recommended that fire The NTSB has recommended that fire suppression systems be installed in the suppression systems be installed in the cargo compartments of all cargo airplanes cargo compartments of all cargo airplanes operating under 14 CFR Part 121. operating under 14 CFR Part 121.

Currently, Class E cargo compartments, Currently, Class E cargo compartments, which are the primary cargo compartment which are the primary cargo compartment type used in US cargo airplanes, do not type used in US cargo airplanes, do not require fire suppression systems. require fire suppression systems.


In response to this recommendation, FAA In response to this recommendation, FAA has requested that a cost/benefit analysis has requested that a cost/benefit analysis be carried out relating to the installation of be carried out relating to the installation of onon--board fire detection and extinguishment board fire detection and extinguishment systems in cargo airplanes. systems in cargo airplanes.

Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit Analysis


The analysis assessed whether fire The analysis assessed whether fire suppression systems, fitted to the upper suppression systems, fitted to the upper deck cargo bays of cargo airplanes, type deck cargo bays of cargo airplanes, type certificated to FAR Part 25 and operating certificated to FAR Part 25 and operating under FAR Part 121, are likely to be cost under FAR Part 121, are likely to be cost beneficial.beneficial.




Analysis Analysis carried out carried out for aircraft for aircraft types types grouped grouped into weight into weight categoriescategories

WEIGHT CATEGORY

AIRCRAFT MAXIMUM TAKE-

OFF WEIGHT

B 12,500 lb to 100,000 lb

C 100,000 lb to 250,000 lb

D 250,000 lb to 400,000 lb

E Greater than 400,000 lb


Potential benefits will result from a Potential benefits will result from a reduction in: reduction in:

Injuries (Fatal and Serious)Injuries (Fatal and Serious)Damage incurred to the aircraft and its Damage incurred to the aircraft and its

cargo, and cargo, and Damage that might be incurred to Damage that might be incurred to

property on the ground. property on the ground.



Potential costs are those incurred from the Potential costs are those incurred from the installation and operation of fire installation and operation of fire suppression systems. suppression systems.



Benefit Analysis based on:Benefit Analysis based on:


Monte Carlo model Monte Carlo model Statistical distributions derived Statistical distributions derived from data on infrom data on in--service airplanes service airplanes and accident information. and accident information.



The Monte Carlo model was based on the The Monte Carlo model was based on the following Benefit equation:following Benefit equation:

RTM = Revenue Ton MilesRTM = Revenue Ton Miles

YearBenefit =

RTMAccidents x

YearRTM x

AccidentCost


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisAccident Rate (Accidents per RTM) Accident Rate (Accidents per RTM) based on US cargo fleet experience based on US cargo fleet experience over the period 1967 to 2007:over the period 1967 to 2007:

Four accidents caused by cargo Four accidents caused by cargo compartment firescompartment firesApproximately 545,200,000,000 Approximately 545,200,000,000 Revenue Ton MilesRevenue Ton Miles


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisAssessed Number of Revenue Ton Miles for 1967 to 2007:

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Year

RTM

(Tho

usands)

i/1715/003

Approximately 31,354,000,000 Revenue Ton Miles in 2007


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisAssessed Number of Revenue Ton Assessed Number of Revenue Ton Miles for 2007 :Miles for 2007 :

WEIGHT CATEGORY REVENUE TON MILES (2007)

B 13,500,000 C 1,764,400,000 D 6,107,900,000

E 23,468,600,000


Primary DamagePrimary DamageCrew Injuries (Fatal and Serious)Crew Injuries (Fatal and Serious)Damage incurred to the aircraft and its cargo, and Damage incurred to the aircraft and its cargo, and

Ground Collateral DamageGround Collateral DamageDamage that might be incurred to propertyDamage that might be incurred to property

Personnel Injuries (Fatal and Serious)Personnel Injuries (Fatal and Serious)


Cost per Accident based on:Cost per Accident based on:


Assessed Distribution of Assessed Distribution of ““Crew NumbersCrew Numbers””

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Number of Crew

Cumulative Prob

ability

i/1715/004


WEIGHTCATEGORY

B

WEIGHTCATEGORY

C

WEIGHTCATEGORY

D

WEIGHTCATEGORY

E



Assessed Distribution of Aircraft Value for Assessed Distribution of Aircraft Value for US Cargo Fleet 2007US Cargo Fleet 2007

Aircraft Value

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Cost ($m)

Cumulative Prob

ability

i/1715/012

WEIGHTCATEGORY

BWEIGHTCATEGORY

C

WEIGHTCATEGORY

D

WEIGHTCATEGORY

E


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisAssessed Average Cargo Value per flight Assessed Average Cargo Value per flight for US Cargo Fleet 2007:for US Cargo Fleet 2007:

WEIGHT WEIGHT CATEGORYCATEGORY

CARGO VALUE ($ CARGO VALUE ($ MILLIONS 2007)MILLIONS 2007)

BB 0.140.14CC 1.11.1DD 2.62.6EE 4.14.1


Based on an analysis of accident data it Based on an analysis of accident data it was assessed that approximately one in was assessed that approximately one in eighteen freighter aircraft fire accidents eighteen freighter aircraft fire accidents are likely to result in some degree of are likely to result in some degree of Collateral Damage.Collateral Damage.

Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisCost of Collateral DamageCost of Collateral Damage


Freighter Cost Benefit AnalysisFreighter Cost Benefit AnalysisProbability Distribution of the Monetary Probability Distribution of the Monetary Value of Collateral Damage Value of Collateral Damage

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Cost ($m)

Cumulative Prob

ability


Cost Assessments based on:Cost Assessments based on:The new Type F Cargo Compartment The new Type F Cargo Compartment

(considered for (considered for combicombi aircraft) using a aircraft) using a HalonHalon type fire suppression system type fire suppression system together with suitable cargo compartment together with suitable cargo compartment liners. The data used in the cost liners. The data used in the cost assessment was based on that contained assessment was based on that contained in the ARAC document relating to main in the ARAC document relating to main deck class B cargo compartments. deck class B cargo compartments.



Current Position:Current Position:

The report is with the FAA for The report is with the FAA for their considerationtheir consideration


a cost-benefit analysis - faa fire safety · international aircraft systems fire protection working...

Documents