Analysis of the Risks of the Population due to Airplane Crashes Around Zurich Airport

摘要

As the risk analysis should have made the discussions of the flight concepts more objective and should have been impartial, no risk assessment, no conclusions and no propositions were added to the investigation. Nevertheless, a few comments with regard to risk communication, risk acceptance and responsibilities can be added here: Firstly, also in the investigation in this field the risk analysis methodology underlined its valuable potential to make hazards visible and suitable for objective and reasonable discussions by describing them quantitatively in terms of risk. However, although the study treated here was presented to the media and the respective authorities and politicians which were responsible for the new flight concepts took notice of it, the reaction of both was very reserved. At least, there was no polemic. Secondly, it is clear that the calculated risks are not the prime risks in Switzerland. The collective risks are e.g. more than an order of magnitude lower than that of lightning strokes or earthquakes in Switzerland. The individual risks lie in the area of the total individual fatal risk of a "safe" person in Switzerland. However, they are not as low - especially with regard to the possibility of catastrophic number of victims - as that they could be simply ignored. At least the responsible people should have to explicitly put up with the question why by factors higher risks should be run and what for. (For more about risk assessment and safety criteria/accepted risks see e.g. [4].) Thirdly, the systematics of the risk analysis also delivers information about where the actual responsibilities are. In the case here, it can be stated that the responsibilities for the higher risks have to be beard by those changing the flight concepts, and not by the pilots or the air traffic control - if not from the legal point of view at least as far as facts and moral are concerned.