Automation and Liability in ATM from an insurance perspective by R. Sethsson

450 views

Published on

If you are interested in the topic please register to the ALIAS network:
http://network.aliasnetwork.eu/
to download other materials and get information about the ALIAS project (www.aliasnetwork.eu).

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
450
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • .
  • A
  • Automation and Liability in ATM from an insurance perspective by R. Sethsson

    1. 1. Click to edit Master title styleAutomation and Liability in ATM from aninsurance perspectiveEnter Subtitle and Date HereRoger SethssonInter HannoverAlias ConferenceFlorence 15 June, 2012
    2. 2. Automatic tools to shift liability?
    3. 3. ATM from an insurance underwriters point of view ATM or Air Traffic Management is mainly about Air Traffic Control (systems and controllers). It is a class of business with low loss frequency and high volatility. World-wide annual aerospace premium income is estimated at 7 BUSD ATC share is 1-2% EML for a mid-air collision is 6-7 BUSD! Manufacturers have aggregate policy limits whilst ATC policies have any one occurrence…
    4. 4. Insured ATC (en-route) world-wide
    5. 5. 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 7Y moving average TL factor 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 UWY 1993 1992 1991World Total Loss Factor History 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 TL factor 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 0.50% 0.45% 0.40% 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% stern built jets Total Loss Factor 1
    6. 6. Passenger Liability AwardsHannover figures 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.0 US$ Million 3.0 2.0 1.5 1 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 1
    7. 7. What can we learn from past accidents?1980 - 1989  Japan Airlines Flight 123  Accident date: 12th August 1985  Fatalities: 520  Accident cause: Lost tailfin due to a faulty repair (tail strike in 1978)
    8. 8. What can we learn from past accidents?99 (a first example)  Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751  Accident date: 27th December 1991  Fatalities: 0  Accident cause: Aircraft took off with clear ice on the wings which was ingested by the engines. The engines were destroyed by engine surges. The pilots were not trained to identify and eliminate engine surging. If the pilot had know of the ATR (Automated Trust Recovery) system they would have been able to disconnect the system and reduce the thrust and making a turn back to Airport.
    9. 9. What can we learn from past accidents?9 (a second example)  China Airlines Flight 140  Accident date: 26th April 1994  Fatalities: 264  Accident cause: Pilot inadvertently pressed the Take-off/Go-around button (TO/GA)
    10. 10. What can we learn from past accidents?(a first example)  Turkish Airlines Flight 1951  Site: near Schiphol airport  Accident date: 25th February 2009  Fatalities: 9  Accident cause (preliminary): Faulty altimeter + pilot error ?
    11. 11. What can we learn from past accidents?a second example)  Air France Flight 447  Accident date: 1st June 2009  Fatalities: 228  Accident cause: ?
    12. 12. Air Traffic Control
    13. 13. ATC - What can we learn from past accidents?- (an example) Date Accident place Type Fatalities* 08.10.2001 Linate, Italy Runway incursion (MD-87 & Cessna) 118 01.07.2002 Überlingen, Germany Mid-air collision (B757 & TU-154) 71 02.08.2005 Toronto, Canada Runway excursion (A340) 0 27.08.2006 Lexington, Kentucky Runway confusion (CRJ-100ER) 49 29.09.2006 Mato Grosso, Brazil Mid-air collision (B737 & Embraer aircraft) 154 30.12.2007 Bucharest, Romania Runway incursion (B737 & vehicle) 0 Total 392 ATC 18% (of total loss amount)
    14. 14. What can we learn from past accidents?2000 -  Mid-air collision Golf Flight 1907 and US ExcelAire  Accident date: 29 September 2006  Fatalities: 154  Accident cause: Pilot, TCAS and ATC (but different views)
    15. 15. Insurers view on Automation and LiabilityTechnology has proven that it leads to improvement in safety but ifsomething goes wrong: Some believe that system manufacturers will have more liability. others; "if the controller had all information the plaintiff lawyer may ask why didnt you do anything" "is it a human error or a system error if, eg, the controller misread information?"
    16. 16. Claims Best Practices - Liability1. Defining a strategy depends on many things e.g. … Technical Analysis (circumstances and causes of the accident) Legal Analysis (where did the accident occur, parties involved, potential liability etc) Financial analysis (potential claim amount, will it be more expensive to defend than settle etc)2. Implementing the strategy… Enter into a sharing or funding agreements without admitting liability3. Depending on the strength of your case… Settle out of court Go to court Mediation Arbitration
    17. 17. Conclusions Automation will continue to improve safety Training will be a key factor A groundbreaking shift of liability from operators to manufacturers remains to be seen!
    18. 18. THANK YOU!

    ×