TravellerPlus From New Zealand, joined Nov 2008, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11622 times:
Statistics can be too easily manipulated. For example, Air Zimbabwe often appears on the most dangerous list due to 2 accidents that were both caused by deliberate shoot-downs by surface to air missles in the 1970's. Its small size means that it has a very high accident rate as a result. Conversely, in this survey El Al has been given a wonderful safety rating yet it has lost a cargo 747 that killed many on the ground and it had check-in passengers killed in terrorist activities at airports. I am not saying that El Al is unsafe, nor that Air Zimbabwe is safe, just that an understanding of how the statistics are complied and what is and isn't included is needed.
Seeing the rational of the survey- no passenger fatalities in the past 30 years- is too bias to formulate a meaningful result. Statistically it favours mid-size airlines from developed countries. Larger carriers that have operated far more flights, yet have suffered an accident, are no less safe than those on the list. Likewise excluding crew or ground fatalities is positively disrespectful to those who died in such circumstances.
What goes around comes around....unless your luggage is not on the carousel...
Those surveys are often misleading. As just one example, how can El Al be rated safer than Southwest, which probably carries as many passengers in one year as LY has in its entire history? Southwest has never had a passenger fatality in their 38 years of operations. If not mistaken their only accident involving a fatality was the overrun onto a city street at MDW a few years ago where the aircraft hit a car killing a passenger in the car.
And why only consider passenger flights? The 4 crew killed on the LY 747 freighter when it crashed into an apartment building after takeoff from AMS in 1992 (and the 39 people killed on the ground) shouldn't be considered as mere footnotes.
B747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17259 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11055 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): As just one example, how can El Al be rated safer than Southwest, which probably carries as many passengers in one year as LY has in its entire history? Southwest has never had a passenger fatality in their 38 years of operations.
Agree with you. That is a great example. I dont really think that this list is correct.
EI320 From Ireland, joined Dec 2007, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10978 times:
Not sure how accurate that list is. Take FR for example, they carried over 50m pax last year and have had no fatalities since they were founded. Why don't they deserve to be in that list? The same goes for many other airlines.
JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4733 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10966 times:
Quoting Semsem (Reply 8): The EL AL Cargo crash 15 years ago was not a passenger plane and was fault of Boeing.
IIRC (I'm not able to find the accident report right now) the separation was due to faulty maintenance. During the parlementary inquiry it surfaced that LY pressed engineers to sign of parts that should have been replaced.
Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3138 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10734 times:
Quoting JRadier (Reply 17): Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 16):
Are we supposed to just overlook the fact that one of their planes recently nearly ended up killing all pax on board.....?
Considering that isn't included in the scope of the study (fatalities in the last 30 years) it doesn't matter. Doesn't say that I agree with the study though....
Well, I have to admit that I only read the article wich comes up on clicking the link in the opening thread......all it says is
The companies that made it into the top five all have been flying for over three decades without any passenger aircraft accidents.
BA had one hell of a huge "passenger aircraft accident"...they had to write off the whole plane! The article says nothing about "fatalities".....of course, I do clarify that I have read nothing beyond the immediate article to the link in the OT....
I wonder how meaningful that statistic is. Take LA, for instance. They've had about 25 passenger fatalities in the last 30 years. Those were from 2 landing accidents that happened 15 or 20 years ago (one at CJC and one, IIRC, at PUQ). What does either of those accidents have to do with safety today? I'd argue nothing.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Vc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1419 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10630 times:
Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 18): The companies that made it into the top five all have been flying for over three decades without any passenger aircraft
Now you might not count the following Qantas incidents as an accident, but sometimes the difference between an incident and an accident is where the the incident happened
23 Sept 1999 at Bangkok, Qantas 747 over ran the runway
23 July 2000 at Rome, Qantas 747 gear collapsed during taxi
25 July 2008 near Manila, Qantas 747 had an explosive decompression during cruise
Thankfully there were no fatalities during these incidents, and they surely do not make Qantas an unsafe airline, and I would feel happy to fly with them anyday
Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 16): Are we supposed to just overlook the fact that one of their planes recently nearly ended up killing all pax on board.....?
Now was this British Airways fault, or did their crew avert by their actions due to perhaps good training, a worst incident. I believe that although the authorities have some idea as to what caused the incident they are not certain.
Your comments are like blaming BOAC for the Comet crashes. No, you can only blame an airline for accidents when some part of their organization can be proved to be at fault, not because of some design fault with the product they are flying
JER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10585 times:
Another example on how data can misrepresent situations is Concorde...
Until the AF crash in 2000, Concorde had no serious incidents and no fatalities. This in effect made it one of the safest airliners in the sky. After the crash, where 113 people died, Concorde statistically became one of the most unsafe airliners in the sky due to its low number of cycles in comparison to other a/c types.
Its interesting how in the space of a few hours something can change so quickly. If one of the airlines mentioned above had a fatal incident (a la CO in BUF) they would drop straight off the Top 5 list... is it really representative of how safe they are?