Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Airline Has The Worst Saftey Record?  
User currently offlineUsair320 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 991 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11122 times:

To me its SU because of all the soviet aircraft lost an they also lost an A310. the other one is(or was)Value jet. they lost a DC 9

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11095 times:


Iraqi Airlines????  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineQqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2282 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11076 times:

Korean has got to be a top ten contender...


The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11015 times:


According to the lists of fatal accidents the top INDIVIDUAL Airlines with the most fatal crashes are

American 12
Indian Airlines 12
United 11
China Airlines 10
Turkish Airlines 9
US Airways 9
Phillipine 8
Garuda 8
Cubana 8
Korean 7
Pakistan 7
Air France 7
EgyptAir 7

And Qantas and Virgin Atlantic have 0, so I know who I'm flying with!!!!!

http://www.airsafe.com/ has a whole heap of good stuff.


User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10984 times:

USAF?....god no, this was a bad one! Sorry, I apologize in every form and take everything back.


Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10960 times:

What about Aeroflot? I wonder what their figures are...


Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10911 times:


It said 21 for former Soviet Union Airlines on that website from memory. But no individual breakup.


User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10910 times:

I think it is not fair to include Aeroflot's pre-1991 crashes as then basically every crash is recorded under Aeroflot's name simply because they were the operator of all planes in the USSR.

It would only be fair if we take into account only of SU's crashes after 1991, e.g. the A310.

As for AA and UA, we can't say they are not safe though. Compare how many flights they have daily, how many take offs or landings per day and compare that to Indian Airlines, China Airlines or Turkish!

It is only justified if we take the ratio to the daily flights. KE seems to have cleared up its acts and I dare to say they are now a safe airline!


User currently offlineCO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10823 times:

Just some facts:

Aeroflot lost at least one plane a year from 1962-1986
126 fatal accidents total

These numbers are comprable to all U.S. airlines combined durring the same time period. This would be a better comparison as Aeroflot opperated almost all flights in Russia/USSR.

No matter what airline you fly you are more likeiy to be killed in the drive to and from the airport than on your flights for your trip.



There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
User currently offlineFlykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 442 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10735 times:

I always have to laugh to myself when I see any post along the lines of "How safe is X or Y airline..."

Of course, everyone simply looks at the numbers because the numbers tell everything. I hate to tell you, but there's a hell of a lot more to determining how safe an airline is by just simply looking at the numbers...

[Edited 2003-11-19 01:41:41]


One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10621 times:


Oh I don't know, I'm sure most airlines would want to minimise the number of people killed whilst on their airplanes. 0 would be a good goal to reach.



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

And Qantas and Virgin Atlantic have 0, so I know who I'm flying with!!!!!

Hmm, comparing Qantas and Virgin to an airline that has (give or take) 1000 aircraft in the air on any given day.... yeah, that makes sense.  Insane


User currently offlineFlykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 442 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10553 times:

0 would be a good goal to reach.

...and how can you reach 0? Subtract?

My point was for airlines that have numbers listed, those numbers may not necessarily reflect how "safe" that airline is. To reinterate, safety is more than just looking at how many accidents or incidents an airline has had. Look at QF for example, everyone thought they were invincible until they ran off the end of the runway at BKK...same for SQ.

And do we class cargo airlines/flights in this figure? Then you can add Fedex with a total of 15 fatal accidents. Or if we don't include cargo flights, then you can subtract 3 from KE and so on....see how unrealiable simply "numbers" are?



One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
User currently offlineAirDude66 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10499 times:

FL lookss good on the surface.....

What lies below though......some know the truth. I still think LCC's are given slack as a result of the state of the economy and LCC's are less likely to fight against DHS. It ispolitical.


User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10454 times:

Those bare numbers don't mean much when there is no indication of what period they cover, and also make no allowance for the relative size of the airline. However, you can't argue with perfection, and Qantas has been flying for what - 70 years or so? Virgin, on the other hand, has about a quarter the number of planes that Qantas has, and has been flying for a lot shorter time.

User currently offlineFlykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 442 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10390 times:

Good point Olympus69...and also there's a need to consider to some extent the flying conditions.

I've flown in Australia and in general, airports are large, clear of bad terrain and generally conditions are not adverse for domestic operations. Compare this to a country such as Canada, South America or South Korea (where I am now), for example, where you have runways taking 737's, A330's and F100's, that are built into the side of a mountain, are short in length, suffer regular windshear, snow, etc etc.

While I'm not trying to degrade the safety status of QF, nor make excuses for accidents, people should from time to time consider operating conditions and how these affect an airline.

[Edited 2003-11-19 02:48:28]

[Edited 2003-11-19 02:48:55]


One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

.. I knew cubana was gonna be in there. Negligence on the part of the cuban authorities is partly to blame in some accidents as it was on the Quito Ecuador Tu154 crash.

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10342 times:


Flykal - 0 is easy to reach, YOU DONT HAVE A FATAL ACCIDENT!!!!!!!! Hello QF and Virgin. I'm sure everybody on this board has an opinion on the safest airline. Personally I prefer the one who has had the least number of planes crash and kill people.

Plus when you consider that all airlines SHOULD be doing the same number of inspections on their airlcraft, following roughly the same maintenace procedures, with roughly the same spare parts then the number of times their aircraft have dropped from the sky can help to form an opinion no matter how big their fleets are. Have you ever seen an airline executive get up and say "even though are plane crashed and killed X number of people, we are still doing pretty well because our other X number of aircraft are still up and flying." Give me a break. Korean Air certainly didn't say that after its Guam crash.

As for cargo airlines I dont think the website that I listed as my source counts them. It only counts passenger airlines which is what my figures are based on.

Olympus69 - Qantas was founded in 1920 which makes it 83 years old.


User currently offlineFlykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 442 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10308 times:

Erm, you start with 0...you don't reach it.

And while I don't want to get into an argument with you Sydscott, over how to determine which airline is safe or not. You cannot seriously try to justify that an airline operating 800 aircraft for 60 years compared to an airline operating just 5 aircraft for 3 years should be subject to the same method of analyzing if they are safe or not?



[Edited 2003-11-19 03:09:11]


One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10136 times:

there aren't too many airlines with the frequency and years of operations similar to the U.S. majors that haven't had fatal accidents. No fatal accidents in 2002 if I'm not mistaken, that's very impressive considering how many planes are taking off, landing, in the air at a given time. If you have an airline with 20 planes and you've had a couple of fatal accidents in a decade, that's unexcusable

User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10042 times:

Sydscott, your theory makes no sense.

Look at this example:
Airline A Has just started operations today, and on it's first flight the airplane crashes. Number of fatal accidents: 1.
Airline B has been around since 1926, has 1000 planes in the air today. They have had two crashes, both before 1940.
Number of fatal accidents: 2.

Now you tell me that Airline A is safer?



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineAirdude66 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10033 times:

Awe come on,

Give the little guy the benefit of the doubt.

They are not as "experienced", you certainly would not hold them to the same scrutiny as other now.

At least that seems to be the gov't view.


User currently offlineKAL744 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9903 times:

I think it's difficult to say an airlines safety record is worst or best. In my opinion just to count the accidents is not showing a true result. For example, Korean had a lot of accidents end of the 90s but nowadays it has improved it's safety level a lot and I think we can say it belongs to the safer airlines again. And even an airline has no accidents until now, I wouldn't count them as more safe than others.

Everyone keep in mind....The risk of having an accident or to die on the street is much higher than any airflight. And also on the so named "safest" airlines something can happen.

KAL744


User currently offlineKdonohue From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9878 times:

It's interesting how when this topic comes up people only trot out airline's that have had fatal accidents, but some airlines, QANTAS one of them, have had other incidents/accidents that were serious despite the fact that no one lost their life.

I would say we don't know many unsafe airlines, because they have been lucky.


User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9824 times:

Let's not forget that 2 of the American and 2 of the United accidents were deliberate--9/11/01.

25 Mandala499 : Safety: 1. Exclude Non-Pilot Error Weather caused crashes. (No QF don't come clean on this while airlines with fatal crashes could be clean in this de
26 Easyjet : Oh please people...read the topic. It's which airline has the worst safety record, and not a blatant promotion for Qantas and what not other airline..
27 Qantasclub : It's not just safety record, although Qantas is always mentioned here. (thanks to Rainman). It's about age of aircraft and MOST of all, how well an ai
28 Flykal : It's not just safety record, although Qantas is always mentioned here. (thanks to Rainman). It's about age of aircraft and MOST of all, how well an ai
29 Lionel : Did anybody think about to compare the total number of flights with accidents? Nigeria Airways had 3 events in 0.6 Million flights. Is it better than
30 Qantasclub : I agree-the Bangkok incident was a very close call for QF. As for new planes, even SQ at Taipei was a reminder that 'glossy' airlines are also fallibl
31 CHRISBA777ER : BA have got to be one of the safest - if you take it as since the BOAC days, and include BEA also, and all the subsidiaries - they have a hell of a re
32 FDXmech : >>>Then you can add Fedex with a total of 15 fatal accidents.
33 Moolies : Its not that often the plane, quite often its human error. Also how many flights a day does AA have to VF?
34 Lionel : China Airlines: 01.02.1969 China Airlines Douglas DC-3 24:24 Paku, Taiwan B-309 08.12.1970 China Airlines NAMC YS-11 14:31 Taipei, Taiwan B-156 11.21.
35 Post contains links Hoons90 : FDXmech, If you include the C208 crashes, Fedex has a total of 14 fatal crashes. http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=Operatorkey&var=
36 FDXmech : Well I'm not including these. I'm talking about the Fedex trunk fleet flown by Fedex pilots. If you include the C208 fleet than include commuter ops f
37 A330323X : Well I'm not including these. I'm talking about the Fedex trunk fleet flown by Fedex pilots. If you include the C208 fleet than include commuter ops f
38 PBIflyguy : nobody has mentioned WN. lots of planes, lots of cycles everyday.... and no mishaps .
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Airline Has The Worst Hub Operation? posted Thu Apr 14 2005 01:09:00 by COEWR777
What Flight Has The Worst On-time Record? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 18:34:54 by Nycfuturepilot
What Airline Has The Largest Turboprop Fleet? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 19:35:47 by Cumulonimbus
Survey: What Airline Has The Best..... posted Fri Jan 9 2004 20:30:46 by Zrs70
What Airline Has The Best First Class? posted Sun Jan 4 2004 23:50:54 by KLM11
What Airliner Has The Worst Dispatch Reliability? posted Wed Nov 5 2003 22:26:23 by CitationX
What Airline Has The Prettiest MD-11? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 17:38:48 by GUGA
What Airline Has The Code ........... posted Sat Oct 4 2003 16:59:48 by BDRules
Which Major Airline Has The Worst Website? posted Wed Oct 1 2003 09:50:33 by Mozart
What Airline Has The Best Looking Pilots? posted Mon Sep 29 2003 01:20:55 by Zrs70
What Airliner Has The Worst Dispatch Reliability? posted Wed Nov 5 2003 22:26:23 by CitationX
What Airline Has The Prettiest MD-11? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 17:38:48 by GUGA
What Airline Has The Code ........... posted Sat Oct 4 2003 16:59:48 by BDRules
Which Major Airline Has The Worst Website? posted Wed Oct 1 2003 09:50:33 by Mozart
What Airline Has The Best Looking Pilots? posted Mon Sep 29 2003 01:20:55 by Zrs70