Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3240 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1465 times:
Certainly Southwest is the safest in terms of the very high number of cycles it has operated in the US since 1971 with no fatalities and just one 737-300 write-off this year due to an overshoot. Qantas is the one most popularly referred to as safest because of its longer history (1931 I think) without a fatality; also its route network is global in span.
BWIA also has an admirable reputation for safety with its 60 years of flying to the Caribbean without any fatal accidents, although it did have write-offs in its early days due to refuelling fires and skids.
777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Why is QANTAS number 1? That's just propaganda, if you look at the statistics, there are many airlines with 'better' records than QANTAS, including
QANTAS has only flown about 1million flights, and is therefore below the number of flights that would be likely to result in a fatal accident (my rough guess is that the accident rate among major carriers averages about .5 fatal accidents per million, meaning QANTAS could fly another million flights before being due for an accident
A330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
SQ's safety policies is a joke, see for yourself all the horror stories about basic lack of airmanship by some local pilots, the all BUT competent training captains and a management that sees prestige as far more important than safety.
All this on PPRUNE.com, the professional Pilots Rumours NEtwork.
If you want safe, go for any west European or US airline, but remember that Safety is a very subjective thing and there is NO safest airline, either you have a safety minded company or you haven't.
BTW. When are people going to stop thinking that Qantas is the safest (we've all seen "Rainman")
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Statistics is a very difficult thing to deal with.
Sure Vadheim is right that SAS has been pretty good. And it is correct that SASs last fatality was in the 60'es when a DC-8 overran the runway at LAX, broke up in the sea, and I think 15 passengers drowned.
But when thinking about the luck they had some 8-10 years ago when they crashlanded a MD-83 just after take-off at Arlanda (Stockholm) with both engines stopped by ice from the wing.
It was just after Christmas, 6 hours daylight, 18 hours darkness.
Had it not been daylight...
Had visibility been poor, as it mostly is during that time of the year...
Had the cloud base been really low, as it often is at that time of the year...
Had it taken off in another direction, over the sea...
Had it not been able to use the wing as "brake" in the treetops of the forest...
Had it not been able to slide onto even ground in a countryside of otherwise mostly rocks...
Had the ground not been snow covered, to prevent sparks and fire...
It was simply a miracle that everybody (120+) walked away from that "landing". The chance to have a disaster in that situation was well over 99%.
It was of course not just pure luck, but also a superb job done by captain Rasmussen, who became a hero for that stunt. But he needed plenty of luck to be able to show his skill that day. And walk away from it.
Sure SAS learned a lesson about deicing that day!!! It will never happen again.
Otherwise SAS had a Caravelle which flew into a mountain at Ankara, Turkey in the late fifties. But how relevant is it to talk about accidents more than 20-25 years ago when the subject is safety today?
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
DUB From Ireland, joined May 2000, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
What about British Airways they have a good enough record too. I don't think Qantas should be the safest airliner. Aer Lingus are very good too only one crash back in the 1940's i think, but it wasn't the planes fault it was blown out of the sky.
Skystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
I think the best advertising in the world was for Qantas with Rainman. Brought a lot of populist rubbish that it was the safest airline in the world. As for it never crashing, that's utter nonsense. Typical of the "hollywoodnisation" of facts.
Never crashed? I can always pull the 1960's Constellation crash in Mauritius. Last year's kerfluffle at BKK - while there are various contributing factors, it reeks of pilot error. Nevertheless, both Ansett and Qantas are very safe carriers.
As for SK, good you on Preben. They don't have a flawless record, I can recall the crash after takeoff at ARN and then there was one involving a DC-10 a while back as well.
Bottom line. There are safe airlines, safer airlines. Safest airline? Well, we're yet to discover it, let alone a formula that can define a safest airline.
Killjoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1263 times:
Here, check this site to get the airlines that are *really* the safest, instead of just naming your personal favorite! (Doesn't apply to all of you)
I just hope they're a reliable source.
Note: Statistics don't tell you everything*, but at least they'll give you an indication. Basically, I'd say anyone belonging to group A in this site's classification is pretty damn safe enough! (also notice how some belonging to group B are there somewhat unfairly, too. BTW, I won't tell you my absolute favorite, though, since a thing like that would be very hard to prove )
*they don't differentiate between weather/pilot error/maintenance/design faults/bird strikes etc.