Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
You Could Fly For 14,000 Years Before a Crash  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

I know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

But according to IATA, this year 2012 has been the safest year in aviation history, and a person could fly 14.000 consecutive days ( over 38 years ) before being involved in a crash, with the present accident rate of 1 accident every 5.300.000 flights.
From an "aircraft" stand point, the report says only 5 aircraft were written off this year, 6 less than in 2011.

For all the accidents, the fatality rate descended from 26 % in 2011 to 15 % this year.

Africa is again the worst performer, and Latin America had a big improvement with a change of 5,33 accidents every 1.000.000 flights in 2011, to a 1,37 accidents every 1.000.000 flights this year.

Interesting !!

( Couldn't find the original link, if someone can post here the original source it will be great )

http://www.emol.com/noticias/interna...de-la-historia-de-la-aviacion.html

Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5747 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not sure the math works, pretty sure someone has the numbers mixed up

1 crash in 5,300,000 flights??

If you took 8x3hr flights a day 5.3 million flights works out at something like 662,500 days or 1815 years

Whilst 8x3hr flights a day is impossible, an even more impossible 24x1hr flights would still be 220+ thousand days

1 flight a day would take 14,520 or so years

Update- This English language report says much the same thing but states 14,000 years NOT days, this makes somewhat more sense

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...afest-year-iata/article4195781.ece

[Edited 2012-12-13 05:23:34]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5305 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3228 times:

Great! So with around 40 flights a year I am pretty safe.  

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Sounds good for the great majority but not if YOU happened to be one of the miniscule minority.
Statistics like this is fine for the masses, not so for the individual.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineRamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

That's not what the statistic means. It means the odds of being in a crash are, in general, 1 in 5.3 million. The one that crashes is probably somebody's FIRST flight.

User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

To me, the statistic that shows how safe commercial airline flying is come from the life insurance companies. The premiums they charge for crew members are exactly the same as for an office worker or any other non-hazardous occupation. If it was justified by the actuarial tables they would jack up the premiums in a heartbeat.

In the United States the extra premium for being an airline crew member went away in 1955, believe it or not.


User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 5):
In the United States the extra premium for being an airline crew member went away in 1955, believe it or not.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2888 times:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 5):

I believe general aviation pilots still have high premiums if they want to be covered if something happened while flying as the pilot. A friend of mine who sells insurance says what a lot of general aviation pilots do now is just chose to be covered for accidents which they are PIC or other variables.

Of course airline flying and GA flying are two very different things.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2868 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
this year 2012 has been the safest year in aviation history,

As you say, there are lies, damned lies and there are statistics. The figures presented reflect only fatalities in reporting countries involving commercial carriers using western built aircraft. What do the figures look like once we include both aircraft built elsewhere and non-commercial flights?

Overall it would be good to see a trend of improving aviation safety both as a result of improved technologies and greater oversight. However, year on we see that there continues to be fluctuation .
Summary (IATA and non-IATA airlines)2006200720082009201020112012(as of 30 Nov)
Fatal Accidents20202318232211
Fatalities*855692502685786486401
*Fatalities include deaths due to injuries sustained in an accident up to 30 days later (ICAO/IATA definition)
Source: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_...ures/fact_sheets/pages/safety.aspx

We can see from the above IATA figures that the number of incidents does not necessarily translate into fewer fatalities. In some instances the reverse is true. The figures remain erratic and mask improvements in some regions at the same time as hiding deterioration in others. Overall , the fatality rate compared to other modes of transport remains favourable to the aviation industry but we should not allow any complacency to creep in. The situation could change quite rapidly.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5855 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 8):
The figures presented reflect only fatalities in reporting countries involving commercial carriers using western built aircraft. What do the figures look like once we include both aircraft built elsewhere and non-commercial flights?

Nevertheless it's good news for those of us who live in reporting countries, rarely (if ever) travel to others, and always fly commercial... which I would bet describes 90% or more of the posters on this site.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2765 times:

Someone changed the title of the thread ( Moderators ). I posted "you can fly 14000 times before being in a crash", now says 14000 years....( It will be a great improvement if true !! ) .... but what I mean is that you can fly 14000 consecutive days before being in a crash, that is around 38 years, not 14000....
Just sayin'

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2716 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 10):

Someone changed the title of the thread ( Moderators ). I posted "you can fly 14000 times before being in a crash", now says 14000 years....( It will be a great improvement if true !! ) .... but what I mean is that you can fly 14000 consecutive days before being in a crash, that is around 38 years, not 14000....
Just sayin'

Rgds.
G.

Yeah, but your numbers don't add up.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2655 times:

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 11):
Yeah, but your numbers don't add up.

Not "my" numbers, this numbers came from IATA.

Besides, like RamblinMan correctly said :

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 4):
That's not what the statistic means. It means the odds of being in a crash are, in general, 1 in 5.3 million. The one that crashes is probably somebody's FIRST flight.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
which I would bet describes 90% or more of the posters on this site.

True enough but it does not actually change the underlying reality. By the same token, 90% of posters have not experienced a catastrophe of the type experienced in Japan following an earthquake and tsunami. Yet the figures conclusively indicated that the chances of it happening were 1 in how may hundred thousand years? Can we conclude, on the basis of statistics, that a similar event will not occur sooner? Of course we won't. We will simply change the probability prediction.

Historically aviation safety has improved but the improvement is not a continuous upswing. Hidden behind the headline was the fact that there had been an increase in fatalities in the some regions while there has been a decrease in others. But it is a one-off result and does not present a trend. The only meaningful figures would be those that make a ten or more years comparison.

The question of 90% or more of posters on this site can be exaggerated. It is possible that 90% are resident in the US, but I don't know the actual breakdown. It is also possible (and highly likely) that not a single fatality was that of an A.net member. So what? Of greater importance surely is where passenger numbers is increasing and what type of aircraft they are using. If you were to have 200% growth in passengers travelling on a LET or Superjet 100 then any potential fatalities are not reflected in the figures simply because they are not Western built aircraft.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5747 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 12):
Not "my" numbers, this numbers came from IATA.

No they didn't, if you read the english lang version of the article I posted earlier you will see it reads 14,000 years not days.

The arithmetic works for 14,000 years not days.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 14):
No they didn't, if you read the english lang version of the article I posted earlier you will see it reads 14,000 years not days.

The arithmetic works for 14,000 years not days.

Ooops.... now I finally get it... I'm really behind Al Bundy today...          

I will go and put my head into the microwave oven for a while, maybe that helps    

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
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...
If You Could Fly Any Of These A/c, Which Would U? posted Tue Apr 13 2004 17:53:31 by Pe@rson
If You Could Fly One Plane, Which One? posted Thu May 17 2001 07:51:01 by Boeing nut
DL Could Fly SLC-Europe In 2007 posted Thu Aug 10 2006 14:46:54 by FlyPNS1
Statistics Of Being In A Plane Crash posted Fri Aug 26 2005 15:48:24 by Drinkstrolley
What Plane Would You Fly If You Could Be A Pilot? posted Thu Apr 29 2004 10:33:18 by 777ER
Why Fly Commercial When You Could Have This?! posted Wed Feb 18 2004 05:16:34 by CRJDispatchKid
Flown On Plane You Later Found Had Been In Crash? posted Tue Dec 30 2003 14:10:24 by Pe@rson
Moment In Aviation You Wish You Could Have Seen posted Fri May 31 2002 22:45:35 by Squigee
If You Could Go Back In Time:when & Which Airport? posted Fri Mar 8 2002 17:49:03 by 727LOVER
Boeing, CKS Airpot Could Be Defendents In Crash posted Mon Feb 26 2001 22:54:13 by Singapore_Air