Turkish Airways? Safe or system error?

[ippmatc]

Ok. Fear of flying. Irrational. But would you consider it dumb to book a flight with Turkisk Airways now? Was the accident at Amsterdam just something that could happen to any airline or was it a system error?

Would you pay twice as much for the ticket to go with Malev instead?

[raffele]

At the end of the day it's your choice. Personally, I would think twice about choosing them, but wouldn't have a problem flying with them.

If they weren't a safe airline, the EU wouldn't allow them to fly within..

[PAXboy]

I have often thought that the airline that has just had a major prang - is safer. Usually, this concentrates the minds of everybody involved and they to prevent it happening again.

The true measure is not one prang - but to look at their history across the last 20 years and see how many a/c they have lost. The actual number of deaths is not such an indicator because how people survive and die is down to luck at that split second, but losing the hull of the a/c is a very good indicator, in my view There are publicly available places to make such an enquiry.

[ippmatc]

And...
If I chose Malev I have to do a transfer in Budapest. Turkish on the other hand is a direct connection.
It would then be irrational to choose a tranfer flight since every landing/take off is an increased risk.

Its definitly more rational to chose a direct flight, halfprice even if it is Turkish. Even if I am afraid.

Am I stupid?

[Avman]

THY Turkish Airlines certainly cannot boast to have the best record in terms of hull losses. On the other hand they have a significantly large fleet and network involving several hundred rotations per day. I'd probably still fly with them depending on what other choices I had.

[ippmatc]

Thanks. I will try not to let my fear decide. A direct flight with a modern fleet. Most accidents were in the 1970's.

Now its booked:\

[ippmatc]

Ok. Now you scare me. What thread? "FD" forum? Can you link?

[forget]

Hmmm. Now if I'd been in JFK on the night of 2nd September 1998 and someone had said to me 'I'm frightened of flying. What's the safest way to get to Europe tonight?' I'd have probably looked around, considered the reputations and safety records of the options - and told them - 'Try Swissair'.

Numbers up? - --- Numbers up!

[ippmatc]

Forget:

I get your point and I think that these statistics are pretty unsignificant in many ways. Crashes are so unusual that pure random seems to be a factor. You cant control random. You cant control life. Thats what I try to think to work with my fear.
Since Turkish is the ONLY airline flying directly from Stockholm-Instanbul this must be a factor to count in as well. All the alternatives to flying with Turkish Airlines means 2 additional take-offs and landings!! Isn't that an increased risk as well??

[Pax Vobiscum]

Actuary speaking. ippmatc, I think you're absolutely correct. Landings and takeoffs are the most dangerous phases of flight (although still extremely safe)! So a direct flight, even with an airline that doesn't have the number one safety record in the world*, is likely to be safer than an indirect flight with the one that does (and, once more for emphasis, both options are extremely safe in comparison to almost anything else you do).

An example I've used before: if someone could magically guarantee me an absolutely safe flight from airport B that's 100 miles further away than my regular airport A, it would be less dangerous (although both options are still extremely safe, this is getting boring ...) for me to use my regular flight because of the risk entailed in the extra driving to get me to airport B.

Have a safe flight and try not to worry :ok:

* Statistics (such as those at airdisaster.com) can be misleading. Because air accidents are such rare events, you need to look over periods of decades in order to eliminate random fluctuations. But over such lengthy periods everything changes: crews, training, equipment, routes, company ownership ...

[ippmatc]

Ok...i scanned through the thread. Bu there are as many saying that THY has a good safety culture as people saying that a go around is never an option at THY. Some say that they ignore flight safety and some say that over 100 ramp inspections have benn done and all were ok.
Also I have read that they have skilled pilots coming from military/air force and some other say that this is why a captain is never questioned due to the hierarchy (is that the right word in english?)
I bet all these discussions would be an issue what ever airline would be involved in a crash. In such a discussion it's a must to look to every possible cause to the accident. So naturally, the skill of the crew/pilots are always questioned. Dont you agree?

[ippmatc]

I am scared. Am flying this wednesday. Can somone professional (pilot?)plz console me or is it so bad I should cancel the flight?? :\

[forget]

Cancel the flight. It's just not worth the angst. People have tried to explain reality - and still you're wingeing. :hmm:

On second thoughts, if you do fly, walk to the airport.

In the US, 2007, a total of 44 fatalities in 62 air carrier accidents. In contrast, more than 44,000 people died in vehicle accidents in the United States in 2007.

[ippmatc]

Forget:
I totally deserve your answer. I am sorry. I wont cancel. I just wanted some consolation. But of course I understand that I am just annoying.:ugh:

And by the way: I AM consoled by your post even if it's a bit sarcastic. Thanks for taking Your time!:)

[manintheback]

Just a thought about stats and safety.

Flying safer than driving - sure is.

But you probably need to drive to the airport to take the flight - which in respect of your overall journey makes the stats pretty meaningless.

[forget]

And by the way: I AM consoled by your post even if it's a bit sarcastic. Thanks for taking Your time!

It worked didn't it. ;)

PS. Get yourself a window seat - and enjoy.

[MUFC_fan]

Turkish fly to destinations across the globe with 100+ aircraft everyday. They are a safe airline and operate some of the newest aircraft in the sky, especially their 737-800s which fly to and from the UK 5+ daily and the CAA, although a bit wacky when it comes to business sense are spot on for safety as are the men and women in Brussels.

I wouldn't worry about it. Problems can happen anywhere - look at the 777 for example - only ever had one right off and everybody survived that flight! Mite be scaring you a little now!;)

Anyway...they fly new aircraft and there is just as much of a chance of a problem with Malev, and BA, Air France, Lufthansa or any other major European airline!

You'll be fine!:ok:

[Nicholas49]

I wonder whether the BA pilots on this forum will agree with that last comment, given the reasons for the accident which have been put forward in the Flight Deck forum...

[jettesen]

if you look at how many hull losses any american carrier has had, does that make you think twice about flying with them??? NO! Lots of UK airlines have had an accident somewhere along the lines BMI, BA, Ryanair ( rome)
Britannia ( Thomsonfly) etc, but we still fly with them in their millions every year!

[Flight Detent]

I fail to make the connection between:
"They are a safe airline and operate some of the newest aircraft in the sky,"

The newness or otherwise of their fleet will/should be reflected in the ontime departure records, and in my humble opinion has naught to do with their safety record.

As demonstrated by the recent THY accident, very new airplane, but nobody can yet understand why it was not operated in the accepted manner!

Cheers...FD...:)

[deltayankee]

Can somone professional (pilot?)plz console me


You might want to ask the crew of the plane you are flying on for their opinion. If it weren't safe do you really think they would be there? They do it not just once a year but often several times a day, several days a week. And they know much more about the airline and the state of the aircraft than the Unofficial Pprune Accident Investigation Board ever will.

I can understand your concern but accidents are so rare these days that you are talking about the difference between extremely safe and slightly more than extremely safe. Variations due to luck are probably more significant than the differences between airline. SR111, BA038 and dozens of other examples show that even unimpeachable carriers can have a bad day.

Enjoy the flight!

[ippmatc]

Delta and others replying:

Thank You so much for your support!! It means a lot to me when fighting my fear!

I really appreciate it!:)

[vonbag]

In the past, for my vacations to Turkey, I used THY service twice (to go and return two times).
Absolutely irreprehensible, and pleasant flights all along in my recollection.


Now especially, after the last accident, I think that this Airline should be even more reliable than it used to be.

Hope this will be of additional help.

[ankh]

Gladwell being interviewed on the radio right now about his book "Outliers" says -- and Google Scholar seems to support this -- that there's a lot of research correlating aircraft crashes with cultural difference in one particular dimension, "power distance" --- how easy it is for someone low on the totem pole to speak up quickly when the person in charge screws up.

Gladwell says the lowest power distance -- the cultures in which speaking up is immediate -- are like the Israelis and Swiss as examples.

I wondered if anyone else on the forum reads this stuff (has access to full text of the articles). If so, it'd be great to see a thread for it. I'm just a guy on a blog, I don't have university or business access to these articles.

Here's a sample of what I find:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2008/00000079/00000005/art00012
Abstract:
Harris D, Li W-C. Cockpit design and cross-cultural issues underlying failures in crew resource management. Aviat Space Environ Med 2008; 79:537-8. High power-distance has been implicated in many aircraft accidents involving Southeast Asian carriers where crew resource management (CRM) has been identified as a root cause. However, this commentary argues that the design of modern flight decks and their standard operating procedures have an inherent Western (low power-distance) bias within them which exacerbates these CRM issues.

Keywords: crew resource management (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=1jse4skjonr1o.victoria?database=1&title=crew%20resource%20management); culture (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=1jse4skjonr1o.victoria?database=1&title=culture); power-distance (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=1jse4skjonr1o.victoria?database=1&title=power-distance); flight deck design (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=1jse4skjonr1o.victoria?database=1&title=flight%20deck%20design)
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2271.2008
Affiliations: 1: From the Department of System Engineering and Human Factors, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, UK (D. Harris) and the Psychology Department, National Defense University, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan (W-C. Li

----
Here's one available in full text:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2007/00000078/00000004/art00011
Abstract:
Li W-C, Harris D, Chen A. Eastern minds in Western cockpits: meta-analysis of human factors in mishaps from three nations. Aviat Space Environ Med 2007; 78:420-425. Introduction: Aviation accident rates vary in different regions; Asia and Africa have higher rates than Europe and America. There has been a great deal of discussion about the role of culture in aviation mishaps; however, culture is rarely mentioned as a contributory factor in accidents. It is hypothesized that different cultures will show different patterns in the underlying causal factors in aircraft accidents. Methods: Using a meta-analysis of previously published results, this research examined statistical differences in the 18 categories of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) across accidents in the Republic of China (Taiwan), India, and the United States. Results: Seven HFACS categories exhibited significant differences between these three regions. These were mostly concerned with contributory factors at the higher organizational levels. The differences were related to organizational processes, organizational climate, resource management, inadequate supervision, physical/mental limitations, adverse mental states, and decision errors. Conclusion: Overall, the evidence from this research supports the observation that national cultures have an impact on aviation safety and adds further explanatory power with regards to why this should be so. The majority of the cultural issues identified seem to be associated with the style of management of the organizations rather than the operation of the aircraft per se.

Keywords: accident investigation (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search?database=1&title=accident%20investigation); cross-culture (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search?database=1&title=cross-culture); human error (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search?database=1&title=human%20error); Human Factors Analysis and Classification System ( (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search?database=1&title=Human%20Factors%20Analysis%20and%20Classification%20Sy stem%20%28)
Document Type: Research article


http://a465.g.akamai.net/f/465/1984/1d/www.ingentaconnect.com/images/icon_f_square.gif The full text is free.
--------
a book:
Intercultural Communication: A ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W5ClSo-rjoUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=%2Baircraft+++%22power+distance%22+&ots=B9OPvSwSwr&sig=L2i9gcSmBYZoAuXbAmyGBLmuQ0o)

[ProM]

Flight detant said:

I fail to make the connection between:
"They are a safe airline and operate some of the newest aircraft in the sky,"

My understanding is that the safest way to fly is on an aicraft that was built 1 to 5 years ago, but where the design is much older - 20 years or so.

That way any design flaws have been eradicated, but failures due to repeated stress etc are minimised