Safety on low cost flights.

[andi0277]

Hello,

am just wondering if some people here feel safer when sitting in the seat of a plane of a "regular" airliner than they do when sitting in a so called low cost flight.

I dont avoid to use low coast flights, but sometimes wonder if it really can be that low turn around times and high work loads under time pressure can really have no effect on safety issues.
Well is just a feeling, not base on facts, but would be great to hear if some people feel the same and why or if not and why not.

This feeling is not based on objective evaluation of facts - well on a Ryanair flight i once experienced a flight attendant who had no clue about the flight destination in her announcement, which did not made a really good impression on me - but somehow I still dont have any safety doubts on "regular" airlines.

So just out of interest: Does anybody feel the same?

Cheers and happy landings!

[wowzz]

NO ! If the pilot is happy to fly the plane, I am happy to be a pax.

[The SSK]

Remind me - when was the last Ryanair accident?
Easyjet?
Air Berlin?
Wizzair?
Norwegian?
Southwest?
Jetblue?
Air France?

Briefly - air transport in general is subject to incredibly rigorous regulatory oversight and the regulators will come down like a ton of bricks on anybody bending the rules.

Plus for airlines with a very strong cost-control culture, any accident or major incident which even hinted at cutting corners could spell commercial disaster. Anybody remember ValueJet? - in its day the world's most profitable airline - driven out of business by a crash and other safety issues (I know, they survived, sort of).

[west lakes]

a Ryanair flight I once experienced a flight attendant who had no clue about the flight destination in her announcement


Happens to crew on BA flights, does that make them less safe?

[deltahotel]

Happens to me regularly and I'm flying the thing!

I'm with wowzz - the pilot will always be the first to the scene of a crash and we usually want to get home for tea, stickies and beer.

[radeng]

People seem to forget that the most dangerous part about flying is the motorway to and from the airport. Especially in Italy, Turkey and India...there I'm always bloody scared by the taxi drivers!

[Avitor]

Not a chance, these guys know their job. Snobbery has no part in flying, only competence.

[Joao da Silva]

Remind me - when was the last Ryanair accident?

Ciampino, October 2008, hull loss.

[Hotel Tango]

Ciampino, October 2008, hull loss.

If I remember correctly, the incident was professionally handled by the crew.

Although I will not fly Ryanair my reason is not at all safety related.

There are a number of countries where I would avoid flying on their LCCs as I would on their legacy carrier(s) too.

[Torque Tonight]

I would say that the Ciampino event mentioned actually reflects very positively on Ryanair and the crew concerned. I have a high degree of confidence in RYR safety: the aircraft are new, very well maintained, extremely reliable and the initial and recurrent training of the crews is first rate.

Cabin crew forgetting the name of the destination is insignificant. They might visit 30 different airports in a month and so it's quite likely that they might have to pause for thought mid-announcement. In fact some of the juniors I've met take very little interest in their destinations at all. They turn up to the crewroom at the appointed time, do as they're told and work the cabin exactly the same as any other day. The actual destination will not be at the forefront of their minds because to be honest, it almost irrelevent to them.

As long as the flight deck crew know where they're going! That's said I can't pronounce the names of half the Polish destinations, so my PAs are probably the same!

[Safety Concerns]

People seem to forget that the most dangerous part about flying is the motorway to and from the airport.

can you substantiate that?

With 34,3 million registered cars in the uk compared with 1010, yes one thousand and ten commercial jets I suspect the true figures look rather different.

[west lakes]

This current thread gives some interesting figure!

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/439187-number-air-passengers-killed-crashes-around-world-soars-817-2010-a.html

[Safety Concerns]

whats interesting in that article? shock horror and clever use of statistics.

Someone once worked out (but I can't remember who) that if air travel was compared with car travel on the basis of number of journeys undertaken,

flying was seven times more dangerous.

So I say again with 34,3 million cars registered in the uk alone and 1,2 million deaths worldwide, the car is looking a pretty safe bet. USA has 250,000,000 + registered cars.

Isn't it strange that statistics describing safety levels between cars and planes rarely use the same yardstick.

[strake]

I wonder if I'm in some Ryanair parallel universe...?

I have been flying RYR from Stansted nearly every week since August last year. The aircraft are new and appear in good condition. The flight crew are pleasant and inform us as to status and progress in a timely fashion. I honestly can't remember any occasion where anything has gone wrong that can be blamed on the airline. The sales pitches can be irritating at first but one soon tunes out if necessary. The cabin crew are pleasant and efficient. The safety briefings are given quickly in the necessary detail, not patronisingly as with some carriers. The flights are invariably on-time and if you follow the rules, everything goes smoothly.
They're are obviously people on here with horror stories but in 20 or so return flights to Germany averaging £60 all in, I really can't find anything to complain about nor do I feel at any time "unsafe".

[dwshimoda]

So I say again with 34,3 million cars registered in the uk alone and 1,2 million deaths worldwide, the car is looking a pretty safe bet. USA has 250,000,000 + registered cars.

Here's some info for you:


There are three main statistics which may be used to compare the safety of various forms of travel:

Deaths per billion journey:

Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640

Deaths per billion hours:

Bus: 11.1
Rail: 30
Air: 30.8
Water: 50
Van: 60
Car: 130
Foot: 220
Bicycle: 550
Motorcycle: 4840

Deaths per billion kilometres:

Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9


Lies, damned lies, and statistics. But Deaths per passenger (or kilometre) mile, air travel is safer.

Your quote talks about vehicles that hold, on average, 5 people max as opposed to between 140 and 550 people.

I'll tell you know, even after a "sporty" landing after a 13 hour duty, the 7 miles driving back home are definitely more dangerous.

DW.

[Safety Concerns]

There obviously is a need to say it again.

As I have just researched car statistics I know your 3 deaths per billion kilometres is a UK value. It is also not appropriate to compare distance travelled. Cruise is the safest part of the journey and covers the most distance.

Hours is also not really appropriate as most of the time is at cruise.

So that leaves one very telling statistic.

I am 2.925 times more likely to die flying than driving to and from the airport.
The only statistic that interests me is the one relating to my personal actions.

Therefore if I take a billion flights I am going to die 117 times. However if I take the car I will only die 40 times. That is quite clear to me which one is safer. Hours and kilometers are uninteresting.

Deaths per billion journey's:
Car: 40
Air: 117

[jb5000]

But if you take a flight for your holidays and occasional business travel, yet commute by car every day of the working week then you are still much more likely to die in your car than in an aircraft!

[Safety Concerns]

so now we apply the positive spin to an uncomfortable fact.

That fact is for every billion journeys undertaken 117 people will die flying whilst only 40 will die driving.

Fact is driving is safer.

[JustFlyin']

Another way of looking at it is that worldwide just over 800 people died in aviation accidents in 2010. How many people died in the UK alone last year on the road? (never mind worldwide)

The thing about statistics is, you can always twist them to your own personal
advantage.

[NZScion]

Safety Concerns,

The fact is you miss the point entirely, as jb5000 pointed out, you don't jump in your aircraft every day and fly down to the local supermarket to pick up some bread and milk.

As a pilot I am significantly more concerned about being killed in a road accident (most likely due to circumstances beyond my control) than any sort of emergency pertaining to aircraft.

I hope I'm not merely feeding a troll here...

[The SSK]

If you let that kind of thing bother you, you can seriously affect your quality of life.

I'm most likely going to die of cancer, heart failure, liver failure or just plain decrepitude. I don't worry overly about which it will be. To go in a blinding flash up in the sky might be preferable, providing it happens when I'm good and ready.

[Hipennine]

Statistics are abused all the time aren't they ?

You cannot compare these figures, unless they are subdivided by journey charecteristics. For eg:

Gather all these measures for say journeys made by each mode for all UK domestic air routes. Ie, deaths per passenger journey, Edinburgh-London by Air, Coach, Rail, Car, Van, etc.

The inapproriate use of the broad brush figures is best highlighted by the Bus figure. This is skewed immensely by the very high volume of short, urban, low speed journeys, where most accidents are minor bumps and scrapes, but the incidence of them is quite high (ie there are lots of accidents, but not many deaths). However, most passenger deaths by road public transport will be on long distance higher speed services. You will struggle to find data on Inter-city bus and coach deaths, but I would suggest that a trawl of the BBC news website for the past 5 years will show up many more UK deaths than equivalent domestic air transport.

[Safety Concerns]

These statistics do just that.

At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.

In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.

Now whether i am first or last in the queue makes no difference. Driving a car is safer.

The real problem is that we cannot comprehend how many cars and drivers are out there compared to aircraft. In the UK alone as I have already stated there are 34 million cars compared to 1010 aircraft. In the states there are 250 million cars compared with around 7,000 commercial aircraft.

It isn't surprising that we all know someone who had an accident or possibly died in a car crash. But the fact remains that journey for journey, cars are safer.

[Hotel Mode]

It isn't surprising that we all know someone who had an accident or possibly died in a car crash. But the fact remains that journey for journey, cars are safer.

But an utterly pointless statistic. Unless you are into taking journeys for the sake of it then its mile for mile that matters.

[The SSK]

Or, 'the fact remains' that if you fly only by Ryanair, Easyjet, Air Berlin, Norwegian, Wizz Air you will never have an accident, because statistically they are 100% safe ...

[Safety Concerns]

Unless you are into taking journeys for the sake of it then its mile for mile that matters

Miles are irrelevant, the statistic could get you on your first or last journey. Could be Australia, could LHR-MAN. Irrelevant. As soon as I step on board my chances of dying are 1 in 85,000,000. As soon as I get in my car the chances of dying are 1 in 330,000,000.

The major difference being how quickly I ramped up the number of journeys. Obviously the more journeys the quicker statistically I will meet my maker. Doesn't change the basic premise though, cars are safer.

Ryanair, Easyjet, Air Berlin, Norwegian, Wizz Air you will never have an accident, because statistically they are 100% safe ...

Air Berlin and Ryanair have had accidents but no fatalities as far as I am aware. Not quite the same.

[wowzz]

Isn't this a bit like the [very] old argument that the chances of there being a bomb on an aircraft were one in a million, but the chances of there being two bombs on board were one in ten million, therefore statistically it was safer to take your own bomb on board with you.

[Hotel Mode]

Miles are irrelevant, the statistic could get you on your first or last journey.

No, miles are the only reasonable statistic. I see what you are saying but people dont make random pointless journeys by air, there is a purpose. Any similar journey is safer by air than by road by a large factor depending on the distance. Comparing journey for journey is as relevent as saying that as a human being i am at least 1500 times more likely to die in a road accident this year than an aircraft accident taking no account of exposure to either.

[Hotel Mode]

Isn't this a bit like the [very] old argument that the chances of there being a bomb on an aircraft were one in a million, but the chances of there being two bombs on board were one in ten million, therefore statistically it was safer to take your own bomb on board with you.

Blackadder: Baldrick, what are you doing out there?
Baldrick: I'm carving something on this bullet sir.
Blackadder: What are you carving?
Baldrick: I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.
Blackadder: Why?
Baldrick: It's a cunning plan actually.
Blackadder: Of course it is.
Baldrick: You see, you know they say that somewhere there's a bullet
with your name on it?
Blackadder: Yes?
Baldrick: Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it,
I'd never get hit by it, 'cos I won't ever shoot myself.

[The SSK]

Safety Concerns you do seem to be hung-up on the statistics.

As soon as I step on board my chances of dying are 1 in 85,000,000

I disagree. You are assuming that the risk of dying from a given cause in the present or the future is determined by what it was in the past. What is your rationale for this?

But as I said earlier, it's all irrelevant. Even if you were correct, all you are saying is that, assuming you fly 21 times a year, statistically you are likely to be killed in an air crash sometime in the next 40 million years.

[Safety Concerns]

ssk you are hung up on statistics (and I mean that in a nice way)

It is very interesting that you chose to revamp the statistic for flight only. Why didn't you do that for cars? and more importantly why don't you give us the figure?

The same figure for using my car 21 times a year.

[Hotel Mode]

The same figure for using my car 21 times a year.

To do what? Drive to tescos or southern spain on your holiday, without context the result will be garbage.

[Safety Concerns]

hotel mode it makes no difference.

It isn't about how far or how long, it is quite simply how often you use the thing.

You do not class a rattle snake as friendly just because you very rarely come across one but the rattlesnake remains lethal.

So why do we class air travel as safer than car? It isn't. It's just used less often.

[jb5000]

You're at point A, you need to get to point B x km away, where x is a reasonable distance to warrant taking a flight.

In this case (!) if you drive you are 62 times more likely to die. (3.1/.05)

Giving driving a very positive skew by including the millions of very short distance urban commutes / school runs where you'd be lucky to hit 30mph is pointless!!!

[tabu]

Is it just me or has the original point of this thread (i.e. whether or not LCCs are as safe as other carriers) been somewhat hijacked by what seems to be an attempt to prove that selective use of statistics can be used to support whatever point you wish to make?

[Joao da Silva]

Giving driving a very positive skew by including the millions of very short distance urban commutes / school runs where you'd be lucky to hit 30mph is pointless!!!65% of crashes occur within 5 miles of home, 32% within 1 mile of home.

Press release 1/3 accidents within a mile of home (http://www.churchill.com/pressReleases/13062005.htm)

Safety Concern's argument is valid, looking at the number of trips, not miles.

Those unlucky enough to be on Air Afriqah last year were airborne until within a couple of miles of the airport, but it did not make the flight a safe flight, because it completed 99.9% of the journey distance, so the 3,400 miles covered were not a safe event.

Likewise, a 1 mile car journey that ends in death is not safe.

The journey is the key statistic.

[Hotel Mode]

65% of crashes occur within 5 miles of home, 32% within 1 mile of home.

Press release 1/3 accidents within a mile of home

Safety Concern's argument is valid, looking at the number of trips, not miles.



Again, against what exposure? What percentage of trips occur within 1 or 5 miles of home? 80% at least I would wager.

Additionally that statistic is meaningless in this context as it does not mention fatal accidents so it proves nothing.

The logical extension of the exposure is irrelevant argument is that your statistical likelyhood of dying in an air crash is the number divided by the worlds population regardless of whether they fly or not.

Surely the fact that every government publishes rates/mile rather than journey must mean something?

[The SSK]

Churchill has listed the most common accidents that occur close to home.

Reversing into parked cars
Collisions with neighbours when parking outside the home
Finding unexplained dents and scratches caused by other drivers
Clipping wing mirrors when driving up narrow residential streets
Scraping the side of the car when parking in the garage

Err - I thought we were talking about the risk of dying here?

[Joao da Silva]

Hotel Mode

With the very greatest of respect, you need to do a stats. refresher. You are supporting Safety Concern's arguement ;)

SSK

Short journeys do include deaths, also. Many aircraft incidents include scrapes, e.g. ground vehicle damage.

How far would you like to peel the onion?

[Safety Concerns]

hotel mode. The statistic I posted was obtained from the UK dept for transport.

So a government publishing rates per journey. By now it should be falling into place.

A small quote

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.

[deltahotel]

The original question was whether people 'feel' safer - very subjective and not always relevant to the (hopefully) more objective science of statistics. For myself, on two occasions in 33 years and 10000 hours of aviation I've walked away from a flight thinking "that was close - could've died there". The number of times in the same years of driving that I felt I could have died is beyond counting.

[Joao da Silva]

deltahotel

You are an ATPL, highly trained and experienced professional aeroplane driver.

Now, what level of driving licence do you hold?

Could it be that your judgment is rather more informed in the flight deck and thus you have less concerns?

[nippysweetie]

Deltahotel's perception of risk is one I share and, I would suspect, so do many others.

Given that take-off and landing are by far the riskiest periods of flight, the bulk of the risk associated with flight - and the bulk of unease, if you are a nervous passenger - happens in a short time, and distance, at the beginning and end of the journey. For most of the travel time, most people will feel safe.

In a car, there are significant risks before you move off and, as soon as you gather any speed, those risks mushroom, and don't you know it. For most of the travel time, most people will be aware of the dangers of travelling by car.

Imagine travelling from Paris to St Petersburg by plane, and back by car: On the outbound leg, you've got one or two individual journeys (if you fly via Moscow) and you spend most of your time in well-managed airspace, shared by aircraft which will, at your altitude, have a couple of professionals at the pointy end. The leg back will have rather more individual journeys, on roads of varying quality shared with cars and drivers of indeterminate reliability. Oh, and 150 of those cars will carry the passengers you shared the flight out with.

Hopefully, you'll not perish on either leg. But which trip is likely to give you more near-misses?

In answer to the original question, I enjoy driving but I feel safer flying. I've got confidence in the airline experts; but confidence in other road-users...? Not even in myself, some days

NS

[Contacttower]

Fact is driving is safer.

Deaths per billion journey's:
Car: 40
Air: 117

Where are those stats from? They looks suspiciously to me like flying stats that include non scheduled air transport...ie light aircraft etc thrown in which probably skews it.

Also the 'deaths per journey' stat is misleading because all the deaths in that billion probably happened on only several aircraft, whereas the 40 deaths that supposedly happened in cars represents probably at least 20 accidents. What are your chances of being on several fatal crashes per billion plane journey? Almost nothing...

Lets say for argument's sake you will be in 5 fatal flying accidents for every billion journeys you take (117 deaths could be one accident but lets use 5 to illustrate the point)

But those 40 deaths as I said above will probably represent about 20 fatal car crashes, so rather than 5 plane crashes you will be involved in 20 fatal car crashes for every billion journeys...still think driving is safer? :8

[t211]

I do beleive that safety is being compromised ( In the Cabin ) I have travelled on low cost just a few times and the amount of baggage that is being carried Into the cabin per person and put In the overhead lockers Is to much,On my last trip ZRH - LGW There were Nine people with three peices of baggage many had suitcases Quite large ( and larger than the official size for cabin Baggage ) being put Into the overhead locker one person could hardly lift It. I was sitting two seats away from one of the said pax who had a laptop case , a ruck sack and a suitcase all taken into the cabin and the suitcase went into the overhead locker. If the overhead lockers came down In an accident they would probably break all of our necks. I checked to see If there was a weight limit after the flight and there was a clear Placard staighting the weight In the lockers. But the rules are not being adheered to.

PS Sorry about the Spelling

ATPL Retired

[Contacttower]

I don't know if this is still the case but last time I went on easyJet there was no limit on hand baggage weight at all...which does potentially seem dangerous. If there is no weight limit then how do the cabin crew know when the overhead locker weight limit has been exceeded?...As t211 rightly points out.

People could be transporting bricks in the bags for all the cabin crew would know...

[onetwo07]

The number of journeys is pretty irrelevant in reality though:

I want to go from London - Madrid. What is the safest way to do that? 1100 miles by car or by plane? Of course the answer is plane - because I am so much less likely to die per each of the miles travelled. In other words, 1100 hundred miles on open road would be so far above and beyond the average journey length/speed in a car, that it would actually constitute multiple journeys.

If planes were as 'safe' as cars, given the number of miles they travel, the number of deaths from planes would be through the roof.

[Joao da Silva]

onetwo07

You fail to take into account how many more cars than aircraft exist in this world.

[Safety Concerns]

I think a few minor facts have been overlooked with the swell of emotive but baseless argument

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.


The real problem is that we cannot comprehend how many cars and drivers are out there compared to aircraft. In the UK alone as I have already stated there are 34 million cars compared to 1010 aircraft. In the states there are 250 million cars compared with around 7,000 commercial aircraft.

[Contacttower]

I think a few minor facts have been overlooked with the swell of emotive but baseless argument

Well I think I debunked your argument in post 44 pretty well...:confused:

[Rush2112]

I do see the OP's point though, it's all a perception thing and the general public usually doesn't appreciate the rigorous safety standards that apply to all Western aviation.

Here in Asia I would never ever contemplate a LOC or any airline that wasn't SQ/CX. Adam Air anyone?

[Safety Concerns]

contact tower I hope you don't think too often;)

which part of this statement do you think makes it clear that GA is not included:

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

[Contacttower]

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.


OK yes I admit I missed that when you first posted it...however that it may have included GA was not my main point...

The point I was making...which you seemed to have completely ignored is that your deaths per passenger journey is misleading because it does not account for the fact that aircraft carry a lot more people than cars do.


These statistics do just that.

At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.

In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.


Is therefore completely wrong, using the assumption that your original 117 deaths per billion journeys is about 5 crashes (a very generous assumption since 117 could be just one crash) the true figures are:

200,000,000 journeys needed before I will be involved in a fatal aircraft accident.

Now if we make the assumption that your 40 deaths per billion journey in cars is about 20 crashes, I reasonable assumption since most cars travel with only one or two people in then:

50,000,000 journeys will be needed before being involved in a fatal accident.


Yes I agree per passenger journey air travel kills more people, but from an individual perspective, assessing my risk air travel is safer because those deaths are spread across a much lower number of accidents...

[Joao da Silva]

ContactTower

The point I was making...which you seemed to have completely ignored is that your deaths per passenger journey is misleading because it does not account for the fact that aircraft carry a lot more people than cars do.

Each of us only dies once.

[Contacttower]

Each of us only dies once.

Yes which is completely irrelevant...:ugh:

As I demonstrate above ones personal risk of being in a fatal plane crash is LOWER than being in a fatal car crash for a billion journeys...it really isn't rocket surgery you know...:p

[Safety Concerns]

hi contact, would you be surprised if I said you are wrong.

The statistic is already balanced. What you are doing is advocating the importance of one aspect (amount that die in an accident) but completely ignoring that aviation deaths are spread over a few thousand aircraft compared to car deaths being spread out over hundreds of millions of cars.

Thats why this statistic is accurate, thats why this statistic is used by insurers but most importantly, thats why the aviation industry doesn't want to use it.

On an individual basis, one has more chance of dying whilst flying than driving.

And its not my point, I am just repeating somebody elses hard work.

[Contacttower]

Thats why this statistic is accurate, thats why this statistic is used by insurers but most importantly, thats why the aviation industry doesn't want to use it.

Whose insurers use these stats though? If it is insurers concerned with how many people will die flying then yes, it is a useful stat since it accurately reflects that per journey more people will die flying than driving...we agree on that. :)

The statistic is already balanced. What you are doing is advocating the importance of one aspect (amount that die in an accident) but completely ignoring that aviation deaths are spread over a few thousand aircraft compared to car deaths being spread out over hundreds of millions of cars

I don't really see how that is relevant, since we are comparing deaths per journey why does the total number of vehicles/planes in the system have anything to do with it...by using the 'billion per journey' stat we discount that fact.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one but I'll try to make my point one more time...

As an individual when I get on a plane I'm not concerned as such with how many people will or have died flying per journey I'm interesting in how many times the plane will crash per billion journey because that is what is important to whether I die or not.

Lets say for arguments sake all airliners carry ten people per flight, and they crash at a rate of one for every ten flights...that means I have a one in ten chance of dying when I go flying.

Then lets say airliners grow a bit and now carry 100 people per flight yet still crash at the same rate. Therefore my chance of dying is still the same since I will still die on my tenth flight.

THEREFORE, the deaths per journey HAS gone up but my personal risk of dying is the same. I'm not trying to prove your stat is wrong, just that it does not represent personal risk when comparing cars and planes.

[Safety Concerns]

The statistic isn't how many crashes. The statistic is deaths per billion journeys.

So to counter it makes no difference how many died on an individual basis or how many an aircraft carries. Per billion journeys on average 117 people will die compared with only 40 in a car. The amount of accidents is irrelevant.

Therefore my chance of dying remains at approx 1 in 333,000,000 car journeys in comparison to 85,000,000 flights.

Now to go the extra mile, aviation safety is in fact even worse because the statistic relates to only a few thousand aircraft (less than 20,000) whereas the car statistic is drawn from literally billions of cars.

The amount of car journeys taking place as we post is unimaginable yet only 40 die per billion journeys. That is something quite incredible.

[Contacttower]

OK...you seem to be just repeating yourself now, and not really addressing what I'm saying.

I'm going to bow out of this one...:oh:

[TightSlot]

...each of us only dies once.
Some of us die many times, or at least a small part of us does, especially when reading arguments about statistics (or BA Strike Ballots)

:O

I'm not going to stop any of you in any way - Rock On! It just seems to me that you can twist the stats every which way to suit?

[Juud]

Briefly - air transport in general is subject to incredibly rigorous regulatory oversight and the regulators will come down like a ton of bricks on anybody bending the rules.


The SSK, knowing your line of work and having read many of your well-informed posts over many years, I tend to give your opinions a lot of weight.

So I´d like to run by you something that I have long wondered about.
Unlike the practice in many countries, the IAA (very like the CAA) receives no funding from the Government. It is a commercial semi-State body responsible for the provision of ... the safety regulation of the Irish civil aviation industry. The IAA's revenue primarily comes from charging aircraft that use Irish-controlled airspace.
From their website:

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/Juud81/Picture2.png

To my uninformed eye it looks as if a large part of the IAA´s funding is paid by Ryanair.

Could you possibly tell me if that impression is correct?

And am I the only one who wonders if the funding of a regulatory authority is relevant?

[Safety Concerns]

yes it is but its not only the IAA. How much money do you think BA passes into the UK CAA's hands.

But of course it doesn't influence regulatory decision making or oversight of the airlines

Interesting quote from another thread on pprune, says it all really

In the modern world the political nations are governed by separation of powers. There are the executives, the lawmakers and the judges. (i will not contest the new power, the media, having a big impact as well).

In aviation there was a comparable set up with the company executives, the aviation authorities and the genuine postholders of safety within the company or some NTSB. (the unions also playing a part in it).

Today the company executives pay all of them and practically own them at least politically through economical blackmail. Rising big powers in Asia are set up in dictatorship countries anyway. The unions are almost eliminated and the media is so incompetent, that their impact is controllable. The big manufacturers play along, as it serves them well. The outcome is blatantly readable on more and more accident reports, but only for insiders, as it is well masked by the mighty interest groups.

It will not change, as it works nicely on the bonus side. Victims don't matter as long as the numbers stay below an unfortunately very high public trigger.

So brace for more automatic induced and low training enhanced accidents. The warnings on threads like this will only serve as cover-up in a future rude awakening.

[cockney steve]

We're all concentrating on deaths here.....but i'd venture to suggest that the premature end of a car-journey happens at a much lower speed than that of a prematurely-terminated flight :}
Serious injury can be , arguably, worse than a quick,clean departure from the mortal coil.
I flew BEA some 40 years ago...they called it a Viscount , I suspected it was a civilian-equipped Vimy.

I flew Ryan a couple of years ago,- shiny spaceship oozing newness.
Always felt safe, from Auster in the late 50's (pleasure-flight over water from Butlin's to Clacton Pier and back, grass strip and not even a caravan ,iirc....... to the professional,timely,well managed RYR trips liverpool -Limoges return.

UK LCC's are, IMHO, much better value and every bit as safe as the legacy carriers who are hidebound by unions and archaic practices which lead to expense and inefficiency.

[bfisk]

the pilot will always be the first to the scene of a crash and we usually want to get home for tea, stickies and beer.

This old adage, true as it may be, needs refinement:

The fact that pilots don't want to crash/die/screw up, doesn't mean they won't. A part from a few, no crashes in aviation history have been attributable to wilful negligence or conscious crashing. You know the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

The statement speaks volumes about human behaviour, and nothing about air safety, when you really think about it.

(Coincidentally, the specific wording in the quote have in fact been attributable to several accidents: "get-there-itis". But that is another point.)

[Capot]

For the record, there is little or no correlation between the commercial policies of an airline and the safety of its operations. As one example only; I am in a position to know - as an outsider - that Ryanair's maintenance standards are among the highest in the world. The reason is consistent with all Ryanair's thinking; top-class maintenance saves a fortune by avoiding maintenance-induced delays or diversions, and Ryanair does not knowingly waste money.

It still has dreadful commercial policies and I only submit myself to its treatment of passengers when there is no viable option. But when I do, I'm damn sure I'll get there safely.

On the other hand, there are airlines beset by antediluvian working practices on the flight deck, in the cabin and in the hangar, complacency, who-gives-a-toss attitudes, unreasoning intransigence by unions with an agenda, etc etc. Their cabin staff might speak nicely, and you might even get a free stale sandwich, but I somehow feel less secure than on FR because I know that the organisation is a stranger to the real meaning of "safety culture".