Safe airlines
... what are safe airlines.
Like so many things, it all depends ...
Context, what is the purpose behind the request. If it's statistical safety then consider what is published (beware of the internet) and then reconsider the journey to the airport or crossing the road.
How is safety defined:
If to minimise harm etc, again refer to statistics, but don't just use the industry view (e.g. Boeing) as many major accidents have been discarded: aircraft lost without trace, military action, etc.
If safety is considered as an activity, reflecting what an organisation does, then the government / airline view might be satisfactory.
I recall an old study which concluded that airlines were (statistically) safer after suffering one or more major accidents !!!
Like so many things, it all depends ...
Context, what is the purpose behind the request. If it's statistical safety then consider what is published (beware of the internet) and then reconsider the journey to the airport or crossing the road.
How is safety defined:
If to minimise harm etc, again refer to statistics, but don't just use the industry view (e.g. Boeing) as many major accidents have been discarded: aircraft lost without trace, military action, etc.
If safety is considered as an activity, reflecting what an organisation does, then the government / airline view might be satisfactory.
I recall an old study which concluded that airlines were (statistically) safer after suffering one or more major accidents !!!
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a few weeks a Qantas fanboy will announce they are the worlds safest. It keeps his FF account nicely topped up. Very safe they are but they are a relatively small airlines operating in a mainly benign environment.
FACT of the matter is most western airlines are phenomenally safe. Fly non western airlines at your own risk.
FACT of the matter is most western airlines are phenomenally safe. Fly non western airlines at your own risk.
Almost certainly a inverse close correlation with corruption levels:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
airlines were (statistically) safer after suffering one or more major accidents !!!
Nice comment about QANTAS being relative small and operating in a benign weather and my I add their long hall operations mainly?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is the second oldest airline after KLM. They operated long haul to Europe and the USA for years as well as Asia.
They have never lost a passenger in the jet age.
They have never lost a passenger in the jet age.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety is just like a financial investment, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. And cutting to the chase, what passengers really want to know is are they going to end up in a smoking hole on their next flight. The more cynical of us might believe all airlines want to know how little can they spend on training and safety related activities to avoid the smoking hole. Governments want to know how just little they can do avoid any responsibility for any smoking hole on their patch. Journalists love smoking holes because they give them something to write about.
So what makes a safe airline? Firstly one that is prepared to invest in selection and regular training. Next, one that is prepared to support its staff in their day to day operations and never punish genuine mistakes. A safe airline will also have a strong trade unions that are prepared to identify risky and unsafe practices. Then that airline must be properly monitored by a genuinely independent oversight authority, one that is not dependent on the airline and is free from political interference. Finally, when things go wrong, which they will, a proper reporting and investigative process so we can learn from our past and try and avoid the smoking holes of the future.
With a few exceptions, the safest will be first world airlines. However, reality means no airline will ever be 100% safe.
So what makes a safe airline? Firstly one that is prepared to invest in selection and regular training. Next, one that is prepared to support its staff in their day to day operations and never punish genuine mistakes. A safe airline will also have a strong trade unions that are prepared to identify risky and unsafe practices. Then that airline must be properly monitored by a genuinely independent oversight authority, one that is not dependent on the airline and is free from political interference. Finally, when things go wrong, which they will, a proper reporting and investigative process so we can learn from our past and try and avoid the smoking holes of the future.
With a few exceptions, the safest will be first world airlines. However, reality means no airline will ever be 100% safe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great safety tool is Flight data analysis from a Quick Access Recorder. It should be written on your ticket for airlines that have it. Qantas have it. CRM traing is another must have.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many airlines have QAR. Including easyJet.
CRM has a lot of development to do in many countries, including some western ones. Most airlines have CRM training.
QF long haul ops. Can't think of that many challenging places they fly to. Lots of very long, very flat runways. No Greek Isles, Gibraltar, Canaires, Iceland, Azores, Funchal. Unless sitting in the cruise for long hours makes you safe? They haven't lost anyone in the jet age yes, but it has had accidents before and several high profile near hits, together with the impromptu golf round. They're safe but in modern day airlines there are airlines flying a lot more, to a lot more challenging range of deinations and they manage it in great safety.
CRM has a lot of development to do in many countries, including some western ones. Most airlines have CRM training.
QF long haul ops. Can't think of that many challenging places they fly to. Lots of very long, very flat runways. No Greek Isles, Gibraltar, Canaires, Iceland, Azores, Funchal. Unless sitting in the cruise for long hours makes you safe? They haven't lost anyone in the jet age yes, but it has had accidents before and several high profile near hits, together with the impromptu golf round. They're safe but in modern day airlines there are airlines flying a lot more, to a lot more challenging range of deinations and they manage it in great safety.
One way is measuring total flights, number of passengers carried per year etc vs number of incidents and accidents of any kind, or passengers lost as alluded to above. Then there's mitigating factors like "airline A" lost those passengers because of a design flaw the manufacturer knew about and didn't correct (EG the UA 747 cargo door over the Pacific).
Airfields flown to are indeed important, look at Ryanair for example, flying over 100 million passengers a year into class g, procedural airports in remote and poorly equipped airfields. Never lost a passenger either.
And you would have to say the big US majors must be doing something right, most movements in the world on often antiquated equipment, and their ATC often aren't using modern equipment either. That's the culture itself amongst employees working right.
Airfields flown to are indeed important, look at Ryanair for example, flying over 100 million passengers a year into class g, procedural airports in remote and poorly equipped airfields. Never lost a passenger either.
And you would have to say the big US majors must be doing something right, most movements in the world on often antiquated equipment, and their ATC often aren't using modern equipment either. That's the culture itself amongst employees working right.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By far the most dangerous airline I worked for was British. It was insanely dangerous. Next to no regard for any rules at all. Repeatedly documented and reported. Still apparently unactioned over decades. deleted
The next was Irish. deleted Widespread long-term total disregard for rules supported by a CAA that colluded entirely.
This isn't an entirely 3rd world phenomenon - or at least, wasn't just a generation or so ago.
Anyone suppose it's changed?
The site frowns upon naming names without clear supporting evidence. If you consider the edit unjust, please refer the matter to PPRuNe Towers. JT
The next was Irish. deleted Widespread long-term total disregard for rules supported by a CAA that colluded entirely.
This isn't an entirely 3rd world phenomenon - or at least, wasn't just a generation or so ago.
Anyone suppose it's changed?
The site frowns upon naming names without clear supporting evidence. If you consider the edit unjust, please refer the matter to PPRuNe Towers. JT
