The CAA does not hold data that allows the fatal accident rate for business jets to be broken down into individual operation types. However, data supplied by the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) (Reference 1) revealed that there is a large variation for different types of business jet operation. Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 (per million hours flown) for the period 2003 to 2007, which is comparable to large western built aeroplanes, whereas air taxi operations, as a whole, had a far higher rate of 3.5 (per million hours flown).
1.5 Adoption of industry best practice, such as IBAC’s ‘International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations’ (IS-BAO) (Reference 2), was felt to be a significant factor behind the good safety record achieved by corporate operators.
1.6 The higher overall fatal accident rate for air taxi operations may justify further analysis. European operators are subject to direct regulatory oversight under EU-OPS, the same as for regular public transport, whereas in the USA air taxi operations are overseen by the less demanding Part 135 regulations. It is believed that EU-OPS regulated air taxi operations may demonstrate a far better safety record than the overall figure would suggest. This is a recommended area for further study.
The above is the relevant bit note how the CAA are trying to imply that the EASA REGS are far more demanding than the equivalent FAA and as such MAY be far safer?? what a load of unsubstantiated bull / more regulations equals better safety? Maybe for the longevity of the EASA regulators jobs
Maybe more to do with the fact that the particular aircraft is flown by the same crew and like a beloved privately owned car better looked after and loved