Britain's Least Safe Airline
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain's Least Safe Airline
Just seen a list of the world's least safe airlines on Yahoo and surprisingly, they mentioned that Thomson was the least safe in Britain. I say surprisingly as when they were known as Britannia and I worked for them, their training department was crowded with young aces and some real nasty hard men higher up. Have they gone soft?
their training department was crowded with young aces and some real nasty hard men higher up.
are you trying to imply that having a mixture of "young aces" overseen by "nasty hard men" makes for a safer airline?
Although I never worked for them, I understood Britannia to be a top rate airline.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think we should start at the top and work down but
depending on the routes, type of work can have a major effect as there are so many variables.
Ian
depending on the routes, type of work can have a major effect as there are so many variables.
Ian
The rather stupid article that also read yesterday is typical of the sort of drivel that you find under the head "News" on websites such as Yahoo's - there's plenty of other such junk to be found on their front page, masquerading as "news".
I am guessing that Thomson comes out as the "most unsafe" UK airline as a result of the incident they had a few years ago, perhaps when they were Britannia when, if I recall correctly 757 G-BYAG ran off the runway at Girona when landing during a thunderstorm in 1999. I can't recall there were any fatalities, though the much more serious accident at LHR with the BA multiple engine failure must statistically - using the same rather silly yardstick, less safe than, say Monarch who haven't as I recall had any serious injury / fatal accidents through their entire history.
I am guessing that Thomson comes out as the "most unsafe" UK airline as a result of the incident they had a few years ago, perhaps when they were Britannia when, if I recall correctly 757 G-BYAG ran off the runway at Girona when landing during a thunderstorm in 1999. I can't recall there were any fatalities, though the much more serious accident at LHR with the BA multiple engine failure must statistically - using the same rather silly yardstick, less safe than, say Monarch who haven't as I recall had any serious injury / fatal accidents through their entire history.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a whole bunch of recent articles which seem to have taken airlineratings.com as their source. That site claims to have rated airlines "based on a comprehensive holistic safety analysis of the major and most relevant factors influencing safety." Its rather short on details about what that analysis might be.
Its rather short on details about what that analysis might be.
In fact it spells out exactly how the ratings are derived. They are based on 7 criteria:
Is the airline IOSA certified?
Is the airline on the European Union (EU) Blacklist?
Has the airline maintained a fatality free record for the past 10 years?
Is the airline FAA endorsed?
Does the country of airline origin meet all 8 ICAO safety parameters?
Has the airline's fleet been grounded by the country's governing aviation safety authority due to safety concerns?
Does the airline operate only Russian built aircraft?
While one might not necessarily agree that those are the best questions to ask, it's hard to argue that the resulting ratings aren't transparent.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact it spells out exactly how the ratings are derived.
I've worked in this industry for a long time. I have no liking for and no connection with Thomson. But to suggest they have anything other than the very highest standards is ill informed and simply wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
less safe -v- unsafe ??
Clearly some airlines will have a stricture safety culture than others, you have to set a threshold somewhere, lets call it 7 out of 10, but what are you measuring?
Accidents are normally a result of incidents that weren't stopped in time, a bit like a crack thats not drilled, but then you have to factor in all manner of other factors, how old is the fleet, how often do they fly, where do they fly to?
A number of very well know airlines have had 'event' at the more challenging airport, Gibraltar, Madeira & Chambrey to name but 3 and all British outfits
Ryanair fly to some very demanding airports, but with new kit RNAV/VNAF & a very strict SOP discipline keeps them safe in spite of more sectors flown a day than most of the rest put together.
A read of Aviation Herald gives some insight, but there have been plenty of near events in most airlines...if you look deep enough
Clearly some airlines will have a stricture safety culture than others, you have to set a threshold somewhere, lets call it 7 out of 10, but what are you measuring?
Accidents are normally a result of incidents that weren't stopped in time, a bit like a crack thats not drilled, but then you have to factor in all manner of other factors, how old is the fleet, how often do they fly, where do they fly to?
A number of very well know airlines have had 'event' at the more challenging airport, Gibraltar, Madeira & Chambrey to name but 3 and all British outfits
Ryanair fly to some very demanding airports, but with new kit RNAV/VNAF & a very strict SOP discipline keeps them safe in spite of more sectors flown a day than most of the rest put together.
A read of Aviation Herald gives some insight, but there have been plenty of near events in most airlines...if you look deep enough
Mistrust in Management
Is the airline IOSA certified?
Many carriers take it seriously. Some do not, but take great steps to ensure they achieve IOSA audit standards by lies and deception.
How do I know this you may ask? Well I work for a carrier in West Africa that has sailed through this audit when there are glaring holes in the operation. These people are very clever in ensuring the paperwork meets the audit standards. A lot of time and effort (and I suppose money) is spent on ensuring a successful outcome.
Remember that the basis of a successful IOSA audit is a trail of paperwork - it is not an operational audit.
Kind regards
Exeng
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite shocking that PPRUNE gives oxygen to this kind of subjective journalistic crap.
Assertions that Thomson is Britain's most dangerous airline is not only totally misleading but also potentially libelous.
Read through some of the Etihad (aka that airline that should not be mentioned) posts that have been censured and that should guide future comments on this misguided thread.
Assertions that Thomson is Britain's most dangerous airline is not only totally misleading but also potentially libelous.
Read through some of the Etihad (aka that airline that should not be mentioned) posts that have been censured and that should guide future comments on this misguided thread.
Ryanair fly to some very demanding airports, but with new kit RNAV/VNAF & a very strict SOP discipline keeps them safe in spite of more sectors flown a day than most of the rest put together.
Personally I think this thread is pointless. All it will do is encourage trolls and journos to post utter rubbish and encourage arguments then the mods will probably close it.