Since, fortunately, there are no statistics to support the contentions made in the article, it is totally speculative and thus valueless.

#DailyMail

Let's not count our chickens too quickly.

No airline is completely safe, so all airlines could be unsafe?

The Titanic was the safest ship around until it sank. Qantas was the safest airline and crowed about it, until they busted up a hull. The list goes on.

The Daily Mail are only trying to identify to the nearest date and time which one of their newly literate 1,863,151 readers homes would be demolished by such an unsafe airline.

Don't see the problem personally. One of the airlines has got to be the least safe. Doesn't mean it's unsafe.

I don't endorse this rubbish but if I did then I'd say that membership of the UK Flight Safety Committee would count strongly in an airline's favour.

For me it's difficult to understand why IATA and IOSA members are much safer than members of a different association, like ELFAA. IATA even claims "The total accident rate for IOSA carriers in 2012 was 77% lower than the rate for non-IOSA operators. As such, IOSA has become a global standard, recognized well beyond IATA membership." Would this number have been even lower if let's say the four largest LCCs in Europe had become a member of IOSA? These four LCCs are listed with five incidents listed on Aviation Safety Network database: FR 1x (birdstrike and left hand main gear collapsed), EasyJet 2x (landing incident under captain training and taxiing incident), DY 1x (rw excursion with F50 in 1995) and Wizzair (had to land with left main gear only partially extended). No injuries for all five incidents.


For those of you interested in where this safety classification comes from, try this link:
Airline Ratings

Also remember Thomson having an OEI T/o at MAN after a bird strike, that was handled profesionaly and perfectly. I wouldn't hesitate to fly with them.

Are we going to get every single incident reported on here that will make UK aviation look totally unsafe to the outside world of aviation? In that case my contribution will be the Munich disaster in 1956. :ugh:

LN-KGL interesting site, I had a look at a couple of airlines I travel with regularly. I was a little surprised it states Air Astana is subject to a partial ban, when the company no longer exists on the EU Blacklist. Also I'm not sure why Air France has such a high safety rating? Which IMHO it deserves a much lower rating.

I'm not so concerned about UK airlines but I am concerned about some of the dodgy looking Eastern European ACMI operators, filling in during peak times for the likes of Easyjet, Vueling, etc.

Anyway, for me AF, MH and CA can remain on my personal long haul blacklist.

crewmeal
Or perhaps even the "other" Munich disaster, two years later, on 6th February? (G-ALZU)


Aksai Oiler - agree with you regarding AF.

What utter rubbish this journalism is, anyone here that claims to be an aviation professional and takes it seriously should be ignored!:ugh:

You may be interested in this article

Safety Ranking 2014 » JACDEC

A colleague of mine comments:

What’s the relationship between safety and average sector length, for example? Landing and take-off are the most dangerous parts of any flight. Why do US airlines score badly –the top one is Southwest, at 24, beaten by two Chinese and one Taiwanese carrier. Crowded skies? There is a lot in this report!

My comments:

How significant is the time weighting - we know how safety cultures change over the years. Is any accident 29 years ago relevant?

What of mergers - my lecturer told me in the 80s how British Midland wasn't a particularly safe airline (the University had just booked us on them for a study your but that's another matter. Is Kegworth included in the BA total as the airline was later acquired by them? Manchester 1986 was British Airtours - as it included as part of BA?

A hull loss is a plane that that costs too much to repair. Hence the QF 380 crash at SIN (fortunately without loss or life) counts as a hull loss - unless the airline chose to repair the nearly new aircraft. The BA taxiing incident at JNB is hardly a serious crash, but arguably a hull loss.

I could go on but only wish to make one point. Statistics are a very useful tool - but take care with them and don't draw conclusions too quickly.

The "JACDEC Index", upon which their safety rankings are based, doesn't inspire much confidence:

Safety Ranking » JACDEC

Not only do they seem confused as to how many parameters contribute to the Index score for each airline (8 or 9?), but there is no attempt to document how those factors are combined, and the weighting applied to each, in order to produce the score for each airline.

I suspect that the name - Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre - tells us all we need to know.