Top Ten safest airlines in the world

[MASTEMA]

JACDEC says their roster is "based on our annual safety calculations which include all hull loss accidents and serious incidents in the last 30 years of operations in relation to the revenue passenger kilometers (RPK) performed in the same time."

"We also took into account the international safety benchmarks such as the IOSA Audit and the USOAP country factor."

Here it is. The top 10 safest airlines in the world.
1. Finnair
2. Air New Zealand
3. Cathay Pacific
4. Emirates
5. Etihad
6. Eva Air (Taiwan)
7. TAP (Portugal)
8. Hainan Airlines
9. Virgin Australia
10. British Airways


Read more: What is the safest airline in the world? | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/what-is-the-safest-airline-in-the-world/story-e6frfq80-1226550813638#ixzz2HXdUiY3y)

[Jack Ranga]

Ouch, someone is missing from there! Will it affect his bonus? Not likely.

[limelight]

Interesting, the Rat came in at 13.

Full list of 60 is here http://www.aerointernational.de/service/sicherheitsranking/Aero-0213-Sicherheitranking-2012.pdf

[CSTGuy]

Oh give me a break! How long have VA been operating? Economies of scale?

And how was the reporting culture in the first few years? How many serious events happened without the wider aviation community finding out? (Those of us in the know, know.) Granted things are vastly different now, but JACDEC would easily have published a few of the more prominent stuff-ups if they knew!

Qantas can't have a pilot with a runny nose without a "near disaster" headline the next day.

[TAC inop.]

The bunnys forgot about the EK A340 at Melbourne I guess

[mostlytossas]

How does Air NZ get to be 2nd with such a small network and after a certain mountain in Antarctica?

[Millet Fanger]

15 years ago even Hollywood knew that Qantas was the safest airline. The fact that Qantas doesn't even rate in the top 10 anymore reflects poorly on both the Executive and the Board. It is only the quality and quantity of the staff fighting against the general direction that management is wanting to lead that enables Qantas to stay in the top 20.

Management's only strategy is to deal with the quantity issue. What other routes can they give away?

[stubby jumbo]

What a crock of ****e?

Who are these so called "specialist groups" that come up with these ratings?

OR is it like the other Best Airline in the world "rating"........ the airline with the deepest pockets wins:=

What about BA's tripler at LHR in 2008?????? You can tell me that wasn't a hull loss.

Maybe they should have a rating on Jet Engine Manufacturers........I like to see that...rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:E

[Keg]

The bunnys forgot about the EK A340 at Melbourne I guess

.....and Jo'burg I think too.

[genxfrog]

Patriotism doesn't justify avoiding the facts. The 380 engine explosion, and 747 Oxy bottle ripping a hole in the fuselage and 747 sliding off the end of a runway incidents alone justify Qantas being relegated. I can already hear the screaming that the 380 was a RR build/ warranty issue. The reality is that when an airline has an incident it's the airlines brand that's highlighted and tarnished, not who manufactured the engine or the malfunctioned part that caused the incident. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Under AJ's watch....things have progressively deteriorated.

[nitpicker330]

As a CX Pilot I'm quite happy with our position on the list!!

The last and only Jet hull loss we had was a bomb explosion over Vietnam in 1972 on a Convair CV 880.

:ok:

[ferris]

Air New Zealand gets to be 2nd with a small network and an accident that happened outside the 30 years this sample is looking at. RTFQ.

[Hempy]

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/caption_zps1d56b236.jpghttp://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/caption_zps1d56b236.jpg

[packrat]

Two people~one is an idiot and one is an idiot savant.Not too difficult to guess which is which

[Mach E Avelli]

For Air NZ to be number two, they must have disregarded the A320 that went in on a test flight.

[parabellum]

Half the airlines quoted on that list haven't been around long enough to develop any meaningful statistics. Some airlines sail very close to the wind and don't have a fatal crash, others have the safest operation you can imagine and then have a one off crash. Really all depends on the reports definition of 'Safe'.

[ohallen]

Perceptions are everything and the Rat should be ashamed, but they wont be as they send the PR mini rats to spin the spin.

No one from the Board or Exec care because it is not relevant to their agenda BUT it should be.

If people perceive they don't rate then there is only one Exec team who should be held accountable.That isn't going to happen any team soon or until EK are actually running the joint which seems perilously close.

Yep you cannot be wrong when you are the smartest guys in the room.

[Metro man]

I read somewhere else that Air Canada were the worlds safest but they don't even make the top 10 here ???:confused:

Cathay had an incident with contaminated fuel a while back, not their fault and well handled by the crew but a close thing.

[kiwiandrew]

Mach E Velli

the 'Air NZ' A320 was painted in NZ colours, but it had not been handed back to NZ off lease and was still being operated by XL Airways and flown by XL Airways crew (although several NZ staff were on board).

Having said that, NZ are very fortunate that this survey had an arbitrary 30 year cut off. If it had been 35 or 40 years then Erebus would have been included and obviously they would not have been anywhere near the number 2 position in the list.

[Capt Kremin]

Who are JACDEC anyway?

[Guglielmo]

Check out the map
http://www.airlineprofiler.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/WORLDMAP_USOAP_2012.png
which helps to understand who pays the most.
You see that QF isn't penalised for getting maintenance done in China, but the A380 heavy maint in second rate Germany (read the map) could be a factor. Or indeed QF getting reconfig work done in the Philipines and Thailand give minus brownie points.
But Virgin Oz is OK with it getting lots of maintenance done in NZ.

[4Greens]

Qantas has never killed a passenger in the jet age. Beat that!

[ejectx3]

How about killing an airline?

[Zapatas Blood]

"Beat that!"

Easy. Southwest. And they have flown waaaay more sectors in their history than QF have. And in much more challenging places too!!!!

Want some others?

[The Green Goblin]

Qantas has never stopped flying involuntary or otherwise.

Oh hang on a minute......

Seriously though, the Qantas longhaul mainline folk have got to get out and sniff the roses. It's a big world out there. There are many different ways to skin a cat ,and as the MOU folk are finding out, they are not the best of the best. They are just another Pilot trying to pass their checks and get by.

[flightfocus]

Zapatas Blood:

Easy. Southwest. And they have flown waaaay more sectors in their history than QF have. And in much more challenging places too!!!!

I think the family of the 6 year old killed in this accident would disagree with your claim:

Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248)

[Zapatas Blood]

"Qantas has never killed a PASSENGER in the jet age" was the quote.

I think the family of the 6 year old would agree that she was not a passenger on the plane though!

QF have been VERY lucky compared to some other carriers. Maybe this safety rating values luck less than hard evidence.

[ozaub]

QANTAS has had at least 2 non-pax fatalities in recent years; cleaner falling from a/c and flight attendant in galley lift. Plus I think a pax had fatal fall when disembarking down stairs. So Southwest wins - most flights without a pax fatality

[standard unit]

There was also HNL caterer killed by a 742 lower lobe galley personal elevator.

[airdualbleedfault]

Having worked for a Hainan subsidiary, I can tell you that their safety record is far more to do with luck than anything else, that and not all accidents in China find there way into western records, I'd rather fly Qantas any day.
Is this the mob that rated Air France in the top 10 last year? If so, it's not worth a knob of goat 5hit

[MASTEMA]

Where is poor old Tiger?

[-438]

Green Goblin, I haven't heard any of the MOU guys suggesting they are the best of the best.
Of the MOU guys, quite a few have flown for different airlines outside Australia, so your comments are just plain dumb.
WRT the survey there is a different survey out each month, with a different result. Whilst Qantas may have had an over inflated perception amongst the public for their safety record in the past, I don't think it holds much credence these days. There are bigger issues at play regarding negative perceptions of Qantas.

[Pundit]

Reality hurts. Under the leadership of AJ
Qantas has collapsed from a class act to an ass act.

[TIMA9X]

Reality hurts. Under the leadership of AJ
Qantas has collapsed from a class act to an ass act. Yep... and through no fault of its staff... this is a classic example of what happens when bean counters are allowed to run riot backed by a board full of bean counters.

already the main headline online today for the smh



Qantas downgraded on Safety Index

Qantas only ranks 13th in the world in terms of airline safety according to a European group of airline safety enthusiasts, a far cry from the previously prized number one ranking immortalised by Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man.
Read more: Qantas downgraded on Safety Index (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-downgraded-on-safety-index-20130112-2cm44.html#ixzz2Hj7ddyt0)



I think Ben puts a good angle on the issue..

Qantas safety list story also about Fairfax's decline | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/12/qantas-safety-list-story-is-also-about-fairfaxs-decline/)

This is the same Fairfax that has invested scarcely any time even reporting the privileged disclosures of grave safety deficiencies in CASA, the ATSB, Airservices Australia, and in the operations of Jetstar and Pel-Air, even though they have been served up on a plate in Senate committee hearings and protected air safety investigation reports for several years.
It is a Fairfax with some excellent reporters that nevertheless appears to be managerially totally gutless and unfocused when it comes to directing resources into real coverage of seriously relevant matters for its readerships even when they are begging for attention.
But list stories, especially those with PR involvement, are pushed out, even when they are manifestly unsatisfactory in terms of lack of details or have credibility red flags fluttering all over them.
There is no question, on the publicly available safety data, that all of the top 13 carriers in the list have good safety records today. But the rankings are strange. If Fairfax is prepared to give top of site billing to the rankings done by the tiny Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre based in Hamburg without telling its readers exactly how Finnair ended up on top, and Virgin trumped Qantas, and so forth, it is making itself a party to something very odd to say the least.

[AEROMEDIC]

Many more staff fatalities during servicing or heavy maintenance over the years.
Big list unfortunately.
Pax deaths due illnesses also don't count although I am not trivializing this.

Just a fact.

Qantas has been very, very lucky.

[Jetsbest]

But so have all good and 'less good' airlines in the world... But as in one's own life, even an airline can influence its own luck.

Skygods? No. Perfect? No. A notable poorly-handled 'off-roading' event? Er... Yes, just like Southwest, American, Emirates, Air France etc etc etc.

But there are several other very creditable team efforts which relied on the all the very best of attributes in any airline's crew; oxy bottle explosion (744), major electrical failure(744), unforeseeable complications of air data failures (A330), uncontained engine failure (A380)..... just like the permutations experienced at Cathay, British Airways, Air Canada etc etc etc.

For all the QF bashing here, and all QF's in-house navel gazing(sheesh!), it must be remembered that QF is still very close to the top of any global safety list, and this particular list is just a fairly "interested amateur" one at that if Sandilands is to be believed.

I will, with a clear conscience, still put my family on any QF flight. :ok:

[Ngineer]

I was put on one of those "amazing" ppls programs a several years back that the company was pushing all of its staff through at the time. The instructor had a few of his own interesting theories. One was that the company had run several public surveys asking why people flew our carrier, the result was that they were mainly interested in OTP. Safety was a few places down the list, and he kept driving home issues affecting the cost of running an airline (none of which covered bonuses and overmanagement, money pi$$ed up against the wall on failed projects, fines, poor fleet choices, poor morale amongst staff, poor adverstising or the lack of).

Ever since then I have heard the growing war drum from my management trying to drive home that we do not have the monopoly on safety, and we must conform to world's best practice (or worlds standard practice as I see it).

Everyone has the right to draw their own conclusions, I know I have.

As a kid I grew up on "The spirit of Australia, the flying Kangaroo". I knew and was proud of our carriers safety record. Today my kids know of our national carrier probably for no other reason than because I worked there. Who will the kids of today choose to fly tomorrow??

[ZFT]

I will, with a clear conscience, still put my family on any QF flight.

Whilst I totally concur with you, I suspect that the average (once or twice a year) pax has no interest, knowledge or even curiosity about anything other than price, not just QF but any carrier.

[neville_nobody]

If anyone is 'lucky' it is EK twice coming within a poofteenth of crashing an aircraft on takeoff. The one in MEL wiped out the LLZ! which are about 20' high if you're lucky.

I agree with Jetbest in that whilst QF may have had some luck and that the operating environment in Australia is relatively benign, they have got themselves out of some horror situations. I think at one stage they were at 10 engine failures within a 2 year period all of which ended well.

[4Greens]

Lets talk probability not luck. You make your luck. More and better training less chance of a disaster.

[neville_nobody]

Lets talk probability not luck. You make your luck. More and better training less chance of a disaster.

True to a point. However there are some things that are just 'luck'.

For example QF had a complete electrical failure which just so happened in daylight on climb so they had enough time to fly back on the battery. If that happened in the middle of the night in the Pacific it could have been very different. QF 32 had 3 captains on the aircraft...... What are the odds of that?

The Emirates incident in MEL came within about 20 feet of crashing. What's 20' in an aircraft that big? If max thrust was put on 1 second later it would have been a fireball.

So yeah you make you're own luck to a point but then there is just pure luck/fate/destiny or whatever else you want to call it.

[Tableview]

Air travel has never been safer. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), an average passenger travelling on Western-built jetliners would have to take no fewer than 5.3m flights before being involved in an accident. To put that in perspective, even the most frequent of fliers is unlikely ever to rack up more than 20,000 flights over the course of a lifetime. The accident rate for the airline industry as a whole is now so low that someone taking a flight a day could theoretically expect 14,000 years of trouble-free flying.

Air safety: Difference Engine: Up, up and away | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/01/air-safety)

[AEROMEDIC]

Tableview,

I'm sure that those in the industry and close to aircrew and engineering will laugh at this piece of journalism.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that, for the first time since the Flight Safety Foundation, a lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia, started collecting figures on aviation safety, there were more accidents around the world involving corporate jets than passenger planes. That is something for busy executives to ponder as they climb aboard the company Gulfstream. It is also something air-safety administrations need to pay a good deal more attention to.

That aside, can the huge strides made in aviation safety over the past decade continue? Modern passenger jets are stuffed with aids that make them nigh impossible to crash. Even so, there are dark mutterings about the increasing use of carbon fibre in their construction—to save weight and reduce fuel consumption. Some experts fear such composite materials may hold unpleasant surprises—in much the way that unpredicted failures caused by metal fatigue destroyed the reputation of the de Havilland Comet, the first passenger jet to go into production, in the 1950s.

Others express concern that the cockpit automation designed to make aircraft safer may overwhelm pilots with its complexity and undiagnosed bugs. But whatever direction future safety measures take, there is now no shortage of data about accidents. As tools for analysing big data improve, airline safety is likely to evolve from being merely a reaction to past mistakes to becoming a way of predicting and preventing future ones.



It's all a matter of risk. The full article describes the comparison of cars, trains, buses etc. and acknowledges issues with safety in "some " countries, and so points out that there are some things that affect how safe things REALLY are.

The lack of homework in this article is shown when there is no mention of safety concerns from within the airline staff.
No quotes from pilots or engineers.

As to the evolution of aircraft safety, it's in the hands of airline employees to try to maintain what we have now let alone the future.
With the current crop of managers and board of companies like Qantas (Borhetti excepted), it's akin to swimming against the tide.

[Tableview]

AEROMEDIC: Agreed, and I posted the article without comment. There is at least one airline that I can think of which operates a huge number of flights, has perfect safety record, and yet I would not set foot on it because of my concerns over its potential for an accident.

[Pedota]

Fairfax's Clive Dorman has written this in response to the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre's 'safety index' - my bold/italic.



World's safest airline? Really?
Clive Dorman - The Age 15th January 2013

As a young teenager, I squibbed the chance to take an aerobatic flight in a Tiger Moth; no way was I going to join family friends doing loop-de-loop in a crop-duster.

I watched from the ground as they flew over our farm. I was happy to be a land-lubber. It seemed prudent since there was a major aviation disaster every other month back then and it took years into my 20s before I ceased to be a white-knuckle flyer.

In fact, in among all the terrorist bombings around the world, I reckon the scariest time to be an avid traveller was the 1980s, the decade following airline deregulation in the US, when one of the world’s most advanced Western countries struggled to allow new companies the freedom to serve the aviation consumer market, on one hand, and regulate it safely, on the other.

There was one disaster after another in the US and recurring horror stories, like the time an airliner landed on a highway because it had run out of fuel.

It wasn’t until the 1990s that the US and the world started to get their act together and become serious about making commercial flying safe enough that fear of it was simply an irrational neurosis that could be overcome.

Well, it has taken more than two decades since the wild, pioneering days of the jet age; we haven’t reached nirvana, but, to use the cliche, you can see it from here.

According to the aviation experts, not only was 2012 the safest year on record for the amount of travelling that was undertaken, the leap in the statistical safety of flying was so great that it’s unlikely it will be repeated this year.

According to Flightglobal.com’s safety analyst David Learmount, last year’s accident rate of one per 2.3 million flights is 65 per cent better than 2011’s one per 1.4 million flights.

The International Air Transport Association’s senior vice-president of safety, operations and infrastructure, Gűnther Matschnigg, put it another way. “If you were to take a flight every day, odds are, you would fly 14,000 years without being in an accident,” he said.

Not a single IATA member – that is, not one reputable airline – had a “hull-loss” accident last year in which an airliner was written off. To emphasise how important it is to stay on the beaten track and keep away from obscure airlines, here’s the list of last year’s deadliest accidents:

April 2: UTair Flight 120, an ATR-72, crashes shortly after take-off from Tyumen, Russia, killing 31 of the 43 passengers and crew on board.

April 20: Bhoja Air Flight 213, a Boeing 737, crashes near Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in bad weather, killing all of the 127 passengers and crew on board.

May 9: a Sukhoi Superjet 100 on a demonstration tour of Indonesia crashes into Mount Salak, near Jakarta, killing all 45 passengers and crew on board.

June 3: Dana Air Flight 992, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 carrying 146 passengers and 7 crew members crashes in a suburb of Lagos, Nigeria, on approach to the airport, killing all on board and an estimated 6 more people on the ground.

However, because the calendar year statistics are finalised during the the Christmas-New Year silly season, it’s also possible that you have read ludicrous stories in the Australian media about a couple of German creators of lists claiming that Finnair – a fine European carrier, no doubt – is “the safest airline in the world”.

The pair, operating under the name of the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre, have little credibility in the aviation industry and not a single word of their findings was reported by reputable US and European aviation media such as Flightglobal.com and Air Transport World.

But, in the week after New Year, when specialist aviation reporters were mostly on holiday leave, JACDEC showed considerable skill in public relations in having its report published in Australia.

There was curiosity about the report in Australia because it rated Qantas lowly, but the airline was rightly indignant. "This is not a reputable index recognised by the aviation industry or safety experts," a Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax.

In fact, the giveaway for me was in the organisation’s amateurish website, complete with black-and-white pictures of the founders and a cavalcade of literal errors: it looks like it was thrown together by junior secondary students as a project.



See the original article at World's safest airline | Plane crashes in 2012 | Travellers' Check (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/blogs/travellers-check/worlds-safest-airline-really-20130114-2coml.html#ixzz2HzZyxoK3)

[What The]

Dear Clive Dorman,

There is only one credible aviation journalist in Australia, Ben Sandilands. The rest of you are just PR mouthpieces for the airlines and show little journalistic integrity through your lack of research and inability to question the bull**** that is spun to and through you.

The fact that your underlings (who watch the shop whilst you enjoy your airline sponsored vacations) are so eager to print rubbish press releases as credible fact, is an indication that they are learning their trade well.

Lamenting poor journalistic skills whilst being part of the problem is a bit rich. In my opinion, journalism in this country is nearly dead. Reporting, however, is a growth industry fuelled by KPI focused editors, lazy practitioners and an Internet driven hunger for content.

My opinion,

What The

[Pundit]

There is little doubt that aviation safety has improved significantly over the past twenty years. Rather than debate the merits, validity etc., of this safety list, perhaps we should reflect on where we see the safety standard today vv say 10 years ago, 20 years ago.

Would you consider Qantas to be safe as it was 20 years ago?

You may recall in the 80's Boeing did a study of airlines that appeared to be safer. A key finding was solid SOPs and their application.

Are the basics still in place, standardisation, training and sound maintenance practices?

If the answer is yes, then has the rest of the world learnt the lesson?

If no, then is the slip in the ratings justified and what are we going to do about it?

[LeadSled]

--- in much the way that unpredicted failures caused by metal fatigue destroyed the reputation of the de Havilland Comet, the first passenger jet to go into production, in the 1950s.

Aeromedic,
Not quite that simple, if your read the official report, only released many years after the pressurization accidents, which were not the only reason early Comets were lost.
There was nothing new about fatigue that DeHavilland "pioneered", Boeing had already had problems with its original pressurized hull, but such experience was discounted across the Atlantic.
It is all in the final inspectors report.
That is why the whole fuselage structure of a Comet 4 is so different to a 1 or 2, stripped out the 4 structure looks just like Douglas or (after the -337) Boeing structure --- and no square windows.
Tootle pip!!

[AEROMEDIC]

Ledsled,

Yes, you're right about the Comet. I unintentionally left that part in when I copied the paragraph to make my point about shonky journalism.

Square windows just don't work in pressurized fuselages.

[ozbiggles]

You can argue about who made it into the top ten until the next list comes out.
I don't think there is any argument about who didn't.
There was a time when Qantas and Rolls Royce were seen as the posters boys for safety.
Those days are long gone.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Air travel has never been safer. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), an average passenger travelling on Western-built jetliners would have to take no fewer than 5.3m flights before being involved in an accident. To put that in perspective, even the most frequent of fliers is unlikely ever to rack up more than 20,000 flights over the course of a lifetime. The accident rate for the airline industry as a whole is now so low that someone taking a flight a day could theoretically expect 14,000 years of trouble-free flying.


If only insurance companies thought the same, re life and income etc!

[coaldemon]

Isn't that what LOSA is about?

[Capt Kremin]

Ozbiggles, two nobodies from Hamburg publishing a list with no supporting documentation as to how the list was compiled should be given the appropriate level of regard.

As far as Qantas goes, the QF of the Rain Man era was some 25-30 aircraft operating exclusively long haul operations. By the standards of today, it was a small boutique airline which suffered it share of close calls, incidents and accidents. It never lost a passenger or hull in the jet age, which generated the famous line in the movie, but professionals in any airline know that any airlines reputation or safety record is one roll of the dice away from being shattered at any time.

Safety in an airline comes from its culture and part of that culture is recognisation by all of the truth of that last sentence. Can we stop the willy waving and just get on with the job?

[GuilhasXXI]

Being a regular passenger on TAP Portugal I can assure everybody that it well deserves it´s position on that top 10 :D

[ZFT]

As a regular passenger - how can you tell?

[GuilhasXXI]

I happen to know the kind of training TAP pilots get, and I can assure you there aren´t many like it ;) Being a frequent passenger has lead me many times to the cockpit and a few things more that I guess If I told you, would be disrespectufull towars the people who provided me with such information.;)

[Anti Skid On]

For Air NZ to be number two, they must have disregarded the A320 that went in on a test flight.

You mean the airframe that was leased and registered to a German operator and was being flown by their crew before being handed back to Air NZ; yes maybe they should include that in the tats to drop them a few places! Just because it had been repainted in Air NZ livery doesn't mean it was their accident.

[Capt Kremin]

TAP? You mean these guys?

TAP Airbus A310 Low Pass Turn - Portugal Airshow 2007, Evora (Uncut HD Version) - YouTube (http://youtu.be/26H-WzIe858)

[ZFT]

Being a frequent passenger has lead me many times to the cockpit Umm..................

[aveng]

re. TAP flyby,

Rad alt - ops chkd normal.:ok:

[SandyPalms]

I happen to know the kind of training TAP pilots get, and I can assure you there aren´t many like it

And as a Passenger, how would you know that?

BS

[Ixixly]

SandyPalms, can't you read? GuilhasXXI quite clearly stated "Being a frequent passenger has lead me many times to the cockpit", so clearly GuilhasXXI is perfectly informed about correct procedures in the cockpit... :E

[GuilhasXXI]

Ixixly, and can you read? Have you got any ideia of what kind of training TAP pilots go through ? I guess you don´t...:ok:

[ozbiggles]

capt K
I'm not basing my statement on their report.
I'm basing it on pictures of Qantas Aircraft off the end of runways, bent 717s in Qantas colours, numerous RR engine failures on a clapped out fleet of 747s, exploding RR engines on A380s where it seems RR knew their was a problem but kept it to themselves...
Top 10 material, no I don't think so for either of them. In the case of RR luckily for them there isn't to much competition or I dare say they would be sued out of being...just MHO.

[Ixixly]

I can read, it was more me having a go at the perceived level of experience your post gives!! Makes you sound like an everyday passenger deciding that sitting in the cockpit makes them able to make valid comments on the topic of "Training Quality"

Not really a go at you as I honestly don't know what your level of aviation expertise is, but you gotta admit, looks kinda funny!! Be kind of like me standing on the bridge of the Costa Concordia on the 12th of January 2012 and commenting on how the Captain and Crew are really well trained and obviously know exactly what they're doing based on the many visits i've made to the bridge.

[Angel of Sky]

Come on man,
No Qatar airways?

[Angel of Sky]

Hi guys!

How do I start, I want to chanlenge myself to become a pilot after flying 4 years as Cabin Crew.
Currently I working with Qatar Airways.
I plan to take CPL at QAC the nearest and the only one I guess in here.
So I already appreciate your guidelines,knowledge,infos, opinion any comments regarding of what to do at first overall for beginner like me!

T.Q

Nothing was impossible, I hope so!
Cheers!

[GuilhasXXI]

Ixixly, I hear you, but I had written on that same post that I was lucky enough to be a bit ' inside' TAP's pilots training, It´s quite obvious that no matter how many times you´ve been to the cockpit you cannot judge the safetiness of an Airline, well, only if you´ve been in there during an emergency I guess lol.

Guilherme

[SandyPalms]

And my point was, how could you be informed about the training of pilots in OTHER airlines just because you have visited the flight deck of TAP aircraft (and have insider knowledge of how they are trained)? You seem to think because you've seen what TAP pilot go through, That must somehow be better than any other airline.

So I ask again. How on earth would you know that?

Total BS

[Algie]

Back to basics folks.....

Absence of accidents/reportable incidents DOES NOT EQUAL SAFETY

Just thought I'd mention that

Algie

[GuilhasXXI]

SandyPalms, I would rather not answer that here, but If you really wish to know, I could tell you via PM, It woudn´t be right for me to adverstise something I really wasn´t supposed to know.

Guilherme

[SandyPalms]

Oh go away. You have no idea how transparent you sound. Go away and finish your homework.

[GuilhasXXI]

Back to basics folks.....

Absence of accidents/reportable incidents DOES NOT EQUAL SAFETY

Just thought I'd mention that

Algie

So I guess 'simple' emergency landings, smoke in the cabin and stuff like that haven´t been taken into account... correct ?

[GuilhasXXI]

wow someone´s in a mood, quick tip, if you want to talk I´ll hear you, I surely don´t come up here for someone like you who doesn´t know me at all to judge me. I´m not here to fight, just to learn, so If you want to start a rude argument go somewhere else, you won´t be lucky here ;)

[redsnail]

I fly TAP a lot too. I believe the FD have definitely lifted their game operationally. However, their cabin crew do leave a lot to be desired.
I fly on a lot of different European airlines and also Russian ones :ooh: occasionally some US ones too.

[GuilhasXXI]

True, I´ve got a cabin crew member on my ATPL class and she says they are being taken to the limits in terms of working hours, she claims that´s the reason why lately people say that TAP crew are not as 'welcoming' as they were before. I guess this has to do with the govenaments crisis and the fact that they want to sell TAP. They are trying to inject as little money as possible into the Airline.

[redsnail]

I've been flying on TAP for 8 years now.
The attitude to the job has not changed.
However, talking and still standing in the galley whilst on final is not acceptable. (4 years ago) They only bothered to take their seats during the go-round.
How did I know they were on final, gear down, 2nd stage of flap selected.
The go-round was pretty obvious. (I suspect either windshear or unstable approach (well done by the flight crew).
There may well be brilliant individuals, however, overall, the cabin crew's attitude to the job needs to change.
Sorry.

[GuilhasXXI]

wow, thanks for trying to know more about me, care to know the rest ? :D

[SandyPalms]

Not particularly.

The idiocy of your post is simply that you imply that you know how other airlines pilots are trained. And that TAP pilot are trained better. That is something that you CAN NOT know. You are a BS artist. I am not in a mood. I'm just uninterested in a fool coming on here thinking he can swing it with the big boys, when he is so obviously not even remotely informed. Your not fooling anyone mate.

[GuilhasXXI]

I have absolutely no explanation to do whatsoever to you, posts like that don´t even deserve a response, you don´t know me, and don´t clearly know what my experience is, so you, such a 'big boy' why don´t you go back to knitting and keep your bad mood to yourself ?

[Hangar6]

Read the full 60 and disapointed to see no AER LINGUS

Jets since 1965 no hull losses or fatalities, yes ASKs are probably low but seems a jaundiced list to have ETIHAD in top ten when they are so new, yes safe too ,

as for BA founded in 1919 now that is stretching a point ...

I know for a flight to LHR in bad weather I would choose EI anyday over anyone on the list, of course I am biased.......so is the list

Even FR have had a hull loss ....and they get a mention:ugh:

[ZFT]

Even FR have had a hull loss ....and they get a mention:ugh:

So much for your post last week"79.6 MILLIONS PASSENGERS IN 12 MONTHS ,

I have decided to stop knocking this amazing success story in 2013,

well done folks ......:D"

[Hangar6]

I humbly apologise if you felt I was knocking FR , I wasnt, the crew were fantastic that day and I was attmepting to say what does a TOP 60 safe airline list actually mean.....I admire FR just not CEO ....

[MASTEMA]

GuilhasXXI

I don't care what the others say, you did a damn fine job flying that ultra low, TAP fly past.

Gutsiest thing I have ever seen Mav!! :ok:

[ZFT]

Hanger6

I meant it very tongue in cheek.

Cheers

[Anthill]

From GuilasXXI 16th Jan 2013:




What I usually do, being an ATPL student, is taking my medical license with
me and show the cabin crew. They take it to the captain and very often the
captain invites me to stay the rest of the flight in the cockpit, there are some
awesome crew´s outhere...


I think we have the call on this guy :cool:

[Tidbinbilla]

Judging by the past page or so, this thread has run its course.

TID