2017 Safest year ever

[Heathrow Harry]

2017 was the safest year in history for commercial airlines, according to industry research.
There were no passenger jets crashes anywhere in the world, separate reports by Dutch consultancy To70 and The Aviation Safety Network found.
This was despite more flights being made than ever before.
But To70 warned that despite high safety levels on passenger planes, the "extraordinarily" low accident rate must be seen as "good fortune".
Cargo plane crash

A report by the Airline Safety Network said there were a total of ten fatal accidents, (https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/12/30/preliminary-asn-data-show-2017-safest-year-aviation-history/) resulting in 79 deaths last year. That compared with 16 accidents and 303 lives lost in 2016.
The organisation based its figures on incidents involving civil aircraft certified to carry at least 14 people.
The most serious accident of 2017 came in January when a Turkish cargo plane crashed into a village in Kyrgyzstan killing all four crew and 35 people on the ground. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38633526)
And the incident with the most on-board fatalities happened on New Years Eve, when a Nature Air single-propeller Cessna 208 Caravan plane crashed in western Costa Rica, killing 12 passengers and crew. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-42531482)
Neither report counted military or helicopter accidents, meaning the year's worst air disaster, the crash of a Burmese Y-8 military transporter plane, which crashed in June killing all 122 people on board (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40197318) did not appear in the statistics.
Incidents involving smaller planes also did not figure in the data.
Safety improving

Aviation deaths have been steadily falling for the last two decades. In 2005, there were more than 1,000 deaths on-board commercial passenger flights worldwide, the Aviation Safety Network said.
The last fatal passenger jet airliner accident took place in November 2016 in Colombia, and the last commercial passenger aircraft crash to kill more than 100 people occurred in Egypt a year earlier.
ASN said the accident rate was one fatal passenger flight accident per 7,360,000 flights.
"Since 1997 the average number of airliner accidents has shown a steady and persistent decline, for a great deal thanks to the continuing safety-driven efforts by international aviation organisations such as ICAO, IATA, Flight Safety Foundation and the aviation industry," ASN president Harro Ranter said.
Dutch consultancy To70, estimated there was now one fatal accident for every 16 million flights, (http://to70.com/to70s-civil-aviation-safety-review-2017/) though its report was compiled before the Costa Rica crash.
"2017 was the safest year for aviation ever," the firm's Adrian Young said, but added civil aviation still carried "very large risks".
He pointed to new technology including fears of lithium-ion batteries catching fire on-board, as well as "mental health issues and fatigue," among the main risk factors for the industry.
And he highlighted that there were "several quite serious non-fatal accidents" including the "spectacular" failure of an engine on an Air France A380 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41454712).

[G-CPTN]

A Turkish cargo plane flying from Hong Kong has crashed into a village in Kyrgyzstan, killing all four crew and at least 33 people on the ground.
I don't suppose that the victims on the ground were reassured that it wasn't a passenger-carrying aircraft.

[Heathrow Harry]

Still amazing - millions of flights and not a single mainline crash

[Hotel Tango]

and not a single mainline crash

I don't know where you get that from?

[BluSdUp]

Harry
Thanks for starting this thread.
I am impressed every week that goes by without a major hull loss, never mind a year.
Considering all the misunderstandings one hear on the radio and some of the brilliant ideas that are proposed in the flightdeck.
And that is just what I hear.

Reading reports has been a hobby of mine from November 1988 and as I have advanced up the MTOW ladder I have been fascinated by how easy it is to make the next takeoff the last, on any A/C , any Ops.

As I have learned from others to avoid or recover from mistakes, so has the industry.
SOP discipline and respect for rules and regs written after major accidents or trends is the biggest progress paired with better equipment TCAS and GPWS.

Training and the human factor has gone backwards the last 15 years, which is why I think 2017 was a one off.

So how do we secure more years of zero airline loss.
I have a few ideas , but that for later.

[Fire and brimstone]

If the CAA say it's been a safe year ............ then it MUST be true.

Excellent!

[Heathrow Harry]

I don't know where you get that from?

The last fatal passenger jet airliner accident took place in November 2016 in Colombia, and the last commercial passenger aircraft crash to kill more than 100 people occurred in Egypt a year earlier.

We'll have to wait fro Flight's detailed list but I suspect that almost no passengers lost their lives in an airline accident in 2017

[Super VC-10]

There were no passenger jets crashes anywhere in the world, separate reports by Dutch consultancy To70 and The Aviation Safety Network found.


Peruvian Airlines Flight 112, 28 March 2017 was a passenger jet crash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Airlines_Flight_112

[Jimbo2Papa]

I suppose that one could have been called an accident as suppose to a crash. Gear collapse after landing, subsequent fire, hull burnt out.
39 of the 150 pax onboard injured, no fatalities.

[Hotel Tango]

The last fatal passenger jet airliner accident took place in November 2016 in Colombia, and the last commercial passenger aircraft crash to kill more than 100 people occurred in Egypt a year earlier.

OK, but that's not what you said! For me there's a big difference between "mainline crash" and "mainline passenger fatalities". Hence my question.

[Heathrow Harry]

as a passenger most of the time...........................

[alainthailande]

I have a real issue with the way this quite welcome information is presented here and there. "No commercial jet crash with fatalities"... huh? why jet only? since when are turboprops no longer an integral part of commercial aviation? "no crash with fatalities of an aircraft of more than X seats"... yeah, sure, put the lower limit just where it fits conveniently.

Isn't it enough to say that the body count of this commercial aviation's year is the lowest in a long time? and just enjoy it as it is? why the need to twist statistics like this to make catchy titles?

[DaveReidUK]

OK, but that's not what you said! For me there's a big difference between "mainline crash" and "mainline passenger fatalities". Hence my question.

There was a fairly fine line between "crash" and fatalities in the Peru crash. On this occasion everybody got out, but it could have ended very differently.

http://tnews.com.pe/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/280317_f05.jpg

[donotdespisethesnake]

For different take on the data, try Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash-archives?created=2017-01-01&created_1=2017-12-31&field_crash_region_target_id=All&field_crash_country_target_id=&field_crash_registration_target_id=&field_crash_aircraft_target_id=&field_crash_operator_target_id=&field_crash_cause_target_id=All&field_crash_zone_target_id=&field_crash_site_type_target_id=All&field_crash_phase_type_target_id=All&field_crash_flight_type_target_id=All&field_crash_survivors_value=All&field_crash_city_target_id=) who record accidents involving aircraft capable of carrying 6 or more passengers, and where an accident results in an aircraft being withdrawn from service. They include several classes of aviation including military, balloons etc.

They record 101 accidents and 399 fatalities for 2017, which historically is still a low figure.

[A320ECAM]

There may have been no "accidents" this year, but boy did it have many close encounters!

2018 is Emirates' year I am predicting!

[tdracer]

There was a fairly fine line between "crash" and fatalities in the Peru crash. On this occasion everybody got out, but it could have ended very differently.
That's one reason the manufactures track the 'hull loss rate' - at least for takeoff/landing accidents if it's bad enough to write-off the aircraft, the difference between fatal/non-fatal is often just luck.
Since pure cargo operators have different rules and regulations, it seems fair to segregate their statistics - even though the outcomes can be just as tragic.
All that being said, with the huge increases in air traffic, if we had the same accident rate today as we did in the early 1970s we'd average a major air disaster every week. For all the weaknesses in the current system, going an entire year without a commercial jetliner fatality is pretty darned impressive.

[WingSlinger]

One man died, a few days after the crash.
603102-plane-crashes-after-takeoff-northern-saskatchewan-25-people-board.html

[ozaub]

More amazingly we got to Nov 15 without any passenger fatalities on any scheduled service; not even on more lightly regulated regional services. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2017
Since then there have been five passenger fatalities on two turbo-prop airliners
On 15 November 2017 LET 410 operating Khabarovsk Airlines Flight 463 crashed into a wooded area while on approach to Nelkan, Russia. The crash killed four of the five passengers and two crew.
On 13 December 2017 ATR 42 operating West Wind Aviation Flight 280 crashed shortly after taking off from Fond-du-Lac, Canada. All 25 passengers and crews initially survived the crash, but one passenger later died of injuries.
In addition on 31 December 2017 a Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crashed shortly after takeoff from Punta Islita, Costa Rica killing 10 passengers and two crew. Nature Air operates scheduled (121) flights but I understand the crash was a charter. Sorry to draw the distinction but from regulatory viewpoint it is important.

[Heathrow Harry]

and serious effort is needed further down the chain - Regionals and Private flying still have a pattern of repeated accidents that really should be avoidable

[woptb]

I use the speeding analogy,how careful are you & for how long,when you’ve just had a speeding ticket! To paraphrase what was said in the report ,are we safe or just lucky? In preventation terms a near miss,whilst not as visible as an accident,it’s just as important.

[Heathrow Harry]

I thinks the Flight Stats when they come will show the running averages - and they have been sharply down over the last few years.

Seems to be related to better avionics and reduction of CFIT TBH

[OntimeexceptACARS]

There may have been no "accidents" this year, but boy did it have many close encounters!

2018 is Emirates' year I am predicting!

A320ECAM, I have no connection to Emirates nor any of its companies or territory, but that is a pretty crass statement. In the past people may have said the same about Korean Air, or Garuda, or even Air France, based on safety related events but predictions....please.

[ATC Watcher]

Which brings the interesting question : what is the real reason behind it ?

Because however you look at the stats , even including turboptrops and Cargo, it was a very safe year , especially considering the raise of traffic.
But is this because new regulations are being a designed and applied , or is it simply because airlines make money again , renew fleets ? did they take training more seriously those last years ? Is fatigue being addressed ?
What do you think ?

[gearlever]

EK safest Airline 2017
AERO International und aeroscope ? das Online-Portal der Zivilluftfahrt - Studie: Die 20 sichersten Airlines des Jahres (http://www.aerointernational.de/airlines-nachrichten/studie-die-20-sichersten-airlines-des-jahres.html)

[tdracer]

Which brings the interesting question : what is the real reason behind it ?It's pretty much everything - better aircraft, better engines, better avionics, better protection against 'dumbass' (e.g. CFIT), better air traffic control and TCAS, better training, better CRM, better oversight. It's literally the incorporation of lessons learned from decades of air disasters.
And yes, there are still areas of concern - fatigue being a big one, another being erosion of pilot skill among the newbies with blind obedience to SOP (e.g. "children of the magenta line").
I also don't see much being done to effectively address 'pilot suicide', which has sadly and disturbing been moving up the list of accident causes.

[bafanguy]

I also don't see much being done to effectively address 'pilot suicide', which has sadly and disturbing been moving up the list of accident causes.

What would you propose as something "... to effectively address 'pilot suicide'..." ?

[Odins Raven]

A320ECAM, I have no connection to Emirates nor any of its companies or territory, but that is a pretty crass statement. In the past people may have said the same about Korean Air, or Garuda, or even Air France, based on safety related events but predictions....please.

To be fair, he/she IS basing their opinion on the increase in near misses at said airline. Whether an accident will come to fruition is another argument, but the methods that company appears to be using to address the problem (read the ME forum) are rather questionable. Korean and Garuda brought in outside help due to cultural issues, said airline has relied even more on cultural differences to attempt to address the problem. Hopefully we won’t see another accident there but it’s easy to see why some are predicting it.

[tdracer]

What would you propose as something "... to effectively address 'pilot suicide'..." ?
That's not my job - I simply raise it as a concern (I was involved in the 'better aircraft, better engines" camp).
That being said, pilot suicide is a problem - there have been at least a dozen air disasters over the last 30 years where pilot suicide is listed as a probable cause (Germanwings being an exception in there is no doubt it was pilot suicide). And the steps taken since the Germanwings disaster are basically window dressing of dubious value.

[DaveReidUK]

EK safest Airline 2017

That's to be expected - they were ranked 7th safest overall by JACDEC for 2016, so with one less hull loss in 2017 they were bound to be top. :ugh:

[CargoOne]

another being erosion of pilot skill among the newbies with blind obedience to SOP (e.g. "children of the magenta line").

I have no doubt the major factor pushing the safety up is exactly the younger generation of pilots who used to obey SOP. It is not perfect but still works much better than anything else.

[ozaub]

In addition to factors listed by tdracer #26 let’s give credit to the International Civil Aviation Organization. In recent years ICAO’s mentoring and audits have helped ensure that its Standards and Recommended Practices are implemented worldwide. ICAO does not check individual airlines, just that National Aviation Authorities do their job properly.
ICAO has a neat tool to compare competencies of different Authorities; https://www.icao.int/safety/pages/usoap-results.aspx. For instance China has overcome its poor safety record to rank alongside Australia, but not as highly as Canada. Singapore is brilliant.

[framer]

What would you propose as something "... to effectively address 'pilot suicide'..." ?
I don’t know if it would ‘effectively address’ pilot suicide, but implementing science based flight and Duty time limitations would directly effect the mental health of pilots. Lack of recovery time after circadian disruption is known to lead to depression and my uneducated guess is that increased depression amongst pilots leads to greater risk of ‘pilot suicide’.
Australia is a good example of how Airlines successfully lobby to prevent implementation of fatigue rules, ie commercial gain outweighs safety.

[Tankertrashnav]

It is interesting that no matter how low the statistics go there is still a widespread fear of flying among the general public and a belief that it is inherently dangerous and that accidents are much more common than they actually are. To an extent the same can be said of rail travel (in the UK, at least) where numbers of passenger fatalities in recent years have been vanishingly low. I presume that the false perception is reinforced by the fact that rare aviation and rail crashes are given widespread press and TV coverage because of the very fact that their rarity makes them newsworthy.

Conversely the really dangerous form of travel, ie the private car, is regarded as safe by most people. I suppose it may have something to do with familiarity and the erroneous belief that as the drivers themselves are in control they must be safer.

[keitaidenwa]

There was a fairly fine line between "crash" and fatalities in the Peru crash. On this occasion everybody got out, but it could have ended very differently.

Air Canada in SFO was also way too close. Had they pulled up a few seconds later, and the Headline of this post would be "deadliest year in American aviation since..."

So while aviation has become safer, we also had a very lucky year.

[airsound]

Interesting piece by Karen Walker in Air Transport World.
Media reaction to ?safest year? for airlines is telling | ATW Editor's Blog (http://atwonline.com/blog/media-reaction-safest-year-airlines-telling?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180104_AW-05_955&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000001187552&utm_campaign=13132&utm_medium=email&elq2=dab9f21f050248e0830c3226fd03e1d3)

Basically, pax accept, and expect, commercial flying to be safe. They'd also like it be fun again...

Fat chance, I suspect.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, safety is (or should be) a given.

As for fun, I think most pax would settle for comfort and punctuality.

[aterpster]

I can only speak to U.S. carriers. Passenger comfort has been a steady downward curve since 911.

[Heathrow Harry]

True but only up to a point -

The MAIN PRIORITY is not killing people................... so we did well last year

Incidents are important as they flag issues that MAY cause problems in the future - and better still you can actually talk to the people involved and you have a lot more data than a battered flight recorder.

[ATC Watcher]

The MAIN PRIORITY is not killing people...
Agree but partially , because not injuring them is also an issue , and not wrecking air frames as well.
Accidents like the AF A340 in Toronto for instance will not be in this statistic and it was one major accident with some pax receiving serious injuries, a total write off and good lessons to learn from.
This survey defines Safety by applying some filters to prove their point , i.e to show the "first year" without passengers fatalities. (which is not really true also as it does not count GA , small regional OPS ) It excludes crew fatalities from that Stat at well .
So a good year , yes, but accident free , definitively not .

[DaveReidUK]

This might be a good time to remind ourselves of what Annex 13 has to say:

"The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result"Most AIBs operate on that principle, at least in theory, where as much attention should be paid to precursor events that didn't have a catastrophic outcome as to those that did.

In practice, though, a combination of public outrage, media pressure and lack of resources means that it's only the ones that kill a lot of people that get a 400-page investigation report.

[Heathrow Harry]

or a few "important people".

[ZFT]

Or in the West?

[MrNosy2]

Flight has now published their 2017 Airline Safety & Losses report if people are interested. Slightly different numbers (different definitions - lies, damn lies and statistics!) but the same message. Report runs to over 25 pages with lots of graphs, tables and stuff. I downloaded if for free from https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/22490 or if that doesn't work there is a link to the report from their news story on FlightGlobal.com

[Heathrow Harry]

Flight normally has more details than others on individual accidents in the list - plus they've been doing it for years so there are fewer changes in definitions

Their running average shows:-

"On average, from the point of view of passengers, the airline industry as a whole, over the last five years was almost eight times safer than it was as recently as ten years ago and almost 20 times safer than 20 years ago. "

[bud leon]

It is interesting that no matter how low the statistics go there is still a widespread fear of flying among the general public and a belief that it is inherently dangerous and that accidents are much more common than they actually are. To an extent the same can be said of rail travel (in the UK, at least) where numbers of passenger fatalities in recent years have been vanishingly low. I presume that the false perception is reinforced by the fact that rare aviation and rail crashes are given widespread press and TV coverage because of the very fact that their rarity makes them newsworthy.

Conversely the really dangerous form of travel, ie the private car, is regarded as safe by most people. I suppose it may have something to do with familiarity and the erroneous belief that as the drivers themselves are in control they must be safer.

It has a lot do with that. It's a well known and proven concept in the field of risk perception that the degree of control that people perceive they have over risk alters their perception of risk. It is most clear when comparing voluntary and involuntary risk. When people choose to do a risky activity they usually perceive the risk as lower than when they have a risk enforced upon them. For example people who smoke may perceive the risk of a new power transmission line built near their home as the greater cancer risk.

Studies show most people rank their perception of a range of risks very differently to the statistical ranking of those risks. Humans are not very good at assessing risk. That's one reason for safety systems. Humans are prone to taking short cuts and underestimating the risk of taking the short cut. Many aircraft incidents have occurred because pilots perceive the risk of going around or diverting as greater than landing in unsafe conditions (for example).

The other key elements in fear of flying are that the experience of being 35,000 feet in the air is totally unnatural, that combines with the thought that you may experience falling to your death for an extended period of time. Add that to the experience that you are strapped into a seat not in control of anything and you get fear of flying.

In these cases statistics mean nothing, it is an emotional response.

[Heathrow Harry]

When you look at road deaths -over 1700 on uk roads in 2016 you see the disconnect in perception of risk

[_Phoenix]

Not that obvious if you consider an average of 1 round trip per day by car and 1 trip per year by plane

[Redpanda]

How many IFSD's occurred in 2017?

[ATC Watcher]

I remember listening to a presentation long ago which used "hours of exposure" to determine actual risk in modes of transport comparison..
Totally different figures of course. Trains and bus.coaches scored the best and much higher than air travel. And one when one took distance traveled, cars were still scoring better ( i.e safer) but then marginally.

[stb155]

Out of those 1700, about how many died while doing absolutely nothing wrong ?
(Nothing reasonable they could have done to avoid it)

With cars you have much more control over the risk you take.
When, where, how and which car you drive for example, or as passenger choice of whom you drive with or not.

With planes your only choice is which airline you fly with, and that should make no difference safety wise since they all have to play by the same rules/stick to the same regulations.


I think i won't remember 2017 as safest year ever, for me it is the year we came as close as possible to setting a new record (for most killed in one accident) without actually doing it.
(SFO, nearly landing on crowded taxiway, misssing the tail of the 1st in row by a hair)

[ATC Watcher]

@stb155 : very good points .
Only one example to add to your points , the runway excursions . They are on the rise and becoming the top safety issue in the last years, 2017 included . The fact that they do not produce many ( or no) fatalities brings the notion of luck in many cases. ( one has to look at the pictures of the Pegasus 737 last week to prove my point )
We should not rely on these optimistic statistics to rejoice ourselves as some suggest it.

[DaveReidUK]

The assertion that runway excursions arer on the rise isn't borne out by the statistics. For many years, they have typically accounted for about one quarter of the (reducing) number of accidents and incidents.

[Heathrow Harry]

Agreed - I think they're just reported more now - same as go-rounds

these days you have real-time internet coverage of flights, more people listenign in and the means to spread the word instantly

and the Media's need for 24/7 news means it all gets out

[ATC Watcher]

@DaveReidUK The assertion that runway excursions are on the rise isn't borne out by the statistics. For many years, they have typically accounted for about one quarter of the (reducing) number of accidents and incidents.

I unfortunately cannot find back the exact figures from a power point presentation, done by the FSF if I remember correctly. But the key message was that they were on the rise this last decade after having been constant. They were now the biggest chunk of the (ppt) cheese. That said it also showed that CFIT decreased dramatically in the same period (due EGWPS) so that might explain the rise too.
As someone once said " only trust the statistics you made yourself":E

[PEI_3721]

ATC, #57.
I have a similar vague recollection of increasing numbers, however this should not be confused with the graphic relating the number of accidents with the projected increase in flights. Thus whilst the overrun accident rate might remain low, an increasing number accidents due to increased operations with the same accident rate could be perceived as an overall increase, thus the FSF objective was to reduce the number of overruns.

The above was based on a public view of safety, the risk of fatalities when flying. The current low fatality rate might give the public a false sense of security - to be dashed by one wide body accident with multiple fatalities, or maintained with a change in media attention to the fear of flying - engine failure, vibration, turbulence etc; beware the media as a threat to flight safety.
The most important aspect is that the industry should not hold the same views, drift into complacency. The risks are still there, although more often in different forms, but they have to be managed.

Airbus’ statistical review provides more a practical view than others. This show that there are differences in the technological age of aircraft, world regions, and perhaps operational environment, but these should not be used to argue safety success elsewhere; consider how close the industry has been to ‘fatal’ margins - 777, A340 landing accidents hull loss. Also see the general thread on 737 overruns.

http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/safety-first/Airbus-Commercial-Aviation-Accidents-1958-2016-14Jun17.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-4H6 AP-BJO Lahore-Allama Iqbal International Airport (LHE) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20151103-0)

is one Flight marks out as an amazingly awful "near-miss".

A real horror show.

[RAT 5]

I know it is not quite on thread topic, but as it's been published here: that ASN crash report above is one of the worst I've ever read. It truly is horrendous. If the F/O had the temerity, character, wherewithal, (I'm out for words) to take control <400' and then relinquish it and take it back again, why did he not make a GA when he had the chance and had control? The train wreck was under construction in sow motion; there were so many opportunities to bail out, even as low as 200'. One wonders what the training culture was in this outfit. I know it's difficult for westerners to understand such local cultural issues, but I'm still utterly confused by apparent suicidal tendencies of supposedly educated & intelligent professionals, even if it at the hands of others. Allowing someone to smash your bones, and watching them do it, is semi suicidal, IMHO.
Apologies for thread drift.

Back to aviation safety I hope Trump passes on the magic baton otherwise we are all doomed. The risk is that if aviation continues to expand at such a rapid rate, especially at the cheap end in some less than stringently regulated territories, it will be impossible to have a strong oversight on standards. Rapid expansion of such airlines, driven by greed and perceived mega gains for either owners or share holders, will be the priority over a safe solid high standard Flt Ops & training depts. Walk & talk, with a licence and few options, prepared to work for peanuts, then have a seat at the sharp end and enjoy the ride.
Cynical? Well you only have to read similar accident reports, and wonder how many near misses were there, and read the reported incident reports to believe the is not cynicism.

[J.O.]

How someone of that level of incompetence was allowed a command is another valid question.

[ShotOne]

Why is this thread full of phrases like "false sense of security" , "incompetence" etc? This just highlights how pprune has become overrun with haters desperate to run down our industry any way they can.

These figures are truly impressive; let's hope other professions are watching; how many avoidable deaths were caused by medical professionals in 2017 for instance? Even the usual pprune haters sat at home on their Mum's computers can't pretend this safety record is anything other than outstanding.

[Heathrow Harry]

As the OP I think it's fair that people point out it's great but we're a long way from being confident we can repeat it year in year out

What is clear that the margins between incident and accident are small and the extent is only really visible with modern reporting that covers almost every flight incident.

But we can chip away steadily to improve the margins and focus on the items (such as runway excursions) that make up many of the incidents - this will, in turn lower the long term accident rates

[RAT 5]

These figures are truly impressive; Even the usual PPRuNe haters can't pretend this safety record is anything other than outstanding.

Indeed they are. But as long as the 'quick buck' airline brigade continue to expand, or start up on a shoe-string, and employ pilots like these 2 on the Lahore crash the risk of more crashes is enhanced frighteningly. Pax do not want to feel they are in a lottery. An accident might be considered acceptable if there are unforeseen circumstances, which combined with bad luck where events moved so fast out of your control, that it was indeed a true accident. When it is a crash caused by incompetence & perhaps negligence, and or ignorant behaviour that make matters worse, and an unavoidable crash happens then we have the right to ask questions on behalf of the victims. They will not be calmed by saying that 'overall it was a good year'. There are some people who should not be sitting up front, and there are many managers, trainers, XAA's etc. who bear some responsibility for allowing it. Fault is not all down to the individual.

[Heathrow Harry]

Yes but.........

It's simple to show that the rise of LCO's has led to a diminution in accidents- this is the beauty of statistics (!)

However, possible contributions include that LCO's tend to fly newer aircraft, their fleets are all the same or very similar so you reduce the opportunities for confusion in both flying (and perhaps more important) maintenance crews. They also tend to fly more bus-stop flights a pilot is likely to do the same flight several times a day or week cp the legacy carriers who have more variety.

And the fact that most tend to fly to reasonably well equipped airfields (excluding Indonesia.) helps

Plus of course they fly so damned many airmiles - so the accidents/incidents that do happen are spread over a lot more flights/pax/kms.

[RAT 5]

has led to a diminution in accidents-

Rate of accidents? I wonder about the rate of significant incidents that we hear nothing about? For me that is measure of increase or not in safety, and also the same with training standards.

this is the beauty of statistics

if you are a statistician. Get a hard on by .01% change.

[J.O.]

Why is this thread full of phrases like "false sense of security" , "incompetence" etc? This just highlights how pprune has become overrun with haters desperate to run down our industry any way they can.

These figures are truly impressive; let's hope other professions are watching; how many avoidable deaths were caused by medical professionals in 2017 for instance? Even the usual pprune haters sat at home on their Mum's computers can't pretend this safety record is anything other than outstanding.

Haters, or just a healthy unease in the face of complacency?

It's not that long ago that some big wigs at NASA pooh poohed the warnings from Morton Thiokol engineers who advised them not to launch the Challenger in the prevailing cold temperatures. Those engineers knew the data and were right to be uneasy with the recent performance of the SRB O-rings. The rest - as they say - is history.

Recent near miss events in our industry across the world should be a wake-up call that we've been lucky almost as much as we've been good. So you can call me a hater if you want, but I'll keep my healthy skepticism for now.

[krismiler]

Safest year but quite a few close calls, definitely a lucky year. Improvements in training and technology contribute but with the increase in traffic volume they will have to, as with the numbers involved even a tiny fraction of a percent will be significant.

Fortunately our knowledge base keeps growing and we keep learning.

[Heathrow Harry]

"I wonder about the rate of significant incidents that we hear nothing about?"

But we never heard about them in the past either .... in fact it's clear we hear about more incidents in greater detail than ever before - blame the WWW or 24 hour news or Social Media but it's clearly the case

Although occasionally annoying I think it's a good thing.. - 25 years ago few runway excursions were ever reported unless there was serious damage to people or kit for example - now everyone knows in 24 hours if you put a tyre in the mud ................ and with pictures or even videos........

[J.O.]

Success is an enemy of aviation safety

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ainsight-success-enemy-aviation-safety

[Heathrow Harry]

Well the crash in Moscow shows we still have a ways to go.................

[Piltdown Man]

There huge are diffences between safe, lucky, unsafe and accident free. It was good to hear that in 2017 there were no major public transport accidents resulting in death reported. But let’s not kid ourselves, we should be prepared at all times to do whatever we have to do to recover it situation that has gone wrong. Our friends in the sandpit are leading the way in safety by battering their crews with their safety stick (I’m sure that will work). And even at Birdseed things are not much better. The AAIB made some interesting comments about the way the Airbus with open cowls was flown. This is not a criticism of the crew involved but of the highly restrictive SOP’s under which they have to operate. I’m afraid we are as dangerous (or as safe) as we have been for a long time. The next smoking hole in the ground will not come as a surprise to me. My prediction is that it will involve an aircraft flown with highly restrictive SOP’s.

PM

[Bergerie1]

And here is another one in quick succession. The quirks of chance?

Iran plane crash: All 66 people on board feared dead - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43103192)

[Heathrow Harry]

partly reversion to the mean of course - and it's bad winter weather season in places like Iran and Russia which are amongst the less safe places to fly

[ATC Watcher]

@Heathrow Harry :

We have different accidents these days - or more likely we always had accidents like this - it's only because we've reduced the others (eg CFT, engine problems etc) that we focus on these loss-of-control occurrences
You are probably right. A question to you if I may : Do you see the huge increase in safety regulations in the last decades having an impact on the reduction of accidents?

[bafanguy]

FYI:


“The Foundation acknowledged 2017 was the safest year in the history of commercial aviation, with no reported fatalities in commercial passenger jet operations worldwide. But with recent crashes occurring in Russia and Iran, the Foundation warned against the dangers of complacency.”

https://flightsafety.org/fsf-calls-renewed-focus-quality-pilot-training-proficiency/

[FAR CU]

this is the beauty of statistics

if you are a statistician. Get a hard on by .01% change.


What are you saying? Stick to the point and get your hand off it.
And if you can't , then change hands cobber.

[tdracer]

"Near Misses" have always been there - there is a statistical relationship where - over time - a certain percentage of close calls aren't misses - they result in accidents. However I'd argue that innovations such as TCAS and GPWS/EGPWS mean that more mistakes result in near misses and not accidents (i.e. the percentage of accidents relative to near misses has been dropping). Of course, no system is perfect. We're taking untrained humans, flying them at nearly 600 mph six miles up, and depositing them a few thousand miles away with such regularity and precision that the biggest concern these human now have is how comfortable the seat was or how good (or bad) their in-flight food tasted. I'm repeating myself, but if we had the same rate of jetliner crashes today as we did just 40 years ago, we'd have a major disaster every week.
BTW, not too long ago jet aircraft were ranked second to trains in safety - it appears the trains are now in second place. We've killed more train passengers in the last couple months in Washington state (3) than have died in jet airline accidents in the USA in the previous 18 months (0). And the Washington state train accident is only one of several fatal train accidents in the USA in the last 18 months.