Cathay on top of safety ranking
Quote:
The JACDEC rating is just accidents against RPKs and is pretty meaningless.
not true. there were eight different criteria of safety measuring
Yes but basically 8 different ways of saying the same thing.
The JACDEC rating is just accidents against RPKs and is pretty meaningless.
not true. there were eight different criteria of safety measuring
Yes but basically 8 different ways of saying the same thing.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, the airlines had 3 hull losses and a fair few serious incidents in 2013.
US Airways @ PHL
Southwest @LGA
UPS @ BHX
Mercifully with only the loss of 2 lives. Nothing other than luck prevented that US Airbus from killing all on board.
Let's not get carried away. US Training is as poor as any in the developed world. By the time guys get to the Majors, however, they do have experience. Apparently that doesn't always count for a great deal.
US Airways @ PHL
Southwest @LGA
UPS @ BHX
Mercifully with only the loss of 2 lives. Nothing other than luck prevented that US Airbus from killing all on board.
Let's not get carried away. US Training is as poor as any in the developed world. By the time guys get to the Majors, however, they do have experience. Apparently that doesn't always count for a great deal.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mcnugget
The fact that US airlines had 3 hull loses is irrelevant. It's the loses per million departures or whatever the departure yardstick is. The US airline industry would leave most countries for dust when it comes to the number of sectors as do most domestic carriers compared to LH, 6 sectors per a/c per day to a LH of maybe 2/3.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not disputing that. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Another way of looking at it, equally factually, is that US airlines have had a large number of hull losses in the last 30 years. Many other airlines haven't had one.
Another way of looking at it, equally factually, is that US airlines have had a large number of hull losses in the last 30 years. Many other airlines haven't had one.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McNugget
I disagree and I think you're missing the point; that some airlines have had no accidents is hardly relevant. If you have some 10 a/c company that takes 60 yrs to fly what another airline with 300 a/c will do in 5, the fact that first airline may have operated 20 yrs without incident means zilch.
If you mean comparing LH to SH is apples and oranges, again, I'd disagree. The primary metric is the loses per departure yardstick. The only difference will be it'll appear to the casual observer that LH is safer, which statistically may not be the case.
If you mean comparing LH to SH is apples and oranges, again, I'd disagree. The primary metric is the loses per departure yardstick. The only difference will be it'll appear to the casual observer that LH is safer, which statistically may not be the case.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have worded it poorly, but I do agree with your last comment.
The point I so poorly tried to make, is that there isn't any statistically accurate way to compare the last 30 years at CX, or QF to United. One can argue bogus statistical comparisons, but without the requisite data (ie one airline with an insufficient number of departures for comparison), it's not valid.
Based on this, I see no reason to claim the US airlines are safer than QF/CX, just because they have more departures to their name...
The point I so poorly tried to make, is that there isn't any statistically accurate way to compare the last 30 years at CX, or QF to United. One can argue bogus statistical comparisons, but without the requisite data (ie one airline with an insufficient number of departures for comparison), it's not valid.
Based on this, I see no reason to claim the US airlines are safer than QF/CX, just because they have more departures to their name...
that some airlines have had no accidents is hardly relevant.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McNugget
I disagree, I'd have thought that data would be readily available. If not and your US airline of choice loses one today the departures for your comparable airline as of today would be readily known and you'd have a good idea of how many yrs (decades) it would take to fly a similar number i.e. how many yrs of accident free ops to equal.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with me, but the fact remains that given the timeframes covered, question, technical and safety related advances, airlines of vastly different sample sizes, weighted mains, etc., statistics can be used to argue that CX, for example, is the safest around, and vice versa.
If that's too much of a stretch to understand, then so be it.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with me, but the fact remains that given the timeframes covered, question, technical and safety related advances, airlines of vastly different sample sizes, weighted mains, etc., statistics can be used to argue that CX, for example, is the safest around, and vice versa.
If that's too much of a stretch to understand, then so be it.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversely, the more cynical amongst the statistical mathematician crowd would tell you that the longer since your last accident, the higher the chances the next one will happen soon...
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the chance of the next flip being heads is still 50/50.
In other words, shifted weight in a coin (slightly less of safety culture) will be giving out higher values that indicates more than 50% chance of crashing... Every time.
