CAA Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011
The UK CAA have just published this:
CAP 1036: Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011 | Publications | About the CAA
Was just scanning through it and one thing really stood out:
Take a look at page 31 for a comparison between Europe and North America - Europe has 2.5 times the number of fatal accidents of North America for 2/3rds the number of hours flown!
Haven't read much of it as my bowl of cornflakes didn't last long enough, but that one certainly caught my eye!
CAP 1036: Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011 | Publications | About the CAA
Was just scanning through it and one thing really stood out:
Take a look at page 31 for a comparison between Europe and North America - Europe has 2.5 times the number of fatal accidents of North America for 2/3rds the number of hours flown!
Haven't read much of it as my bowl of cornflakes didn't last long enough, but that one certainly caught my eye!
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Leicester, UK
Age: 32
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Europe figures are split into operators of the 15 EU member states of 2002 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands Portugal, Spain, Sweden & the UK) and then the rest of Europe (including the states which joined the EU during 2002-2011).
The EU member states flew 70% of the number of hours as the rest of Europe, yet the accident rate was three times less!
The EU member states flew 70% of the number of hours as the rest of Europe, yet the accident rate was three times less!
Last edited by James1809; 4th Jul 2013 at 06:47.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 31 and page 17 appear to disagree with each other?
Figure 11 Page 17 says
Numbers of world wide fatal accidents broken down by operator region..
Europe 55
North America 44
Table 6 Page 31 says
Summary of the number and rate of fatal accidents and fatalities broken down by operator region..
Europe (EU) 48 (9)
North America 18
Figure 11 Page 17 says
Numbers of world wide fatal accidents broken down by operator region..
Europe 55
North America 44
Table 6 Page 31 says
Summary of the number and rate of fatal accidents and fatalities broken down by operator region..
Europe (EU) 48 (9)
North America 18
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, all good stuff, well-prepared, comprehensive. I assume it's accurate, but I haven't yet checked the data. An excellent guide for the global industry on where to focus its efforts to eliminate/reduce the most common causal factors of fatal accidents.
So, congratulations, UK CAA.
Now please explain why you devoted the huge resources that must have been used to research and produce the report, at a time when you are pleading shortages of resources when criticised for the often appalling service that you offer to operators, other regulated organisations and licence holders.
This report should be done by ICAO, and probably has been/will be. Or, if not then it's EASA's job. It is definitely not the CAA's job to produce such a report for free distribution round the world, even if the world actually wants it.
Does every (or any) other EASA Member State also produce a report on global fatal air accidents?
The UK industry may not be enthusiastic about its money, taken by the CAA in fees and charges, being used for such projects instead of improvements in the services paid for; delays of months are commonplace in regulatory work that should take days, and questionable decisions and errors of judgement are increasingly common, leading to further costs and delays.
The report does nothing to prove what an excellent organisation the CAA is, as I suspect it was intended to; it just proves that the CAA puts self-aggrandisement at the top of its priorities.
So I'm sorry to rain on your parade, UK CAA, but why not try and get things right at home first?
So, congratulations, UK CAA.
Now please explain why you devoted the huge resources that must have been used to research and produce the report, at a time when you are pleading shortages of resources when criticised for the often appalling service that you offer to operators, other regulated organisations and licence holders.
This report should be done by ICAO, and probably has been/will be. Or, if not then it's EASA's job. It is definitely not the CAA's job to produce such a report for free distribution round the world, even if the world actually wants it.
Does every (or any) other EASA Member State also produce a report on global fatal air accidents?
The UK industry may not be enthusiastic about its money, taken by the CAA in fees and charges, being used for such projects instead of improvements in the services paid for; delays of months are commonplace in regulatory work that should take days, and questionable decisions and errors of judgement are increasingly common, leading to further costs and delays.
The report does nothing to prove what an excellent organisation the CAA is, as I suspect it was intended to; it just proves that the CAA puts self-aggrandisement at the top of its priorities.
So I'm sorry to rain on your parade, UK CAA, but why not try and get things right at home first?
Last edited by Capot; 4th Jul 2013 at 07:21.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume it's accurate
Yes, all good stuff, well-prepared, comprehensive.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number of fatalities is not an accurate measure of system safety. Accidents/Hull losses per million departures is better. A mid air collision can have the same contributing factors but more or less fatalities depending on aircraft types involved.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@4Greens.
Exactly, when only looking at fatalities, even lionair might be considered safe...
However would hull losses be sufficient? If I overrun every tenth landing but recover the plane without (many) fatalities, does that make me safe?
Exactly, when only looking at fatalities, even lionair might be considered safe...
However would hull losses be sufficient? If I overrun every tenth landing but recover the plane without (many) fatalities, does that make me safe?
Page 31 and page 17 appear to disagree with each other?
Figure 11 Page 17 says
Numbers of world wide fatal accidents broken down by operator region..
Europe 55
North America 44
Table 6 Page 31 says
Summary of the number and rate of fatal accidents and fatalities broken down by operator region..
Europe (EU) 48 (9)
North America 18
Figure 11 Page 17 says
Numbers of world wide fatal accidents broken down by operator region..
Europe 55
North America 44
Table 6 Page 31 says
Summary of the number and rate of fatal accidents and fatalities broken down by operator region..
Europe (EU) 48 (9)
North America 18
Notwithstanding what it says in Para 1 on the same page, I believe that this total is all accidents involving commercial operations of aircraft above 5,700kg.
The stats in the remainder of the document relate solely to turbine aircraft (either 205 or 206 fatal accidents, some tables differ).
In other words, the difference between the two figures is accounted for by assorted piston-engined Convairs, DC-3s, etc.
That's my theory, anyway - if anyone can come up with a better one, feel free.
