or a few "important people".

Or in the West?

Flight publishes their version of the truth
 

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

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. "

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.

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

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

How many IFSD's occurred in 2017?

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.

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)

@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.

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.

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

@DaveReidUK 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

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/co...16-14Jun17.pdf

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-4H6 AP-BJO Lahore-Allama Iqbal International Airport (LHE)

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

A real horror show.

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.

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

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.

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