>>It seems that the industrialized nations produce a higher number of people who excel at flying airplanes. <<

Gee, all this time I thought South Korea was pretty industrialized...

The Delta safety audit on KAL.

"9. Crew must use a torch for preflight at night, this is sometimes not done."

Crew must use a TORCH? C'mon, I can't imagine a Delta Airlines pilot using the word torch in place of flashlight.

Like I said, obviously not a product of an audit team from Delta Air Lines. This dubious document has been touted as the gospel from ATL by some gullible folks here and elsewhere for quite a while now.

You can BS the fans, but you can't BS the players...

Over here in the U.S. we don't worry too much about loosening neckties and armrests. Or turning off our nav lights during the day (maybe it's a Cessna thing).

We set our clocks to local time since we never fly to Green-witch.

Why, we're just a bunch of country boys tryin' to earn a livin'.

Ok, Bubba, how about "Western Culture" instead of "industrialized nations".

Don't make me come down to the Waffle House and whup yer ass...:D TC

I note that Guus Hiddink, the Dutch manager of South Korea's World Cup soccer team was held in such high esteem by the Koreans after their success in the Summer that it was felt necessary to reward him greatly for his assistance to the country. Among other rewards bestowed upon him as a hero of the Korean nation, Mr Hiddink was given free first-class travel for 4 years with Korean Airlines (KAL) - whenever and wherever he wanted. Presumably had they been knocked out at the group stage instead of the semis then Mr Hiddink would have been given 8 years free travel instead!

(Edited for bad spelling of Mr Hiddink's name - apologies to my Cloggie cousins!)

He's called Guus Hiddink, NSF. Not Gus Heykonk.
:eek: ;)

"He's called Guus Hiddink, NSF. Not Gus Heykonk. "

Correct Flaps, gus heykonk is a local Korean delicacy; frogs ear, sliced in very thin pieces, fried in Ginseng oil.

Cheers

KAOS

Last I heard from someone there is that KAL now has between 500-600 foreign captains, just under 50%.

It lowers the odds but I am afraid they still don't pass my acid test.

Would I put my wife and kids on KAL? The answer is still NO I am afraid.

>Does Lloyd's (Insurance) of London, or any other organization, have any secret ratings and ranking for many airlines around the world, based on risk factors, whether international carriers or domestic only?
<

Yes, that's only a portion of how they decide on what rates you will get. Of course if one airline has three crashes in a year most all airlines are sure to sustain higher (but not the highest) rates as well. Much more complicatesd then this, but I was interpreting what you might have been hinting at.

If one were to muse some more along these lines, would your inference be to punish the arline somehow by placing him in a "bad driver" category like with auto insurrance..

Don't forget the airline is mostly a user of equipment and the real owners are the folks like leassors and Boeing/Airbus who haven't been paid off as yet. Thus their liens against the equipment need carry insurrance as well.

Probably best to encourage flight safety in other ways

Large airline Vs. small airline
 

This is exactly what the airframe manufacturers do. When they sell a plane(s) to a large airline they take the following into consideration: the operational record of the airline, the qualifications and experience of the pilots and the maintenance operations, the quality of the airfields serviced by the airline, the climatic conditions under which the aircraft are to be operated and many other things related to the airlines operations. All of these elements are factored in when the service warrantees are calculated, the level of spares that must accompany the first aircraft are determined and other logistical elements. British Airways would get a much better deal from the airframe manufacturer than Bumdung Airlines that operates in Africa or Asia. No two airlines would get the same deal.

On the basis of a preiminary review of the accident rate charts below, I tentatively conclude the following:

1) KAL has a higher accident rate than most other airlines

2) As a group, European and Australian airlines have a significantly higher accident rate than U.S. airlines. Thus, by the same logic of those opposed to KAL travel (mostly Europeans and Australians, it seems from this and past discussions), the traveling public should avoid European and Australian airlines, as well as KAL.

3) Air is the safest mode of transportation, regardless of airline.

I also have suspicions about the authenticity of that Delta KAL document, as it contains language that would not be used by a native American English speaker.

Let us proceed based on reason and objectivity, not faith and superstition.

http://planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

Eboy - are you reading the same websites as me? I have just checked out British Airways (they employ more than 50% of all British airline pilots in one form or other). They had one crash in 1976 over Zagreb resulting from a mid-air collision for which an Air Traffic Controller was jailed. That is it for them! To suggest that somehow European main airline safety is worse than the good ole' USA is ridiculous. And then to speak of the Europeans in the same breath as KAL is frankly laughable. As recent events have proved, no airline is exempt from the spectre of crashes, and none of us should ever crow about how good we are.

What I do believe is that in each of Australia, Europe and the USA, an enormous effort is put into flight safety compared to the rest of the world. There are many areas that 'the West' must hang it's head in shame on in comparison to the rest of the world. Aviation, however, is one where we can say we are leading the field in terms of a relentless search for excellence in flight safety. I for one am proud of being part of an airline where safety has such a high place - and most if not all of my colleagues would feel the same. We in Europe (I cannot speak for Australia/NZ but I feel sure it is the same there), have a safety culture that transcends all aspects of aviation and anyone believing that somehow it is better in the States is simply wrong. I would gladly fly any US, Australian or European Union major (not including Eastern Europe) airline and have no fears whatsoever for my safety. I could not say the same about KAL or some of the Chinese/Taiwanese outfits. That is just hard fact and until someone starts addressing themselves to the cultural issues that mitigate against safe flying, there will be continue to be a constant stream of crashes/incidents emanating from the rest of the world.

"To suggest that somehow European main airline safety is worse than the good ole' USA is ridiculous."

When I average the European accident rate on the first site, I get 0.537. When I average the North American rate I get -2.68 (the rates on this site are weighted for deaths).

When I average the European accident rate on the second site above, I get 1.495. When I average the US and Canada rate I get 1.27.

I agree BA has an excellent record by these metrics. KAL does not.

Now, I just picked the first two accident sites that popped up on Google as a first check. All statistics should be viewed with suspicion. There may be junk science or a hidden agenda. Results depend on assumptions. If you have other sites with data contrary to these I would like to see them. I really don't care what the truth is, and I am not saying I found it with my quick check. I think, however, that when reaching for conclusions we should keep at least one foot on solid ground.

I agree with most of your points. I guess my point is that, to me, the difference in my chances of being struck by lightning, and those chances increasing five times, does not seem significant. All things equal, I'd probably choose another carrier over KAL unless I see KAL's accident record has improved. If I can save $2000 on business class, however, I would choose KAL.

>If I can save $2000 on business class, however, I would choose KAL.
<

Hell, based on relative risk among other of life's risk I choose their "J" class if only a $200 savings:p

I intend to live what's left of my life to the fullest and what's a tiny increase in risk overall if I get better service.

Service sells ... safety doesn't

At last count there were 272 foreign captains out of a total in excess of 1800. 50% of captains on 777 are foreign and about 25% on 744.

Eboy, 'Europe' is a very variable factor and not a single country. Not so with the U.S..

Norman Stanley Fletcher, did BA not lose a B-707 in an accident in Japan in the Mt Fuji area?

Innuendo

BA did not lose a 707 over Japan.

BOAC did, but that was a long time before BA was formed.

Techman, you are right. I think each of the two sites defines Europe loosely. As I said above, looking at the assumptions is important for a serious analysis.

Also, there is an oversiimplification in that my analysis applies equal weight to rates of all airlines. It would be more meaningful to weight airline rates by distance flown. By my analysis, Turkish Airlines impacts the Europe result as much as BA, when BA should receive greater weight due to greater miles flown.

Final 3 greens, so if we change Korean Air to say, Kimchee Air then their previous losses do not count?
I would suggest that the essentials of BOAC were not much changed when they became BA.