If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Still too many cowboys out there who scoff at the rules and fly by the seat of their pants.
I strongly disagree, Since nowadays basically all airliners and airlines are using flight data monitoring, there's very little possibility for the pilots to do anything that's not within the very narrow 'procedure' window.
I would be interested to see the combined total of aircraft incidents per decade so we can see how the improvements have played out over time.
I would expect some major milestones in flight safety that we might see an impact of in the data could be attributed to the move from non-pressurized to pressurized aircraft operating at higher altitudes, the adoption of second-generation jetliners such as the Comet 4, Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 (since the two first-generation jets, both the notorious original Comets with their rectangular navigation window fatigue crack problem, and to a lesser extent, the Tupolev Tu-104, were less safe than this later cohort, although the 104 was safe enough by Soviet standards to last into the late 70s), the implementation of cat 3 autoland functionality, the development of modern Crew Resource Management techniques in the 1970s and 80s, the development of windshear detection and improved airport radar to reduce the risk of microburst-related accidents, the implementation of GPWS, EGPWS and TCAS, the intensification of security such as screening of passengers and secured cockpit doors from the 1970s-2000s, and the emphasis on ensuring upset recovery, adhering to stabilized landing criteria, pilot mental health, and the promotion of safety culture following recent tragedies. Actually everything I just mentioned pertained to a tragedy, such as the crash of that Eastern Air Lines Tristar in the Everglade, AF447, the Asiana 777-300 crash at SFO a decade ago, and so on.
The big wins were digital autopilot and RVSM airspace, EICAS/ECAM, CRM procedures, protected aircraft technology and stabilized approach criteria. The wealth of knowledge learned in investigations concerning human factors such as confirmation bias, tunneling, time compression and somatogravic illusion have also played a significant role. The last hurdle is in getting all pilots up to a standard respect and appreciation for these things. Still too many cowboys out there who scoff at the rules and fly by the seat of their pants. Fine in a cub skimming daisies in flyover. Not acceptable in the big iron if we want these trends to continue.
Did some math and came up with there being a major incident approximately once every 30 days at the beginning of the last decade to once every 236 days today. Huge improvement!
I would be interested to see the combined total of aircraft incidents per decade so we can see how the improvements have played out over time.
I would expect some major milestones in flight safety that we might see an impact of in the data could be attributed to the move from non-pressurized to pressurized aircraft operating at higher altitudes, the adoption of second-generation jetliners such as the Comet 4, Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 (since the two first-generation jets, both the notorious original Comets with their rectangular navigation window fatigue crack problem, and to a lesser extent, the Tupolev Tu-104, were less safe than this later cohort, although the 104 was safe enough by Soviet standards to last into the late 70s), the implementation of cat 3 autoland functionality, the development of modern Crew Resource Management techniques in the 1970s and 80s, the development of windshear detection and improved airport radar to reduce the risk of microburst-related accidents, the implementation of GPWS, EGPWS and TCAS, the intensification of security such as screening of passengers and secured cockpit doors from the 1970s-2000s, and the emphasis on ensuring upset recovery, adhering to stabilized landing criteria, pilot mental health, and the promotion of safety culture following recent tragedies. Actually everything I just mentioned pertained to a tragedy, such as the crash of that Eastern Air Lines Tristar in the Everglade, AF447, the Asiana 777-300 crash at SFO a decade ago, and so on.
Using the parameters from the beginning of this post, December 15th marks a new safety record in world aviation.
It is the longest gap ever between major jet airline incidents.
In order to make the data accessible and verifiable I used the following qualifiers:
An incident is “major” if it involves multiple ticketed passenger fatalities.
The word “incident” is used not “accident” or “crash” because several crashes have been intentional, not accidental, also in several fatal events the airplane did not actually crash.
Sports/musical/political/military charters are excluded as these are significantly more dangerous statistically than ordinary airline flying, hence the use of the term “ticketed passenger”.
Propeller planes are excluded even though they are involved in major catastrophes. Their safety deserves in-depth and ongoing discussion and analysis but perhaps in a different thread. The inability to distinguish between airline, ad-hock, on demand charter, air-taxi, private, or unlicensed operations in fatal prop plane events caused them all to be excluded from the data used in this thread.
Which /when was the last one?
And do yo make 2 fatalities qualify but not 1 fatality? What's the logic?
Using the parameters from the beginning of this post, December 15th marks a new safety record in world aviation.
It is the longest gap ever between major jet airline incidents.
In order to make the data accessible and verifiable I used the following qualifiers:
An incident is “major” if it involves multiple ticketed passenger fatalities.
The word “incident” is used not “accident” or “crash” because several crashes have been intentional, not accidental, also in several fatal events the airplane did not actually crash.
Sports/musical/political/military charters are excluded as these are significantly more dangerous statistically than ordinary airline flying, hence the use of the term “ticketed passenger”.
Propeller planes are excluded even though they are involved in major catastrophes. Their safety deserves in-depth and ongoing discussion and analysis but perhaps in a different thread. The inability to distinguish between airline, ad-hock, on demand charter, air-taxi, private, or unlicensed operations in fatal prop plane events caused them all to be excluded from the data used in this thread.
They were part of an alarming pattern of safety lapses and near misses in the skies and on the runways of the United States, a Times investigation found. While there have been no major U.S. plane crashes in more than a decade, potentially dangerous incidents are occurring far more frequently than almost anyone realizes
A bit of technology and a bit of dumb luck. That's the trend. But it's trending toward an accident waiting to happen...
I’m not denying that it has gotten safer. No argument there. I’m just pointing out that many fatal accidents were caused by things that have not been removed by technology and procedure. Tenerife occurred because of poor visibility. Remove that factor and it would not have occurred. We have certainly seen our share of runway incursions, wrong runway and even taxiway approaches, all thwarted by last minute recognition in good visibility or simply stupid luck. Pilots are still making potentially fatal errors, disregarding procedures and taking gambles. Not nearly as many, I assume, but all it takes is one or two to throw off those stats. All it takes is one to crash your next flight. Therefore, I don’t see a significant value in these statistical findings. I place my faith in the Swiss cheese layer of good fortune and the rarity of all the holes lining up.
Okay. When was the last POTENTIALLY fatal 'write off' of such a flight that was saved by stupidly good luck? I can think of a few recent ones.
Today, a minute ago. Any airplane could have been hit by a micrometeorite and it was sheer luck that it wasn't.
These stats involve a random element of good or bad fortune, therefore, they don't mean that much.
So you think we had a streak of random good luck in the last 17 years and Billions of flights in a row? Maybe.
I thought that airline safety was actually improving and getting ridiculously good in this part of the world. But hey, that's just me.
In the meantime, please enjoy this pertinent reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers.
And when you have time, please tell me how many such a flight was saved by stupidly good luck in the 17 years previous to 2006.
And I am not even mentioning that the number of flights almost quadrupled in the last 17 years compared with the previous 17 years.
I know that this is very depressing news for you, but aviation safety here is massively better than ever and has been becoming better and better continuously over the decades and will continue to do so.
In other words, "they don't mean that much" my arse.
Particularly in the USA and Europe (and some other places too) scheduled pax jet airline flight safety is stupidly good.
Last fatal write off of such a flight in the USA was Comair Flight / Delta Connection 5191 taking off by mistake from a wrong and too short runway on August 27, 2006
Okay. When was the last POTENTIALLY fatal 'write off' of such a flight that was saved by stupidly good luck? I can think of a few recent ones.
These stats involve a random element of good or bad fortune, therefore, they don't mean that much.
Particularly in the USA and Europe (and some other places too) scheduled pax jet airline flight safety is stupidly good.
Last fatal write off of such a flight in the USA was Comair Flight / Delta Connection 5191 taking off by mistake from a wrong and too short runway on August 27, 2006
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Leave a comment: