Safest Year Ever?

[Evan]

From CNN:

The 2010 global accident rate was 0.61 per million flights, a rate equating to one accident for every 1.6 million flights, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). That is just below the previous historic low rate of 0.65 rate in 2006, and a "significant improvement" over the rate of 0.71 recorded in 2009.
There were 17 plane accidents -- or hull losses, in the lingo of the business -- involving Western-built jet aircraft in 2010, compared to 19 the previous year. A hull loss is an accident in which a plane is destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
There were 786 fatalities in passenger aircraft compared to 685 in 2009, IATA said.

This apparently excludes those... ahem... 'non-Western' aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/23/plane.accidents/index.html?hpt=C2

[orangehuggy]

well more people died so i don’t see how its the safest year, a hull loss can be an older ready to retire marginally worth flying aircraft that has a minor excursion and bent a gear only to be written off because its not worth much anyway so i don’t see why "safety" statistics are based just on hull losses at iata??

[BoeingKing77]

well more people died so i don’t see how its the safest year, a hull loss can be an older ready to retire marginally worth flying aircraft that has a minor excursion and bent a gear only to be written off because its not worth much anyway so i don’t see why "safety" statistics are based just on hull losses at iata??

Its not seeing how many people died, its seeing how many accidents there was. Those planes that crashed just probably were wide-bodies most likely, as those would bring up the amounts of death.

[orangehuggy]

my point is that counting hull losses is not a good indication of air safety, planes get lost in hangar fires etc. now i consider "accidents involving passenger fatality" as unsafe events as i did in the "i won't die" thread

[orangehuggy]

alright, i'll do iata's job for them sheesh! so driving back iata's numbers we get 26.8m western aircraft airline flights in '09 and 27.9m in '10. I count 10 fatal revenue passenger events in '09 and 12 in '10 so works out to 0.37 per million in '09 and 0.43 in '10 or OVER 15% MORE DANGEROUS TO FLY IN 2010 THAN IN 2009 but i guess they did not want that headline on cnn

[orangehuggy]

just noticed they were only talking jets for some reason, so before i get accused of comparing apples and oranges the new numbers are 3 for '09 giving 0.11/mil and 6 for '10 giving 0.22/mil so 92% more dangerous in 2010 or ALMOST 2X AS DANGEROUS!!!

[Gabriel]

And if you take into account the fatality rate of those accidents?
(fatal accidents / revenue flights) * (deaths in fatal accidents / people in fatal accidents)

[orangehuggy]

wow this is strange, i thought i got my formulas confused but after triple checking 74.5% of pax involved died in 2009 and 74.5% in 2010... the same in both years. Its the same number so it makes no difference to the statistic. twilight zone...

[Highkeas]

From CNN:



This apparently excludes those... ahem... 'non-Western' aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/23...ex.html?hpt=C2

But this AP report includes them

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20110223/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_air_travel_deaths