Airline Safety Stalls Again in 2010

[Don Hudson]

Airline Safety Stalls Again in 2010

LONDON, January 18, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Global airline accident rates have not fallen for eight years, with a widening gap between carriers with the best and worst safety records.

This is the finding of Flight International's latest annual safety review, which tracks the incidence of airliner accidents around the world and their causes.

It has sparked worries that some airlines and authorities are failing to learn the lessons of previous incidents and implement a proactive safety culture among their pilots and managers.

The survey found that in 2010, there were 26 fatal crashes, causing 817 deaths. This compares with 28 accidents and 749 deaths in 2009.

Flying remains one of the safest ways to travel. From 1903, when the Wright brothers invented powered flight, safety improved significantly every decade for exactly 100 years. But since 2003, that improvement has stopped - and the difference between the best and worst performers appears to be getting bigger.

Flight International's special report - published in its 18-24 January issue and available online at FlightGlobal Safety Review- details advances made by the International Air Transport Association's member airlines in 2010. Their hull-loss accident rate dropped to an all-time low of 0.28 hull losses per million flights, but the world average nonetheless remained fairly static at 0.66.

Alongside the full report at http://www.flightglobal.com/safetyreview, there is a video interview with its author David Learmount, Flightglobal's operations and safety editor.

SOURCE Flight International

[J.O.]

The flattening of the bell curve was not surprising but this trend is indeed disturbing. Many challenges lay ahead for our industry and I hope we're up to the task.

[Don Hudson]

J.O.

Yes, the trend is disturbing but the following observaton, (USA Today), reinforces the fact that the rates are non-North American in origin. Interesting. Perhaps this is highlighting cultural vice operational phenomenona? More study needed of course... -Don

No U.S. airline fatalities in 2010

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

"U.S. airlines did not have a single fatality last year. It was the third time in the past four years there were no deaths, continuing a dramatic trend toward safer skies.

Years without deaths have occurred sporadically since the dawn of the jet age, but never have so many occurred in so short a period, according to an analysis of data from the National Transportation Safety Board. The average number of deaths fell from about 86 a year in the 1990s to 46 a year since 2000, a 46% drop.

"Last year also marked the first time that there were no passenger fatalities on any airline based in developed nations, says Arnold Barnett, a professor who specializes in accident statistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management.

" 'In the entire First World, fatal crashes are at the brink of extinction,' Barnett says.

"Dozens of safety improvements that have gradually eliminated whole categories of crashes, says John Cox, a consultant who previously served as head of safety for a major pilots' union.

" 'The proof of those steps is results like this,' Cox says.

"Last year, U.S. carriers flew more than 10 million flights and hauled more than 700 million passengers, but only 14 people suffered serious injuries, according to the NTSB. There also were no major accidents, the most serious category under the NTSB's definitions.

"The last fatal accident occurred Feb. 12, 2009, when a Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 turboprop plunged into a neighborhood near Buffalo, killing 49 people on board and a man on the ground. That broke a 2 ½-year stretch of no deaths dating to Aug. 27, 2006, when a Comair regional jet tried to takeoff on a closed runway in Lexington, killing 49.

"Although the NTSB data analysis is cause for celebration, it also highlights the remaining risks in the system. In some cases, there has been a fine line between a fatal accident and an incident with no injuries.

"For example, a US Airways Express Bombardier regional jet narrowly avoided tragedy on Jan. 19, 2010, when its pilots bungled a takeoff and skidded off the runway. The airport is built on a plateau and the terrain plunges after the runway, but the jet was stopped by a bed of hard foam designed just for such emergencies.

"Safety analysts, such as Cox and the Federal Aviation Administration, credit the improving safety record to scores of initiatives that have gone into place in recent decades. Among the most critical enhancements: technology that has nearly wiped out collisions with the ground and other aircraft, improved training and data collection that identifies hazards before they cause accidents.

Many of these improvements were done voluntarily through a decade-long cooperative effort between industry and the FAA, says Administrator Randy Babbitt.

" 'We have identified and eliminated many of the major risks in the system and we will continue to act on the remaining safety challenges and keep air travelers safe,' Babbitt says.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/

[J.O.]

True enough Don, but when a large carrier such as AA has as many problems as they are currently experiencing, it's a reminder to all of us of the need to "remain uneasy", to quote James Reason. IMHO, AA is getting pretty close to the pointy end of the Heinrich pyramid. Based on what I've heard, the drive for "cost certainty" may be a factor, but so far it's getting very little attention.

[Don Hudson]

True enough Don, but when a large carrier such as AA has as many problems as they are currently experiencing, it's a reminder to all of us of the need to "remain uneasy", to quote James Reason. IMHO, AA is getting pretty close to the pointy end of the Heinrich pyramid. Based on what I've heard, the drive for "cost certainty" may be a factor, but so far it's getting very little attention.

Remain uneasy...absolutely. Re AA, yes, and Southwest as well, and, quite frankly, every single regional in the US - still. (Betcha Colgan still hasn't got an operational FOQA Program on their Q400's).

Re, "Based on what I've heard, the drive for "cost certainty" may be a factor, but so far it's getting very little attention."

They can thank Robert Crandall for that mentality. While QANTAS has also "been in the news", the incidents occurring at that carrier are qualitatively and materially very different than the incidents at AA. I agree with you on the "pyramid". I've been re-reading all I can on the Cali accident fifteen years hence, including Peter Ladkin's contributions. One wonders what lessons haven't been learnt that other carriers seem to have taken in. I recall the APA stopped participation in their ASR Program because management were using the confidential reporting system to identify individual crews. I haven't talked to anyone there who does their FOQA Program so don't know about the APA's involvement or how both the airline and the pilots' association run it.

I've said it many times: Both the airline AND the pilots' association that isn't using all the preventative/proactive programs and tools available, and/or isn't resourcing/directing such programs effectively, is at risk in a number of practical ways including the legal one. Accidents have a nasty way of highlighting bad politics and targeting inappropriate egos.

Don

[J.O.]

I talked to an AA pilot about their culture at a conference last year. There was a sea change when the company started taking punitive action against pilots who submitted an ASAP report. This was done in cases where it was arguable that the company would have found out about the event through other means (aviation's answer to "inevitable discovery"). That's what started the poisoning of the atmosphere in terms of a shared vision for safety. Very narrow minded, IMO.

[Guest]

You may want to have a look at this video, kind of scary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid