Follow this blog:
RSS

Flying was really, really safe this year

By | December 31, 2012, 9:59 AM PST

Despite a tragic plane crash over the weekend in Russia that left five crew members dead, air travel this year was the safest since the 1960s, when commercial jet service was just taking off.

This year there were 23 fatal crashes involving passenger and cargo planes, according to the Aviation Safety Network, resulting 475 fatalities — only 10 were passenger aircrafts. That’s down from 28 fatal crashes in 2011 and an average the past decade of 34. Wall Street Journal reports:

“Overall, it was the certainly the safest year ever,” according to Paul Hayes, director of safety at Ascend. With one fatal accident per 2.5 million flights world-wide, this year “was almost twice as safe as 2011, which itself had previously” attained that distinction, according to Ascend.

However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t safety issues for airlines to address, especially in the developing world.

But such improvements also underscore persistent safety problems that mean significantly higher crash rates—often by a factor of four or more—across much of Africa, Latin America and other developing regions. And even in the U.S., safety experts warn of potential dangers from pilots becoming confused by cockpit automation and increasing ground-collision hazards posed by congested airports.

Still, the numbers are impressive especially as 2.9 billion people took to the air this year. But it will be even more important in the coming years to improve safety in developing countries as the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa were the regions with the largest passenger growth rate in 2012, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. Worldwide, the number of airline passengers is expected to double, to 6 billion by 2030.

Flying Is Safest Since Dawn of Jet Age [Wall Street Journal]

Photo: Flickr/caribb

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
Pure Luck
I worked the Swissair #111 crash, and saw the results of the mitigation. The aircraft manufacturers, the airlines, and the government were were all complicit in being reluctant to mandate prompt changes, and only by the grace of god did they get away with not having another incident. Airlines operate too close to financial margins, so do not put the necessary resources to work maintaining the aircraft. Mostly, bare minimums are carried-out. If most of the airline's money did not have to go to to huge salaries in the 'executive' management offices, there would be plenty for maintenance.
Posted by 16Tons
Updated - 2nd Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Sounds like you have a labor or union agenda, and to the likes of you, it's
always the "evil and greedy executive" that is the problem.

There won't ever be perfect airplanes or perfect maintenance or perfect flying records, or even perfect executives.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that, when it comes to executive compensation, the investors are the ones that will have the bigger say; investors will always want the executives to be producing enough revenue and profits to make their investments worthwhile, and the executives end up being "just employees" who can be replaced, just like any other employee if the airline isn't performing well enough to provide the profits.
Posted by adornoe
Updated - 2nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
They've been making this argument for about 30 years now...
...and yet safety continues to improve. I'd argue that 30 years of a trend of continual improvement is more than just "pure luck".

Is that reason to go lax? Of course not. But to achieve the next "unit" of "safety" will always cost incrementally more than the last. Not evaluating how to spend on that next level will be a waste of money.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 2nd Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Everyone runs every business that way.
People are not going out to spend money on something unless they have too, are forced too, or have experienced some prior accident. The same reason why so many people still smoke, do crazy things, or why landlords have decrepit buildings. It is BASIC human nature not to spend resources on things unless they "personally" are scared into, or forced, or for the reason of pride decide to do so. There are about 10% of people out there who realize the common sense and morality of preventative procedures.
Posted by Kieron Seymour-Howell
2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, "everyone", not.
Although unsupported optimism often encourages many to opt for not addressing the possible, it's rather extreme and discrediting to argue that "everyone runs every business that way".

There is no upside to an airline or aircraft manufacturer when a plane goes down. Definitely not good for business.

Governments, on the other hand...
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Paul Hayes' safety concerns... or just business interests?
On AvWeb.com, Paul Hayes is not so much concerned about worsening safety records in Africa, as about a threat to the insurance business... Quoting:

"Hayes warns (sic) the improvement is part of a trend that could have negative effects on the insurance market".

He continues explaining that "the concern arises from how a recent trend of improved safety affects (sic) premium income. Hayes says that low insurance claims and rising capacity in the market could lead to lower insurance premiums that are "too low to be able to maintain the market in the longer term.""

His company, Ascend, warns (sic) that "2012 does not represent a new norm for the world airlines." -- thus desperately trying to conjure the threat to the insurance business... whereas the truth is that ever increasing flight automation will eventually upgrade commercial aviation safety records to a virtual "zero crash" level...

To Pure Luck:
SR111 was most probably a sabotage, as suggested by the Canadian movie about the official inquiry. Not a subversive movie at that, but rather a cover-up by confirmation of the official version of a fire in the cockpit -- whereas the true cause was more likely a smoke generator placed in the cockpit to blind the pilots so that they were unable to realize by eyesight what was happening to their aircraft, thus preventing any records on the CVR witnessing the remote-controlled "death spiral" the plane was engaging into. (The death spiral is a downward flight trajectory whereby the only change a "blinded" pilot might sense is a steady increase of airspeed). With the flight having been scheduled quite in advance and therefore not knowing the visibility conditions of the flight, the solution was indeed a smoke generator placed under the dashboard to ensure zero visibility inside the cockpit in case of fine weather outside, which was the case.

As to whom the crime profited, here's a path to follow:
The airliner was to convey 12 high-ranking UNO-delegates to Geneva, from where they were expected to attend the war-struck Kosovo -- most certainly not to encourage the US military to intensify warfare...
Posted by euroflycars
2nd Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!