3 ms·

Removing the "no longer in production" planes and sorting by fatal crash rate per million flights: Embraer E170/E190 0.03 Boeing 737-600/700/80

Removing the "no longer in production" planes and sorting by fatal crash rate per million flights: Embraer E170/E190 0.03 Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 0.07 Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 0.09 Boeing 777 0.18 Airbus A330 0.19 Boeing 767 0.28 ATR 42 and ATR 72 0.44 Boeing 737 MAX 7/8/9/10 3.08 Bombardier Dash 8 UNK Canadair CRJ series UNK

cperciva 3y ago
Looking at this list I'm struck by the separation between narrowbody jets which generally make shorter flights (Embraer, 737, A318-A321) and widebody jets which generally make longer flights (A330, 767, 777). The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?)
- pengaru 3y ago
  > ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?) French-Italian collaboration, what could possibly go wrong?
- notahacker 3y ago
  There's a case for adding some weighting by flight hours/km as the widebody flights are on average longer, but it's less clear what that should be, especially with most of the accident risk being takeoff or landing. On the other hand, the displayed safety record of the 747-400 is exceptionally good. Much of the widebody/narrowbody distinction is just statistical noise (as others have pointed out, a third of the 777 accidents are a single flight being hit by a missile, and another third a suspected suicide) and widebodies are less common aircraft so the accident rates are noisier. ATRs are turboprops that fly a lot into relatively difficult-to-land small airports. Also, the accident rate under-counts the amount of flights they've actually made by more than some of the other aircraft.
  - cperciva 3y ago
    I agree that there should be some mileage weighting; but on the other hand, long distance widebody flights are usually piloted by more experienced crew (they're preferable and flights are typically assigned by seniority). It would be interesting to see statistics for maydays as well; most shorthaul flights have the advantage of having nearby airports for their entire route.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Along the same lines, I'd like to see the number of planes per model. Are more planes flying less vs less planes flying more. Also, is there a sweet spot in manufacturing? Too few or too many?
- inejge 3y ago
  ATRs had some design problems with ice accumulation[1] and are in certain ways quite unforgiving, but I suspect that the "problem" is their popularity with all kinds of smallish outfits whose training and maintenance are sometimes lacking. Case in point, this year's Nepalese crash[2], where the airline is prohibited from operating in the EU, and the preliminary report indicates that the plane crashed because one of the pilots effectively deactivated the propellers instead of adjusting the flaps while descending, causing a stall. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  > The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?) Turboprop aircraft like the ATRs are generally considered to be more dangerous than jets. I couldn't find a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) specific to the Pratt and Whitney engines that the ATRs use, but an AOPA article from 2017 suggests that turboprops in general are over three times as dangerous as jets[1]. Here are some potential reasons that come to mind: - Turboprop aircraft typically fly at lower altitudes than jets do, where there is more inclement weather and less time to navigate to an airport in case of an engine failure. - Turboprops are more complex as a whole than jet engines; there is just more to go wrong (variable propellor pitch, for instance). - Smaller airlines are the main operators of turboprop aircraft. I don't like to suggest that they are less competent on the maintenance front, and certainly don't have any evidence for this, but maybe this comes into it. - Most fatal aviation accidents occur on landing, and since turboprop aircraft are typically used for shorter flights, they will make more landings per mile flown (nautical miles, of course, in ICAO world). [1]: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pilot/jets-vs-turboprops https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pil...
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    Another thing about the ATRs, being the only turboprops on the list, is that they are more suitable for small airports, and most of the airports in difficult terrain are small airports. Therefore, you are more likely to see ATRs flying tricky routes than the others on the list. At least one crash, however (American Eagle 4184) was due to a flaw in the design: ice rapidly accumulated where it could not be dislodged by the de-icing system.
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    Here in Norway, there's been several fatal flight accidents featuring turboprops in my lifetime that I recall. Two of them were both controlled flights into terrain[1][2], both due to pilot error (leading to a large restructuring of the operations and procedure at the airline after the latter). A third one was due to wind exceeding the airplanes design limits[3], the airport was known for strong turbulence and wind shear due to location and mountainous terrain, and the airport was permanently closed after. The fourth one seems to be due to improper maintenance and counterfeit parts[4], causing the tail to fail. There's also been a few fatal accidents involving the Hercules like the Svanfjell-accident[5] due to a misunderstanding of the height clearance and the Kebnekaise-accident[6], again due to human error as well as maps lacking correct height data for the area. From what I can see[7], there's few if any fatal turboprop accidents involving the engines. So seems that at least here in Norway, the main reason is they fly a lot of stops on small airstrips located in difficult terrain, as well as being operated by smaller airlines with less organizational oversight. Though I'm not expert by any means, and things might be different in other places. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_710 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_710 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_744 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_744 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_839 [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394 [5]: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660320-1 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660320-... [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Norwegian_Air_Force_C-130_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Norwegian_Air_Force_C-130... [7]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_flyulykker_i_Norge https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_flyulykker_i_Norge
bratao 3y ago
As a Brazilian, I´m happy to see the Embraer as the first. I hear from pilots that Embraer planes have excellent survivability and glide times.
- gffrd 3y ago
  They're also a great ride! I've been on a few Embraers, and been super impressed with their "feel" as a passenger.
  - cperciva 3y ago
    I've taken quite a few flights in E90s and was always impressed by them. I was sad when Air Canada replaced them with A220s -- of course I understood the politics of wanting to use a Bombardier plane.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  It's impressive, indeed. But I'd curious to know how it compares to other planes of the same size.
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    I suspect it's very well. For a notably long time, that chart would have read 0!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
benhurmarcel 3y ago
It would be worth adding the models with a rate of 0 at the top.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Phenom 300's can't fly without GPS. I'm curious what their rates are.

cperciva 3y ago

Looking at this list I'm struck by the separation between narrowbody jets which generally make shorter flights (Embraer, 737, A318-A321) and widebody jets which generally make longer flights (A330, 767, 777). The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?)

pengaru 3y ago
> ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?) French-Italian collaboration, what could possibly go wrong?
notahacker 3y ago
There's a case for adding some weighting by flight hours/km as the widebody flights are on average longer, but it's less clear what that should be, especially with most of the accident risk being takeoff or landing. On the other hand, the displayed safety record of the 747-400 is exceptionally good. Much of the widebody/narrowbody distinction is just statistical noise (as others have pointed out, a third of the 777 accidents are a single flight being hit by a missile, and another third a suspected suicide) and widebodies are less common aircraft so the accident rates are noisier. ATRs are turboprops that fly a lot into relatively difficult-to-land small airports. Also, the accident rate under-counts the amount of flights they've actually made by more than some of the other aircraft.
- cperciva 3y ago
  I agree that there should be some mileage weighting; but on the other hand, long distance widebody flights are usually piloted by more experienced crew (they're preferable and flights are typically assigned by seniority). It would be interesting to see statistics for maydays as well; most shorthaul flights have the advantage of having nearby airports for their entire route.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Along the same lines, I'd like to see the number of planes per model. Are more planes flying less vs less planes flying more. Also, is there a sweet spot in manufacturing? Too few or too many?
inejge 3y ago
ATRs had some design problems with ice accumulation[1] and are in certain ways quite unforgiving, but I suspect that the "problem" is their popularity with all kinds of smallish outfits whose training and maintenance are sometimes lacking. Case in point, this year's Nepalese crash[2], where the airline is prohibited from operating in the EU, and the preliminary report indicates that the plane crashed because one of the pilots effectively deactivated the propellers instead of adjusting the flaps while descending, causing a stall. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691
seabass-labrax 3y ago
> The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?) Turboprop aircraft like the ATRs are generally considered to be more dangerous than jets. I couldn't find a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) specific to the Pratt and Whitney engines that the ATRs use, but an AOPA article from 2017 suggests that turboprops in general are over three times as dangerous as jets[1]. Here are some potential reasons that come to mind: - Turboprop aircraft typically fly at lower altitudes than jets do, where there is more inclement weather and less time to navigate to an airport in case of an engine failure. - Turboprops are more complex as a whole than jet engines; there is just more to go wrong (variable propellor pitch, for instance). - Smaller airlines are the main operators of turboprop aircraft. I don't like to suggest that they are less competent on the maintenance front, and certainly don't have any evidence for this, but maybe this comes into it. - Most fatal aviation accidents occur on landing, and since turboprop aircraft are typically used for shorter flights, they will make more landings per mile flown (nautical miles, of course, in ICAO world). [1]: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pilot/jets-vs-turboprops https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pil...
- mannykannot 3y ago
  Another thing about the ATRs, being the only turboprops on the list, is that they are more suitable for small airports, and most of the airports in difficult terrain are small airports. Therefore, you are more likely to see ATRs flying tricky routes than the others on the list. At least one crash, however (American Eagle 4184) was due to a flaw in the design: ice rapidly accumulated where it could not be dislodged by the de-icing system.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  Here in Norway, there's been several fatal flight accidents featuring turboprops in my lifetime that I recall. Two of them were both controlled flights into terrain[1][2], both due to pilot error (leading to a large restructuring of the operations and procedure at the airline after the latter). A third one was due to wind exceeding the airplanes design limits[3], the airport was known for strong turbulence and wind shear due to location and mountainous terrain, and the airport was permanently closed after. The fourth one seems to be due to improper maintenance and counterfeit parts[4], causing the tail to fail. There's also been a few fatal accidents involving the Hercules like the Svanfjell-accident[5] due to a misunderstanding of the height clearance and the Kebnekaise-accident[6], again due to human error as well as maps lacking correct height data for the area. From what I can see[7], there's few if any fatal turboprop accidents involving the engines. So seems that at least here in Norway, the main reason is they fly a lot of stops on small airstrips located in difficult terrain, as well as being operated by smaller airlines with less organizational oversight. Though I'm not expert by any means, and things might be different in other places. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_710 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_710 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_744 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_744 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_839 [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394 [5]: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660320-1 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660320-... [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Norwegian_Air_Force_C-130_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Norwegian_Air_Force_C-130... [7]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_flyulykker_i_Norge https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_flyulykker_i_Norge

bratao 3y ago

As a Brazilian, I´m happy to see the Embraer as the first. I hear from pilots that Embraer planes have excellent survivability and glide times.

gffrd 3y ago
They're also a great ride! I've been on a few Embraers, and been super impressed with their "feel" as a passenger.
- cperciva 3y ago
  I've taken quite a few flights in E90s and was always impressed by them. I was sad when Air Canada replaced them with A220s -- of course I understood the politics of wanting to use a Bombardier plane.
gtirloni 3y ago
It's impressive, indeed. But I'd curious to know how it compares to other planes of the same size.
- stcredzero 3y ago
  I suspect it's very well. For a notably long time, that chart would have read 0!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

benhurmarcel 3y ago

It would be worth adding the models with a rate of 0 at the top.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Phenom 300's can't fly without GPS. I'm curious what their rates are.