Listen to the audio podcast of this article
In its latest update of fatal plane crash rates by aircraft model, AirSafe.com has identified the top five models with the lowest fatal crash rates. The analysis uses flight data through the end of 2008, and crash data through August 2009.
Computing these crash rates was based on more than just the number of fatal crashes. The formula that was used also looked at the proportion of passengers killed in each crash. For example, if an airliner model had two fatal crashes in two million flights, and all the passengers were killed in one crash and half in the second, then the rate would be 1.5 planeloads killed divided by two million flights, or 0.75 per million flights.
Candidates for the AirSafe.com top five ranking were limited to jet airliner models with at least two million flights through the end of 2008. Only events that killed passengers were counted.
At number five is the Canadair Regional Jet, number four is the previous generation of the Boeing 737, which includes the 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500. Number three was the Airbus A320 series, number two is the current generation of the Boeing 737, which includes the 737-600, 737-700, 737-800, and 737-900 aircraft.
Topping the list at number one is the Boeing 777. In service since 1995, this model has had just over two million flights and no fatal crashes.
Four other jet aircraft models all have less than two million flights, and like the 777 have not been involved in a crash that has killed passengers. Two are from Airbus, the A340 and A380, and the other two are the Embraer 170 and 190. These last two aircraft types are smaller jets frequently used by regional carriers in North America and Europe.
For more information on fatal plane crash rates, including details on how the rates are calculated, please visit rates.airsafe.org.
25 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Someone or some organization needs to address the subject of "passengers rights" regarding people being help captive on airliners that have not taken off as scheduled within an hour. They should have the option to either be returned to the terminal on the plane or bussed back to the terminal if they desire. Also, no plane should never be without restrooms to use at any time and water and food. It's just not acceptable. Write your congressman and senators to pass a bill for passengers rights.
ReplyDeleteI am a very infrequent flyer. News stories about airlines holding passengers captive is the main reason I do not fly more often. It definitely should be illegal to deprive passengers of the ability to meet basic biological needs. I don't think airlines realize the effect these news stories have on its potential customers. One would think they would go out of their way to please their customers, to get good word-of-mouth publicity.
ReplyDeleteI am so sick of airlines and the lack of information they give out to passengers (their clients!!). How come it is always after a crash has occured that they try to improve safety and not before? Like the crash of AF447 and the pitot tubes.
ReplyDeleteAnd how come passengers are not told before boarding if the flight is going to experience heavy turbulence? I was on a flight once I swear I would not have taken if I had known. Turbulence like those, the captain has to be aware of it in advance when he is preparing the flight. Why are we held captive when we should be given a choice? I don't go on roller coaster in a theme park, why would I want to be on one 37000 feet up in the air? That's not why I bought my ticket.
i hate turbilance and i am 15 and now when my family go on holiday most the time i am scared and dont go with them because i have seen so many videos of crashes on youtube it has scared the living day light out of me even the the ratio is very low,i would hate to be in a position of a crash =, it makes me feel so bad watching it i cant imagine how they would feel experiencing it, i would rather go but boat:) at least that way i no im not going to be flying around the air 30,000ft up like a rollor coaster plunging to my death :( also i think that the money we pay to go onto plaines which could be 2-3 hundred is terrible for the service we get, dirty microwave food, not being told whats happening most the time, i would also like to no before i get on a plane if there is going to be turbilance so i can chose if i want to be on the plane or not, also i hate being told i cant go to the toilet and stuff- they can succk my di** about i cant go what difference does it make if im sitting on a toilet or seating on a seat for take off!! btw never traval with easy jet or Air Malta as they have terrible service for there pasengers , in october 2009 i went on my hockey tour there and there was a fur ball in my mash potato and a dead fly in the beans, i mean can it be that expensive to make a decent meal with nuffink like that init, it makes me wounder how loong has it been on this plane for and will i get food poisening? and also on the easy jet plane the front gear wheel had a puncture and the piolet did not warn the passengers that we were going to have a rough landing and caused me to throw up as we got to the groung! im not one to moan but i bloddy hate air planes :( :|
ReplyDeleteposted comment come from either uneducated or almost illeterate gits.. " nufink" between the ears.
ReplyDeleteCAT is not always easy to forecast, it can turn up easily with a jet stream. Met is not an exact science as yet .
walk on water and stop griping. Who needs u lot ?
agreed that the crews at times leave the loo availability on too long . Convenient for them and to hell witjh customers service.... but that is the minority of the time.
john