Despite Air France crash, there’s little cause to fear flying
Although horrifying, the May 31 crash involving an Air France jet that took more than 200 lives doesn’t represent the true risk of flying. (Update: Two bodies and a briefcase containing a ticket from the flight were found in the Atlantic Ocean, Associated Press reported today.)
Your chances of being killed on a commercial airplane are tiny — far less than 1 in a million. Last year the worldwide rate was about two deaths per 10 million passengers, according to the International Air Transport Assn.
There were about two dozen fatal airline accidents worldwide in 2008, it said, which is pretty typical. And about 500 people total died. That’s a tragic toll. But think how many people get killed in car accidents: usually more than 40,000 every year in the U.S. alone.
Still, you might wonder: Is my airline safe?
The surprising answer, some experts say: Forget the airline. Check out the country it’s flying from.
Why the airline may not matter: Fatal accidents are so rare, and there are so many factors involved, that it’s tough to determine an airline’s safety by its fatality or crash record.
Take the US Airways jet that went down in the Hudson River this year after birds got sucked into its engines. You can argue that accident showed how safe US Airways is, not how risky it is, since its skilled pilot was credited with saving all aboard. Crashes are not always the airline’s fault.
That being said, a disproportionate number of fatal accidents involve small, obscure airlines from less-wealthy nations. A rule of thumb: If you haven’t heard of it, don’t fly it.
Why the country may matter: Accidents don’t occur in isolation. Flying on airlines from countries that lack “a strong culture of safety” can be riskier, said David Learmount, operations and safety editor for Flightglobal.com and Flight International, a London-based aerospace magazine, when I interviewed him a few years back. These are often nations in the developing world, he added.
In such places, corruption and poor regulation of aviation may create an unsafe environment on the ground and in the air.
Statistics support this. The highest rates of so-called hull losses (in which an aircraft is basically “totaled”) last year involved airlines from three regions: Russia and other former Soviet states; Latin America and the Caribbean; and Africa. That was according to the International Air Transport Assn. Your safest flying last year was on airlines from Northern Asia, followed by Europe; North America and the Asia Pacific region tied for third place, with 0.58 hull-loss accidents per 1 million flights.
Where to find data: The Federal Aviation Administration rates countries on the safety of their aviation systems. You can find the info on its website. (Click on “Results.”) About 20 countries were recently flunking the FAA’s test. The National Transportation Safety Board posts official statistics and investigation results on aviation accidents in the U.S. and some foreign countries. The Aviation Safety Network posts a worldwide accident log; although it’s not an official list, it’s generally well-regarded.
— Jane Engle, assistant Los Angeles Times Travel editor
[Photo: Brazilian airport where search operations are based for the missing Air France jet; Johnson Barros / Brazilian Air Force]
8 Comments on “Despite Air France crash, there’s little cause to fear flying”
Leave a Comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this blog, but you may not participate. Here's the full legal spiel.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this blog until the author has approved them.
All fields are required
Advertisement
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
Click the logo below to subscribe to news from this blog:
Or add this feed to your favorite RSS reader:
more
Or add this feed to your favorite RSS reader:
more
Advertisement
June 7th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I am tired of hearing the global misconception that flying is safer than driving. This is a seriously flawed theory. Think about how many vehicles are on the road at any given time versus the amount of air traffic in the sky. That explains why there are more vehicle fatalities and there should be. Millions of vehicles on the road versus a few thousand planes in the air each day. Give me a break. This myth probably originated from inaccurate research, conducted decades ago, that did not account for the all the variables involved. When something goes wrong with your car, you pull over and call roadside assistance. When something goes wrong on a plane, you end up dead in the Atlantic after falling 30,000 feet. Get real people. Flying is convenient but it’s dangerous no matter how you cut it. You put your life at far greater risk than traveling on the ground each time you step aboard an aircraft. We assume it will work out but at any given moment, all it takes is a few loud bangs, and it’s all over. Just ask the passengers on Air France Flight 447. Oh wait a second, you can’t. They’re dead. Think about it. Jane Engle is clearly an uninformed information recycling idiot.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Thank you very much!!! How many people walk away from an airplane crash versus a car crash?? I’ll take my chances in the car.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
To the misinformed commenters above, clearly you don’t understand the laws of probability. There’s no “myth”, no “inaccurate research”. It’s simply proven odds - like picking a number from 1 to 10 vs. picking the winning lottery number - you’ll win the first much more often than the second.
By the way Beer Guy - trying pulling over and calling roadside assistance when a drunk driver hits you head on. That’s right - you have about as much control here as on a crashing plane.
If you’re afraid of flying, that’s fine, but please don’t spread misinformation. If you get in a car you are much more likely to die than in a plane, and that’s a fact.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I can appreciate the airline crash data verses automobile statistics purely on a numerical comparison, but in fairness, the article author, Jane Engle, should be lobbying the LA Times News Department to post large front page articles of 109 auto death victims daily. They should chronicle each and every police investigation, including GPS coordinates and trajectory of each and every automobile, number of victims, their country and city of origin, and a short tale of how their relatives miss them.
Well, we do know why she wrote the article: she’s a “Travel Editor” and must support her industry, and more specifically, the industry advertisers in her newspaper. Did the “Auto Editor” complain about this article?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Ok everyone. Here are the facts. In terms of serious and fatal injuries per hour of travel, air flight is more deadly than travelling by car. That’s a statistical fact. The airline industry and government works hard to make everyone believe flying is safer to help promote economic growth. Well, it isn’t. It’s deadly. Don’t use it if you can help it.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:58 am
My prayers are with all that lost loved one’s on this flight. I only hope that each and every airline will take CAUTION and heed updates on parts that need replacing and making sure there are enough people employed to maintain the airlines. Flying is still the fastest way from point A to B especially if one needs to go abroad.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Hi..
I would say everything happens God willingly. That is true that there has been little fear around on flying after any incident but personally I will say that people shouldn’t be scared of that.
At the same time, Airline needs to be more cautious towards safety and operation when it comes to maintainance of the flight.
God gives peace to all who suffered.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Impressive post.I never thought this way before.I need to leave for USA this week.I was thinking about some other option rather than Plane.But now i think that there’s very less chance of being killed on a airplane.