2011: Record Year For Airline Safety

smitty777 writes "Unless something bad happens in the next two days, we are on track for having a new record for airline safety. The new record of one death for every 7.1 million passengers beats the 2004 record of one to every 6.4m. The WSJ also notes: 'Another low is the total number of passenger deaths; as of today that number stands at 401. Though it was lower in 2004, when 344 passengers were killed in commercial aviation accidents, that year saw 30% fewer passengers as well as far fewer flights. Western-built planes have fared best, with one major crash per 3 million flights, the best number since the International Air Transport Association began tracking crashes in the 1940s. When factoring in other types of airliners, the crash rate is about two per million flights. We are also in the midst of the longest period without a fatal airliner accident in modern aviation; nobody has died in an airliner since an Oct. 13 propeller plane crash in Papua New Guinea. The previous record was 61 days in 1985.' Russia, and counties linked to it, are the only areas that saw a drop. 2011 also seemed to break the record for unusual airline travel events as well."

Comments

nice

[Anonymous Coward]

im sure we can attribute this to the TSA, right? right?

Re:nice

[JWSmythe]

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Nope.

    But this year they did spend another $8.1 billion dollars. Or as of May 2011 it was $835.9 billion. Or about $281 million dollars for each person who died in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't include the defense budget used to bomb the shit out of the middle east.

    $8.1 billion, and the only thing I've gotten out of it was felt up at the airport. And I didn't even get a "happy ending" with it... Come on, they make the privacy rooms for a reason, do it right.

Re:nice

[geekoid]

You should note it was based on per people flying.

And very, very, few people don't fly because of the TSA. serious, it MIGHT be 500 hundred people per year, maybe.

Also, more people flew this year then last year.

Re:nice

[JWSmythe]

Wrong person, wrong story.

Please return your computer to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Re:nice

[ShnowDoggie]

I know several people who now drive rather than fly due to TSA. I guess that If they were to go far enough they would fly, but on other trips where driving can a option, but a longer one, they drive. I am sure the number of flight seats not taken due to TSA is far more than 500. Added to privacy issues are increased costs due to security requirements. This too will reduce the amount of flying people are doing.

On side note: You are correct that this is based on air travelers worldwide. I would wager that TSA has more influence in the US than the rest of the world. And I wonder what other changes in overall patterns have occurred. Are there more flights outside of the United States now? Less? Are people taking more longer flights and less shorter flights? Are certain kinds of carriers flying more?

Re:nice

[danbuter]

I'd love to find out where you got this statistic.

Re:nice

[HBI]

And very, very, few people don't fly because of the TSA. serious, it MIGHT be 500 hundred people per year, maybe.

That sounds like a hard statistic.

Also, more people flew this year then last year.

That's probably true, but the statistics aren't available yet from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, so you can't prove it.

I can, however, prove that the population is larger this year than last year, by about 2 million. I can also demonstrate that the population has increased from 281.5 million in 2000 to about 311 million this year, over a 10% increase. There has been no commensurate increase in airline passengers. So your entire point is demonstrably false.

Re:nice

[sjames]

The TSA might turn 500 a year away, but most of the decline it's responsible for decide not to fly in the first place. Some explicitly because they hate dealing with the TSA, some also to boycott the whole thing, and some simply because the TSA related expenses drove the cost of flying above the threshold price for their decision or the added time made driving faster.

Re:nice

[Doc Ruby]

I have cut down on my flying since the TSA got so invasive. It's definitely a factor when choosing the hassle of flying over doing something else.

And I'm sure I'm far from the only one.

Re:nice

[JWSmythe]

If you're going to change it to their intended toll, get it right.

    The WTC towers were capable of falling over onto Wall Street. It wasn't just the buildings, it was the collateral damage. If all 4 planes were targeted for the WTC, Pentagon, and White House, and they had been as destructive as believed, and all the required people were in the right places (Bush was out of town) that would have crippled the US economy, military, and executive branch of the government.

    The incurred death toll, including those who died due to lack of infrastructure later, would have been millions.

    The stated goal from bin Laden was the destruction of the capitalist monster that is the United States. He wanted 330 million people dead, regardless of our position or purpose in this country.

    In recent history, Russia, Germany, and Japan also wanted the same for us, as well as all kinds of fringe groups. Even some Americans want death and destruction for us, and have attempted it.

    Anyone who's familiar with history knows that there's always some group that wants to kill some other group. Luckily, most don't have the resources to accomplish it. Those who do have the resources usually realize that such actions will result in mutually assured destruction.

    I don't have sleepless nights worrying about terrorists killing me. The odds I'll be in a fatal car accident are higher. I avoid what I can, but if something happens that is beyond my control, it will happen.

Re:nice

[CohibaVancouver]

I doubt many people are choosing to drive over flying due to 'liquids and gels' rules, groping and the like. However, they are probably doing it over time concerns. If it's an hour to drive to the airport and park, 30 minutes to check in, 30 minutes to get through security, 30 minutes standing at a packed gate area, 30 minutes to board and 45 minutes on the tarmac for 60 minutes in the air, well then a four hour drive with a bag of doritos between your legs and a big gulp in the cupholder doesn't seem so bad...

Re:nice

[pjt33]

The TSA has some influence outside the US, in the sense that I'll gladly pay more to fly a route which doesn't include the US. (As a side-effect, and given the hub-based nature of airlines, I'm also paying more to not fly with US airlines).

Re:nice

[antifoidulus]

The stated goal from bin Laden was the destruction of the capitalist monster that is the United States. He wanted 330 million people dead, regardless of our position or purpose in this country.

Except for no, that really wasn't his goal, well at least on not any realistic time scale. His operated on the "think locally, act globally" scale. His real objective was to drag the US into a war in the middle east in order to use their presence as a pretext to grabbing power in the middle east, which is why the bulk of Al Qaeda messages were about events in the middle east and not the US(they would always make anti-US statements because that is what grabbed media attention and helped their recruitment numbers)

And to a certain extent he was right, the attack provoked the US into wars in the middle east, but then again predicting Bush would do something stupid is sort of like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow, it doesn't take a whole lot of insight.

However his prediction that most of the muslim world would rally behind him was deeply flawed. They weren't exactly happy with the US, but sort of realized that what Bin Laden was doing was throwing a rock at a hornets nest then jumping in front of the hornets to show how much they are protecting everyone. While people get pissed at the hornets, they are also not very happy with the dude that threw the rock.

Re:nice

[ceoyoyo]

"The stated goal from bin Laden was the destruction of the capitalist monster that is the United States. He wanted 330 million people dead, regardless of our position or purpose in this country."

Hm. It seems a rather large leap from destroying "the capitalist monster that is the United States" to "330 million people dead, regardless of [their] position or purpose."

The US has destroyed several democracies and a few dictatorships without killing everyone (or even very many) ordinary citizens.

Re:nice

[LDAPMAN]

Oklahoma City to Dallas is scheduled at 55 minutes gate-to-gate. It's a 3 hour drive. It is usually faster to drive when you consider the total travel time.

How does it compare

[mehrotra.akash]

How does it compare to rail/car/ship travel?

Re:How does it compare

[hedwards]

Quite favorably, auto fatalities are down, at least in the US, but they still outnumber airline fatalities for the entire world by a huge margin.

One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear. Terrorism is something to be fought and prevented, but in the grand scheme of things more people die of injuries from car crashes every year than terrorism.

Re:How does it compare

[Sneezer]

> How does it compare to rail/car/ship travel?

Airplanes are much, much faster.

"Hello, airplanes? Yeah, it's blimps. You win!"

Re:How does it compare

[tylernt]

One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear

I don't think my fear of the TSA or the government it serves is misplaced. I'd say it's pretty well-founded.

Re:How does it compare

[Ichijo]

Airplanes are much, much faster.

Except when they're slower than bicycles!

Re:How does it compare

[Ichijo]

If velocity is distance divided by time, and you're using the curb-to-curb distance and the curb-to-curb time (from the time you enter the airport to the time you exit the airport at the other end), then airplanes are not so quick for shorter distances.

This is what makes high speed rail faster than airplanes for distances up to about 400 miles.

The original question was, "How does [flying] compare to rail/car/ship travel?" And the answer given was, "Airplanes are much, much faster." But that is not always true.

Re:How does it compare

[Doc Ruby]

What makes you think random grope-points won't be set up if someone else wins the election? The other guys are the ones who got us into this grope regime - Obama's to blame for keeping it going. The rest would just escalate it, as they always have.

Re:How does it compare

[rts008]

LOL! Valid point.
You just can't win anymore.
Since I was 'relieved' of my luggage three times in a row flying, had damaged property from luggage searches, etc., I have gotten in the habit of FedEx'ing my luggage.
However, now that I fly with only a book to read, I have been flagged for more searches because I'm flying with no luggage.....SHEESH!

Great

[assertation]

Now that they have safety nailed down, maybe in 2012 they can do something about forcing passengers to choose between getting groped or irradiated.

Re:Great

[assertation]

but I got there quickly and safely before the TSA and W Bush

Re:Great

[JWSmythe]

    I pick groped every time. They're asking me more often why I refuse the radiation. X-rays, microwaves, whatever, I'm not going to stand in your uncertified, uncalibrated ionizing emitting equipment.

Re:Great

[JWSmythe]

Fair enough. :) That used to be my reason, until they kept escalating the dangerousness of the equipment being used.

    I just spent a few days in the hospital, and got dosed with probably as much radiation as I should be exposed to in a year. At least at the hospital I know they're generally monitored, but they have failures too. At least the hospitals will eventually figure out they have errors. They also aren't hitting millions of people per year, and only checking to make sure they get an image back once a year at best. It reminds me of the fluoroscopes, except they're hitting virtually everyone that travels.

    I've asked TSA agents about the people they've caught. So far, none. At one airport, the agent told me that he heard about someone at an airport 100 miles away that was caught carrying a gun in her purse, but he couldn't confirm it.

    I was early for the first flight of the day at another airport. I had a good conversation with an agent there. We were discussing the futility of their jobs. There are so many ways to accomplish the same general idea (mass destruction). The TSA having their high visibility job simply means that most likely If a terrorist did attack, they wouldn't use a commercial airliner.

    For $500k you can get a working airliner.. You can squeeze in 20 tons of your favorite explosive (say 2,500 gallons of diesel fuel, and 20,000 pounds of fertilizer), and put it wherever you want. Knowing that bad guys intending to commit a crime aren't the most law abiding individuals, you can knock the price down to $0 on the aircraft if it's stolen.

    But why an airliner. They need specialized training to operate. How about a boat. Or a truck. Or why bring the explosion to the target, when there are so many other choices. An abandon building with gas service could be deadly. It doesn't need to be the building though. Natural gas could be pumped into a sewage system, but is less than ideal since it's lighter than air. Propane on the other hand could be catastrophic for a large area.

    I think the only reason the gov't doesn't hire me as a scenario designer is, I'd give them way too many things to worry about. It's easier to focus on "bad guy wants to get on a plane", and it creates the illusion of security, where lots of civilians have to endure the worthless security checks. Roughly 7 in 10 attempts by the FBI are missed when they've covertly audited the TSA's security. But sure as hell, they still want to touch my penis.

Re:Great

[sjames]

Actually, you can be perfectly safe and grope free. The TSA hasn't caught even one person in the whole time they've been active. However small it might be, evidence suggests that unregulated and unlicensed X-Ray generators used by unqualified personnel carry a greater risk than terrorism these days.

Re:Great

[JWSmythe]

X-rays are though.

According to the TSA (but not what they tell you at the airport), their full body scanners use both X-ray and microwaves (err, millimeter waves). I don't see a lot of shielding around any of their equipment. When I've looked at x-ray exam rooms (where I had the luxury to examine the space in detail), they use lead lined wallboard and doors to shield the space.

According to L3, their "ProVision" unit uses only microwaves, but they don't specify the frequency nor power. I'd rather not stand in front of a 1000W transmitter, even if it's just for a few seconds. I seriously doubt that they're transmitting in the mW range. According to Wiki, they're in the EHF range (30Ghz to 300Ghz).

The USAF has the Active Denial System, made by Raytheon, which also uses millimeter waves. It will cause a burning sensation on the skin, and can cause blistering. Clearly, that frequency does not pass through, or bounce off harmlessly.

Further testing would be required to determine if the units at the airports are really safe. That testing has not been done.

So, ionizing (X-ray) or non-ionizing (millimeter wave), it's not necessarily good for you. At least with X-rays, we do know the effects. Unfortunately, there is no group responsible for calibrating or verifying the machines.

Testing such equipment on such a broad scale would normally be illegal. At very least it is negligent.

Re:Great

[JWSmythe]

... and to further that ...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns

While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.

We are also in the midst of the longest period wit

[mapkinase]

No. We are not. We are always in the end of it.

note that this even includes some sketchy airlines

[Trepidity]

This includes everything commercial, even ex-Soviet states flying 40-year-old planes with questionable maintenance practices, and the total deaths are still only 401.

Statistics

[hawguy]

Can you really compare annual statistics from a low probability event like a plane crash to other years to say that one year is safer than another? If a single Airbus A380 crashed tomorrow, it could triple the number of fatalities for this year (from 400 to 1200), but does that really make this year 3 times more dangerous than it was yesterday? And since that accident was only a day away from 2012, if there are only 400 accidents in 2012 does that make 2012 safer than 2011 when the difference is based on a single accident?

If plane crashes happened every day, and this year there were 1000 crashes versus 2000 for last year, then that seems more meaningful. Likewise, combining years into decades seems like it would show safety trends, but if a single accident can skew the annual statistics so wildly, it doesn't seem reasonable to compare by year.

Re:Statistics

[geekoid]

not, it's another data point to look at an overall trend.

You people, sheesh.

Re:Statistics

[hawguy]

not, it's another data point to look at an overall trend.

But does it really show a statistically valid trend? Can I look at this years crash statistics and feel that air travel is safer, or is it a feel-good number that really tells me nothing at all?

You people, sheesh

yeah, no kidding! If people would just believe what they read in the paper without questioning it, we'd all be much better off!

Re:note that this even includes some sketchy airli

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian plane strong - use tractor engine and vodka for fuel!

Car travel versus air travel

[hawguy]

I'd like to see the statistics on the number of extra fatalities due to extra car travel by people who are so fed up with TSA security and airline travel in general that they don't want to fly. I know that on a recent vacation, I drove the 1000 miles because I didn't feel like subjecting me and my family to airport security.

I know that statistically it was less safe, but realistically, it was more fun and less stress - no one got felt-up by airport security or had to stand in an x-ray machine, we didn't have to pair down our wardrobes to what would fit in a carryon (or risk having it lost on the way there), no one stopped us from bringing sunscreens, lotions, or our favorite beverages on the road. We even brought a couple bottles of our favorite wine to enjoy at our destination and didn't need to put it in gorilla-proof packaging that can survive checked baggage handling.

Oh, and it was cheaper, including 2 overnight hotel stays. It took more time, but to me, vacation starts when the family is together and on the way, not just when we get there.

Re:Car travel versus air travel

[hawguy]

But it COULD have been far easier to fly, and you could have had more time at your destination. Quite honestly, being locked in a tin can, strapped in against potential impact, bombarded by the din of the engine(s) is not hat I call "vacation" or "quality time." It's even less so when I am in charge of the flight.

To each his own. I'm not sure if you were talking about a car or a plane when you said "locked in a tin can" - when we're driving, we have a lot of freedom - when we're hungry, we stop off at a real restaurant with freshly prepared food, not a $10 "meal" that's been sitting in a warmer for 3 hours where I have to choose between beef and chicken . And a full-size restroom. When we get tired of driving, we can pull into a rest area and let the kids run around and play in the grass. If we see a sign for "Worlds biggest ball of twine", we can go check it out if we want to. While we're driving, the kids can practice their reading, or we play 20 questions, or one of many other car games. Oh, and I enjoy driving, especially when I have no urgency to get somewhere - I go with the flow of traffic, take my time and stay relaxed.

Imagine a world without the TSA - you arrive 45 minutes before your flight, your checked backs go straight into the cargo hold, you hang around for 10 minutes at the gate before boarding, your flight lasts 1/10 the time as your car travel, and you often arrive at your destination before the next mealtime. Sure, it's cheaper to drive if you have a large group (you're only paying for gasoline and wear/tear once), but the main convenience of flying is - or should I say WAS - time in transit.

If air travel was still like that, it's likely that we would have flown - we could have brought the kids favorite foods/beverages on board, we wouldn't to wonder if putting children through an x-ray scanner is worth not having to explain why a complete stranger is touching them in inappropriate places, we would't have to stop and take off their shoes before they walk through a metal detector and then have to search for a seating area to put their shoes and belts back on. The safety factor alone makes air travel attractive, but not when it means inconveniencing or embarrassing my children when forced to go through invasive checkpoints.

It also sounds like your travel took you two days, vs about 1/2 a day for flying. For wage slaves, that's three extra days of limited "vacation" time, for the self-employed, it's three days of opportunity cost (about $3000 for me). BTW - I did a 900 mile trip via air recently - for three people it cost us the same as gas (+/-10%), but it was a discount carrier to a common destination.

The other drawback with airline travel is that it's on the airline's schedule, not mine. If we flew, we would have left on a 10am Wednesday morning flight (the 4pm Tuesday flight would have meant another half day off work, the 6am Wednesday flight would have meant waking up at 3:30am to get to the airport on time). It was a 12 hour drive (excluding stops)...we got on the road at 5pm Wednesday just after I got off work, and drove until midnight. I had planned on stopping around 10pm, but traffic was light, I wasn't tired, and the kids were sleeping, so we kept going to an upcoming larger town). The next day we got on the road at 9am after breakfast and got to our destination around 2pm - just in time for hotel check-in and maybe an hour after we would have gotten to the hotel if we had taken the flight. So while driving did cost more time, it didn't really eat into our vacation time. On the way back we left Tuesday afternoon instead of flying home on Wednesday morning, so we lost 1/2 day of "vacation", but only a few usable hours, most of the time we spend driving would have been spent in the hotel room.

The cost savings was not a major factor in choosing to drive, but it was significant savings - we paid around $300 in gas (round-trip), $80 each for two nights of hotels whil

Re:Car travel versus air travel

[Stupendoussteve]

If you have any interest, you ought to look into getting a pilot's license. More fun and freedom than airline flying, faster and more direct than a car, usually an airport closer to your actual destination and the trip can be a unique part of the adventure (which may make up for the likely extra cost, though at four passengers it might about break even).

Re:Why spend billions on the TSA?

[ShnowDoggie]

I wonder how many lives would be saved if we instead put that money towards improving road safety?