Deciding if an airline is safe to fly or not

I know this discussion has been started many times, but usually its of
the form "Is x airline safe?". Im interested in a more generic answer.
I fly on average about 16-20 flights a month, mostly throughout
Europe, The Middle East, and ocassionally Africa and Asia.

I also know that of course even a "bad" airline is statistically much
safer than the car ride to the airport. If you take into account the
car rides I take in Africa and other parts, then you could probably
include decrepit airlines.

That being said - as pilots and other aviation experts - what do you
take into consideration? Or do you just fly any airline and let
chances fly?

Specifically the ones Im looking at now:

PIA - Have flown in the past, but when the EU put them on the black
list I started avoiding them. But now Ive been booked again on an
internal PIA flight.

Air Blue - Pakistani budget airline that I typically prefer over Air
Blue. Statistically they barely exist because they are new and have
only been flying a short time. Is there any way to evaluate such an
airline? Or is it worth it?

Pulkovo (now becoming Rossia) - Used to fly Pulkovo a lot. I can deal
with crappy service, but service wise Ive actually been satisfied with
Pulkovo. But with a lot of time on Turkish, Olympic, and Cyprus
Airways my standards have been set extremely low. Before flying
Pulkovo years ago I found someone who actually did consutations to
Pulkovo about aircraft maintenance etc and was satisfied there.
However this last year Pulkovo has had a few incidents, most notably
the one that crashed because the pilots didnt have training for
extreme weather condition that they flew into and tried to climb above
it.

Of these - Pulkovo is the most "interesting" in my mind right now. One
of my upcoming trips my choices become:
a) Direct flight on Pulkovo with near perfect timing and days. $600
fare.
b) Train to Moscow (early AM flight, too tight connection so must take
train) and then direct flight from there. $1,000 on Aeroflot (service
sucks, but safe)
c) Other connecting flights at $1,000+

writes:

I know this discussion has been started many times, but usually its of
the form "Is x airline safe?". Im interested in a more generic answer.
I fly on average about 16-20 flights a month, mostly throughout
Europe, The Middle East, and ocassionally Africa and Asia.

I also know that of course even a "bad" airline is statistically much
safer than the car ride to the airport. If you take into account the
car rides I take in Africa and other parts, then you could probably
include decrepit airlines.

That being said - as pilots and other aviation experts - what do you
take into consideration? Or do you just fly any airline and let
chances fly?

Airline travel is extremely safe overall, and one of the ironies of this is
that it's very difficult to determine relative safety among different airlines
and countries, because there are so few incidents and accidents to begin with.

However, one can generally say that the Third World is much less safe,
relatively speaking, than the First World. No surprise there.

What I look at is the stability and resources of both the country of
registration for an aircraft and the airline itself. If both have strictly
followed procedures, minimal corruption, and plenty of resources, chances are
that flight is safe. If they are poor, corrupt countries with equally poor,
corrupt airlines, there may be substantial risk. It's pretty safe to say that
you're at far greater risk with a Chinese, Turkish, or Indonesian airline than
you are with JAL, Air France, or American Airlines. Still, the odds are on
your side on just about any airline flight.

PIA - Have flown in the past, but when the EU put them on the black
list I started avoiding them. But now Ive been booked again on an
internal PIA flight.

Being on the blacklist is a very bad sign, but it all depends on your personal
comfort zone, I suppose.

Air Blue - Pakistani budget airline that I typically prefer over Air
Blue. Statistically they barely exist because they are new and have
only been flying a short time. Is there any way to evaluate such an
airline? Or is it worth it?

Without a proven track record, I assume the worst.

Pulkovo (now becoming Rossia) - Used to fly Pulkovo a lot. I can deal
with crappy service, but service wise Ive actually been satisfied with
Pulkovo. But with a lot of time on Turkish, Olympic, and Cyprus
Airways my standards have been set extremely low. Before flying
Pulkovo years ago I found someone who actually did consutations to
Pulkovo about aircraft maintenance etc and was satisfied there.
However this last year Pulkovo has had a few incidents, most notably
the one that crashed because the pilots didnt have training for
extreme weather condition that they flew into and tried to climb above
it.

This is where the government comes in. Governments like the U.S. or Western
Europe or Japan have strict standards for training and qualification of
pilots, but many other countries are much more ... flexible. It's possible to
run an airline successfully and in moderate safety with relatively little
training for pilots, that is, with training that concentrates on the normal
flight and skips the "unusual" situations. This is what bites these airlines
when things go wrong.

In the U.S., for example, pilots constantly train for the possibility of an
engine failure in simulators, even though most airline pilots today in
developed countries will go their entire careers without seeing a jet engine
failure on a real flight. Nevertheless, they are trained so heavily that, if
a failure does occur, they deal with it automatically, by reflex, without even
having to think much about what to do, since they've done it thousands of
times before in training. This means that an engine failure in a place like
the U.S. is no big deal. But in a country where the airlines "forget" to
spend the time and money on adequate training, a pilot may fumble when an
engine fails (and it may be more likely to fail because of poor maintenance),
and then bad things happen.

On Jun 17, 4:23 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
However, one can generally say that the Third World is much less safe,
relatively speaking, than the First World. No surprise there.

What I look at is the stability and resources of both the country of
registration for an aircraft and the airline itself. If both have strictly

Yes of course - all good advice. However Im looking for something a
bit more pragmatic. I have to travel these countries anwyays. Emirates
serves them, but I cant always get a seat on Emirates, or often its
10x the price because of availability, or it takes 36 hours instead of
5.

So lets say Pulkovo has a fligth I need - or PIA, or whoever. What
would you do pragmatically to decide if you would fly them or not?
Russia of course is a pot shot of airlines. Aeroflot I'll fly, and I
have friends that Aeroflot is the only airline they will fly. But
Aeroflot involves an extra stop for me, and often has much worse
connections. Pulkovo is local, and until this year I was "happy" with
them. I believe the info I have on their maintenance, technics, and
otherwise is still valid. Its just the recent crash and other smaller
incidents have me considering other angles...

And its not just Pulkovo - I have to evaluate different airlines from
time to time... So if the choice often is Pulkovo (or someone else)
for say $600, with direct flights at 4 hours and days I want, or some
other carrier at $1200 with out direct flight, travel time of 10
hours, etc... And again, fill in other airlines for Pulkovo. That just
happens to be an upcoming trip....

And I have a PIA flight before that, so wish me luck.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know this discussion has been started many times, but usually its of
the form "Is x airline safe?". Im interested in a more generic answer.
I fly on average about 16-20 flights a month, mostly throughout
Europe, The Middle East, and ocassionally Africa and Asia.

I also know that of course even a "bad" airline is statistically much
safer than the car ride to the airport. If you take into account the
car rides I take in Africa and other parts, then you could probably
include decrepit airlines.

That being said - as pilots and other aviation experts - what do you
take into consideration? Or do you just fly any airline and let
chances fly?

Specifically the ones Im looking at now:

PIA - Have flown in the past, but when the EU put them on the black
list I started avoiding them. But now Ive been booked again on an
internal PIA flight.

Air Blue - Pakistani budget airline that I typically prefer over Air
Blue. Statistically they barely exist because they are new and have
only been flying a short time. Is there any way to evaluate such an
airline? Or is it worth it?

Pulkovo (now becoming Rossia) - Used to fly Pulkovo a lot. I can deal
with crappy service, but service wise Ive actually been satisfied with
Pulkovo. But with a lot of time on Turkish, Olympic, and Cyprus
Airways my standards have been set extremely low. Before flying
Pulkovo years ago I found someone who actually did consutations to
Pulkovo about aircraft maintenance etc and was satisfied there.
However this last year Pulkovo has had a few incidents, most notably
the one that crashed because the pilots didnt have training for
extreme weather condition that they flew into and tried to climb above
it.

Of these - Pulkovo is the most "interesting" in my mind right now. One
of my upcoming trips my choices become:
a) Direct flight on Pulkovo with near perfect timing and days. $600
fare.
b) Train to Moscow (early AM flight, too tight connection so must take
train) and then direct flight from there. $1,000 on Aeroflot (service
sucks, but safe)
c) Other connecting flights at $1,000+


My first flight was on a Bristol 170 of Silver City
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0874786/M/. During my childhood I also
flew on Viscounts, Vanguards, BAC111s, a Caravelle, Britannia and a Czech
Airlines Tu104 which was an experience!. In my 20s most of the aircraft
were the new 707s, DC8s, DC9s, 727s, 737s and even 747s, Tristars and DC10s
but by the end of my 20s some of those were finding their way to secondary
airlines and I recall boarding a 727 at Lima which was painted in the
colours of AeroPeru. Once inside everything was Lufthansa down to the
emergency cards and sick bags. After a delay we were deboarded through the
rear door that led *under* the centre engine; the woman in front of me got
to the bottom of the steps and tried to light up. I think that was when I
realised that safety standards in some countries is not the same as I'm used
to in the UK.

Now, it may be that my experience of flying in the 50s and 60s when things
were definitely not the same as they are today makes me more relaxed about
flying on some of the more interesting carriers. I have also been known to
give some thought to using a "Western" airline into some interesting
airports. In the end, you said it yourself; despite the issues with some
airlines and airports flying is slmost certainly safer than equivalent
methods of transport.

Generally I pick airlines from the old "West Europe", US/Canada,
Australasia, Japan and airlines like South African, Kenyan, Thai, Malaysian,
Singapore and Cathay. But, I will travel on almost any other carrier as a
means to an end.

But I also take other things into account. For instance, some of the
airlines in the 'stans of what used to be Russia are largely run by
Europeans on contract; particularly the pilots and management. The
airports may be an issue but because the aircraft are leased in and
maintained to the standards of the "western" leasing company (some even
retain western registrations) I take that into account. I would have some
qualms about the same airlines using ex Russian equipment (but then I rode
around China on CAAC before it got split up on 2 Tridents, 1 737, 1 An24 and
1 IL14). And, given the choice between a United Express RJ and a Frontier
737 for a flight Denver/Albequerque which would you choose? The Frontier
flight stopped in Alberquerque and the RJ was non stop. Although the US
regional safety record at the time was worse that the mainline carriers (and
I put Frontier in that category) I chose the UA RJ on the basis that there
is risk in each take off and landing.

I think I'd go for Pulukovo/Rossia given the choices.

On Jun 17, 8:31 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
My first flight was on a Bristol 170 of Silver Cityhttp://www.airliners.net/open.file/0874786/M/. During my childhood I also
flew on Viscounts, Vanguards, BAC111s, a Caravelle, Britannia and a Czech

Aah yes, the nostalgic times. Its not so much old planes Im worried
about - and back then they were new! So I guess I should say its not
old model planes that would worry me, but planes that are truly old by
being flown way too many times since production.

Airlines Tu104 which was an experience!. In my 20s most of the aircraft

They are of course flying 154's all over Russia still, as well as
134's and many other variants and even some Yak's. I flew via Kiev
last week, and to my surprose VV still has one 737-200! It has the old
cigar shaped engines. The Russian planes have them too, but usually in
the tail. The 737-200 has them on the wing and I was right behind the
wing. Sounds like a rocket sitting next to you.

colours of AeroPeru. Once inside everything was Lufthansa down to the
emergency cards and sick bags. After a delay we were deboarded through the

Thats what makes Turkish fun. They replace parts, but dont change the
languages on replacement parts. So an exit door or tray table might be
in Chinese. I once counted 12 languages on a Turkish flight in
addition to the normal Turkish + English.

Generally I pick airlines from the old "West Europe", US/Canada,
Australasia, Japan and airlines like South African, Kenyan, Thai, Malaysian,
Singapore and Cathay. But, I will travel on almost any other carrier as a
means to an end.

I think maybe Ive fallen guilty of asking the wrong question. Instead
of "how to determine if an airline is safe?", lets say "how to
determine if an airline is UNSAFE"? ie surely there are airlines that
should be avoided at nearly all costs. Certainly there are African
carriers Id avoid, and likely Asian and Russian ones that would
probably be better avoided as well?

I flew the PIA flight no incident. Of course Ive flown them many times
before... One of my fellow travelers told me something interesting,
although I dont know if its true. He said the 747's that PIA flies are
so old that Boeing has to make special parts for them. Well at least
its not like the planes in Iran....

airlines in the 'stans of what used to be Russia are largely run by
Europeans on contract; particularly the pilots and management. The

Any way to get a list? S7 (www.s7.ru) is a new carrier in Russia. They
appear to run all Boeing fleet. I havent seen if its leased, or what
though.

qualms about the same airlines using ex Russian equipment (but then I rode

Actually Im fine on the TY/U 154 - if you look at its record, its not
the plane that has caused its crashes. Its Ukranian missiles, pilots,
wars, etc that regularly take it down.

I think I'd go for Pulukovo/Rossia given the choices.- Hide quoted text -

I found out since the flight is to Europe, its a 737 there and an
Airbus back. So thats a bit helpful - so at least on the next trip Im
flying Pulkovo/Rossiya.