From AIN:
The number of fatalities in U.S.-registered business jet accidents last year fell by more than 50 percent year-over-year. According to preliminary data researched by AIN, 13 people perished in two fatal accidents involving N-numbered business jets last year versus 30 in six crashes in 2014. One of the two crashes last year, fatal to four aboard the jet, was a midair between a Sabreliner flying under a military contract and a Cessna 172. Meanwhile, the number of nonfatal mishaps last year increased threefold, rising from six in 2014 to 18.
Non-U.S.-registered business jets were also involved in more nonfatal accidents last year versus 2014, increasing from four to 11. While the number of fatal crashes remained at five, the number of fatalities fell from 19 in 2014 to 11 last year. One of those crashes last year was the first fatal accident of an Eclipse 500 very light jet.
Turboprops worldwide experienced more accidents and more fatalities last year than in 2014. According to preliminary data, 28 people died in 10 crashes of U.S.-registered business turboprops last year versus 24 deaths in nine crashes in 2014. Twelve crashes of non-U.S.-registered turboprops last year resulted in 43 fatalities, compared with 35 deaths in eight accidents in 2014.
Jason it is all in the thickness of the tail, hence the Prussians in the 19th Century using Poisson curves to estimate soldiers lost/injured to horses kicking them.
The dispersion in the accident tail means that one years rate is not statistically significant. A certain type which only very occasionally gets mentioned here, had a 50% increase in fatalities in 2015. Doesn’t mean it isn’t building a better record, it just evidences the thicker nature of the tail distribution.
Having said this, new generation jets have a host of systems and ergonomic improvements, including more docile flying characteristics, so safety should continue to improve, over say, legacy jets like a Lear 20 series.
Robert, I agree and didn’t make my interest clear. I find the difference between the bizjet rate, the turboprop rate and the other GA rate surprisingly high. The change year to year is just noise.
JasonC wrote:
I find the difference between the bizjet rate, the turboprop rate and the other GA rate surprisingly high.
My guess (but I only have some insight into the Europen bizjet market) about the reason for the low bizjet accident rate is growing pilot experiece. Traditionally, bizjet flying was regarded as a stepping stone towards an airline career and as soon as a pilot had the required number of hours, he would be gone. The few who remained, either because the were too old or otherwise not good enough for the airlines, got promoted to captain. This resulted in crews composed of inexperienced first officers and captains, some of which really should have chosen a different profession. Not good for the accident statistics. Now the airlines are hiring much less than they used to and pilots stay with business jets much longer than before. Our first officiers on average have more flying hours than a bizjet captain would have had ten years ago. This results in a massive improvement in safety as can be seen from the figures.
Additionally (at least in Europe) the combination of low capital cost and increasing maintenance costs has purged the market of the 30+ year old death-traps. It is a lot cheaper to operate a factory new Sovereign than a 35 year old Lear 35 or Astra. Therefore those types have gone to where they belong: The scapyard.
And regarding turboprop accident rates: Again, I think these are caused by lack of pilots experience. Traditionally pilots would start their career on piston twins (Europe again, where proper commercial operations require at least two engines). The piston twin has disappeared from the market for the same reason as the Astra. New pilots now start commercial flying on turboprops and we see the high accident rate formerly associated with piston twins shifting to that category.
As an additional point I believe that there is one area the FAA have got wrong compared to EASA.
European pilots of turbine twins such as the King Air require Type ratings, whereas the FAA treat them as Multi Engine aircraft, the same as a MEP.
The training for a Type rating is much deeper and more comprehensive than a simple “check out” on type, and these Turboprop aircraft are in my limited experience more difficult to fly than light jets such as Citations, particularly when things go wrong, have complex systems, and therefore comprehensive training is highly appropriate..
How often is an EASA TR examined on say a King Air?
Do you have to fly with a TRE every 6 or 12 months?
(non AOC context)
Peter wrote:
Do you have to fly with a TRE every 6 or 12 months?
Non AOC: 12 months, AOC: 6 months. One checkride each for every type and/or class.
Well .. Jason has been flying the Turbine Medirian before and now the Jet, so he is in a position, from experience, to tell if flying the Jet is “easier” than the Jetprop or Turbine Meridian…
What Next
You mentioned that the Astra wasn’t a great aircraft. Do you mind to elaborate? I am asking as I took part in the wind tunnel testing of the aircraft during its development. Years later, I saw one in Cannes and was aloud to have a look inside, I was surprised to see how narrow it was.
Thanks
You mentioned that the Astra wasn’t a great aircraft.
No, nothing wrong with the Astra itself (“my” company will take delivery of it’s latest descendant, a G280, in a few weeks). I was only using it as an example of an old type – out of production for nearly 30 years – that can be literally bought for the price of the fuel remaining in the tanks. There has been a thread about it on this forum a short while ago. At least around here, the very few accidents involving bizjets have mostly been old airframes.
