20
$\begingroup$

The chances of a commercial flight crash are about 1 in 1,200,000 - pretty low. If each plane makes about 40,000 flights in it's lifetime, about 1 in 30 airplanes will be involved in a crash before it reaches retirement.

Is this an accurate estimate? 1 in 30 seems like quite a large amount of airplanes to crash before they are retired.

I'm also assuming here that after a crash an airplane is written off. This may not be the case - I don't know how much a plane can be repaired.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ 1 in 1,200,000 where did you get that number? $\endgroup$
    – Simon
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Simon curiosity.com/playlists/… click "show more" - or use Ctrl + F for 1.2 Their citation is now broken. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ @mins yes that answers one part - how many crash. That doesn't answer this question - what percentage of airplanes crash before they finish service. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great question! So, statistically, flying is very safe if you are a passenger, but things look different when you are a plane (or a pilot!) $\endgroup$
    – szulat
    Nov 2, 2015 at 11:02

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
16
$\begingroup$

I just ran some numbers based on Wikipedia statistics. I don't know how they define "incident or accident" but hull loss is pretty straightforward. That means it was written off.

Aircraft type Total made Incidents/accidents Hull losses
DC-10 368 55 (14.2%) 32 (8.3%)
L-1011 250 32 (12.8%) 11 (4.4%)
727 1832 336 (18.3%) 118 (6.4%)
737 8725 368 (4.3%) 184 (2.1%)
747 1514 131 (8.6%) 60 (4%)

All of these were introduced in the late 1960's. As you can see, the DC-10, L-1011, and 727, which are mostly retired, have pretty bad numbers. But the aircraft that are still being made and flown have much better stats. I think this is probably due to the fact that air travel gets safer all the time. The planes that had their heyday in the 70's and 80's fared poorly but the longer they continue to be produced, the less likely they are to crash.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Probably the best aircraft for measuring lifetime hull-loss rate is the 737 Classic: out of production long enough for most to have retired, but recent enough for much of modern air-safety practice. It's suffered 50 losses out of 1,988 made, for a 2.5% loss rate. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Nov 1, 2015 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ The list is missing Airbus a/c. I'm reading a document from Boeing (which link was provided by @Peter Kämpf in this question). Page 14, for the period 1959-2014: 1890 accidents, 616 fatal, 958 hull losses. For 2005-2014: 404 accidents, 72 fatal, 165 hull losses. This is for "jet aircraft". $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Nov 1, 2015 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ @mins Yeah, I didn't think of the A300. It's been around for a long time too. Your link to the document actually links to the question. Are you talking about the document linked by Mark in that question $\endgroup$
    – TomMcW
    Nov 1, 2015 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ @TomMcW The Boeing document link. Thanks for the feedback. In my previous comment I forgot to include the conclusion... hull loss seems not synonymous for fatality (which I expect to be more or less equivalent to crash). $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Nov 1, 2015 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @mins That chart is great. Problem is it's broken down by departures and the OP asked about per plane. I noticed that the hull loss numbers are way different than the Wikipedia numbers I used. Wiki says 118 hull losses for 727; Boeing claims only 94. Wiki says 32 for DC-10; Boeing shows 27. 11 vs 4 for L-1011. That's a pretty big discrepancy. I can see where "accident" can have different definitions, but hull loss is hull loss. $\endgroup$
    – TomMcW
    Nov 1, 2015 at 19:57
12
$\begingroup$

In case nobody can find official figures, let's try to make a rough estimate:

  • From the data in the IATA study cited in the question What are the statistical probabilities of commercial aircraft accidents?, we know for year 2014 there was:

    • 100.000 flights per day,
    • A total of 12 accidents with casualties,

  • According to this study, there were about 23.000 aircraft in service in 2014,

  • Let's assume a mean 30 years aircraft lifespan for the aircraft in service in 2014,

  • Mean flights per day per aircraft = 4.3,

  • 360 fatal accidents during a period equivalent to an aircraft lifespan.

That's a rate of 1.56 % aircraft with a fatal accident, or 1 / 64.

During this time:

  • The aircraft involved in the accident will have flown 47,000 times,
  • The 64 aircraft will have totaled 3 millions flights.

Said otherwise: an significant airline with 320 (5 × 64) aircraft:

  • Will face a disaster every 6 years,
  • After 3 millions flights (based on 2014 statistics).

(updated with a worldwide fleet of 23.000 aircrafts instead of 44.000 initially estimated.)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Again, seems quite a high chance so I guess it is significantly overestimated. I'd be interested in an official figure if it exists, but +1. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ That's not so much. A company with 122 aircraft will face a crash each 30 years. Air France with their 350 a/c will face 3 crashes every 30 years. This seems to be the correct order of magnitude. $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I suppose. Better than 1/30. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 1, 2015 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Tim: I've changed the number of aircraft, and now the result is more 1/64, closer to your figure. But that's on a base of 4.3 flights per day, which seems quite high. $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Nov 1, 2015 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @mins I wouldn't say 4.3 is high. Doesn't work for international widebodies but for short haul and regionals the aircraft do more legs per day. I've done plenty of 4-leg days with another crew taking the airplane after us to do more flying. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Nov 1, 2015 at 23:35
3
$\begingroup$

The thing about statistical chances is that they reset every time the event did not happen. If a passenger has a chance of one in a billion flight hours to die in a crash, it does not mean that his chance of dying increases every time he flies.

In the casino, it is useless to track how many times red came out at the roulette - eight out of ten last balls came out red so now black has a higher chance, is not valid. Every time there is a 50/50 chance, history does not matter.

So if the plane has a chance of 1 in 1,200,000 to crash, it has that every time it takes off. It's not counting down the take-offs until it reaches 1,200,000 and then crash. It's number of crashes divided by a denominator like number of flights, number of flight hours, number of male flight attendants on board...be very very careful with denominators, and with projecting their meaningfulness.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ On the other side, if your plane crash on the first time you fly, to you it's 100%. $\endgroup$
    – Antzi
    Jun 15, 2017 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, game over. $\endgroup$
    – Koyovis
    Jun 15, 2017 at 1:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" -Mark Twain. Your point is very valid. $\endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Jun 15, 2017 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ "If your plane crash on the first time you fly, to you it's 100%". That reminds me of those nuclear safety experts, saying: This sort of tsunami happens only once a century, so we don't need to worry too much for a plant which is supposed to last only 30 years. $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Feb 4, 2021 at 18:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .