Originally Posted by
rickair7777
We'll have to disagree on that (I hope you're not in North America, or fly here much).
Actually here's some foriegn media reporting which "proves" your point... of course they are gleefully and blatantly lying with grossly misrepresented statistics since their data is total accidents, NOT normalized for the actual number of flight hours or departures. Who would have thought that mexico was so much safer than the US
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6718281.html
This document provides a more holistic tally of airline safety, considering not just raw accident data, but data adjusted for the actual amount of activity as well as compliance. Pages 22-26. This data is representative of what I have observed by following this sort of stuff for about the last 20 years.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3297.pdf
I fly in the US, yes. But I also have quite a bit of experience on how airlines operate in Western Europe.
A more holistic tally? You’re kidding, right?
That’s one year of statistics, and it bundles half of Russia and all of the old Soviet bloc countries into Europe.
Also, if you would add some Part 91 flying in the mix, stats would look different. A lot of Part 91 or 91k is considered CAT under EASA.
Now, if you look at page 26 you’ll see in 2013 per million sectors, US has over twice the hull loss rate compared to Europe. If we carve out Western Europe, things would look even more different.
One single event will skew these results because they are so rare.
The point I’m trying to make is, that both training philosophies can produce results that are equally safe. The big issue in the US right now is, that people will find bottom feeders who will hire and train anyone, no matter if they really belong in the cockpit or not, as long as they have enough pencil whipped hours in their logbook.