CRJAV8OR

What is it exactly that you are looking for? You have hypothesized that SWA has a disproportionally high number of accidents and incidents compared to other carriers. I have shown you data that shows that SWA has a lower number of accidents or incidents than most of the major players in the industry. You asked for me defend my stance, which I did with facts. If the facts are inconvenient to your unsubstantiated narrative, that is your problem not mine.

SpeedyVagabond

CRJ, what he's looking for is a statistical breakdown of taxiway and runway excursions. That is what is being discussed here. Your detailed breakdown of all-inclusive incidents isn't relevant to this discussion.

CRJAV8OR

That is completely ridiculous! Taxiway or runway excursions are accidents or incidents. The data shows that SWA has LESS of these occurrences than the other major players. If you have an all inclusive rate that is in fact lower it means you are less likely to be involved in ANY form of reportable event. If your point is that even though SWA is statistically less likely to have any form of incident but when they do it is more likely to be a taxiway excursion then I say halleluiah! Taxiway excursions typically have no injuries and very little damage to the aircraft.

KC10 FATboy

Also, the data is compiled by someone from the databases listed. It doesn't mean it is accurate.

Some of these numbers are actually impossible considering the number of flights flown and number of "known" incidents and accidents.

There is also the issue of what is mandatory reporting and what isn't. I know for certain, one company I worked at reported more than what was required.

CRJAV8OR

You're right, if the facts are inconvenient they must be wrong. But, I didn't compile them myself so I don't know for certain they are correct, but am relying on AirlineSafetyRecords.com. This is all they do so I assume they have some expertise in the field. I can only assume an airline that "over" reports would not be included in the data because it would not meet the definition of accident or incident stated below. As far as "Some of these numbers are actually impossible considering the number of flights flown and number of "known" incidents and accidents." Please be more specific as to this claim. The statistics are based on 1,000,000 flights. Southwest flies 1,000,000 flights in less than a year, 321 days to be specific. By contrast, AirTran flies a million flights every 4 1/2 years or 1,666 days if you prefer.

This is what AirlineSafetyRecords have to say about their data collection methods:

"We have gone to the Federal Aviation Administration, the NTSB, and the U.S. Department of Transportation to obtain the data needed to present the safety history of airlines in an accurate and objective manner....The NTSB classifies an "Aircraft accident" as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage." An "Incident" is defined by the NTSB as "an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations." A "Near Mid-Air Collision" is defined as "an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of a collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.... It's also important to remember that the accuracy of the data reported in these tables can only be as good as the accuracy of the data reported by the Federal government. If there are errors in the data provided by the FAA, NTSB, or the U.S. Department of Transportation, those errors will be reflected in our tables as well.

KC10 FATboy

As I said before, I have no dog in this fight. But it is fun getting you worked up.

To show you what I am talking about, there are airlines with a "0" being reported for the 5-year data. This is impossible. Google the airline names and you will see many reportable items in the news or on other sites. To me, this makes the data suspect, not inconvenient as you may wish. Using your math gives us "2" incidents every 321 days at SWA, specifically as you mentioned. If we count up all the rapid Ds/holes in aircraft with emergency diverts, taxi incidents, pilots mouthing obscenities to controllers, as well as other incidents, I'm sure they add up more than "2" every 321 days.

Even if they don't, I am curious. Other than what's defined in FAA ORDER 8020.11C Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigating, and Reporting http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...r/8020.11C.pdf, are there any other FARs PARTS CFRs whatever that define what incidents need reporting?

Other than the 12 or so mandatory reportable incidents I counted in ORDER 8020 in appendix C, I haven't found any clear guidance on what is reportable other than the broad definition "an occurrence other than an accident associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations?"

Those words ... could affect ... big moving target there. Sounds subjective. Almost makes you wonder if some companies may have different reportable incidents in their FOMs?

CRJAV8OR

I'm not worked up at all, I just get amused when even in light of factual evidence some folks simply cannot accept the truth if it does not fit the paradigm they are so invested in believing. By all means if you want to present some factual evidence to support your claims I will be interested in looking at it. Short of that I will choose to accept the findings produced from the FAA, NTSB and DOT databases over your speculations based on "intuition."

KC10 FATboy

First of all, you are calling factual evidence that you even admitted there's no accountability. You are assuming that some unknown website's research is correct. I mean, everything you read on the internet is true right? After performing a simple Google search, I found an incident involving one of the airlines with a reported "0" rating during the reporting period. So who is lying? Did the company not report, in this case, a mandatory reportable incident? Or did the website miss it or not include it? We will never know what really happened but I assure you it was reported since the source of the report ... drum roll please ... was the NTSB DATABASE !

Going by the definition of incident, I simple do not believe it is possible to have flown for five years and not have at least one. Do you? Again, there are probably companies that over report (conservative stance on "may affect safety") and some with a liberal stance (under report). Shocker alert, considering what information I know, I am surprised some of the numbers for the evil legacies are so low. I get the gut feeling that the website might be taking liberties with what they're counting as an incident. But who knows?

Apples and oranges, Southwest under reports DOT statistics when they're not required. My source for such outrageous charge? It is printed in every DOT report that I have read. Why? Because there are some DOT metics/airports not mandatory. And if Southwest doesn't have to report them, they typically don't and the DOT release says so. It doesn't mean Southwest is good or evil; they're following the law.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding the numbers could be wrong based on errors by the website, or even in the government databases, or the possibility of different interpretations of "may affect safety?"

RhinoPherret

Arguing over this is obviously good keyboard/pad experience but little else.

Folks believe what they want to based on their personal biases (religion and politics sound familiar?). Seems to never matter what facts may be presented. If you have a biased opinion one way or the other, facts are either facts or fantasy.

Next argument: Is it hotter in the summer or colder in the winter?