New FAA Aviation Accident and Incident Definitions (the Safety Index)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New FAA Aviation Accident and Incident Definitions (the Safety Index)
The FAA has unilaterally decided to redefine aviation safety, claiming that accident and fatality data is often misleading (and now of no real use because of the dearth of accidents and the large death tolls associated with each - which tend to distort statistics and deceive one as to the nature of any safety deficiency).
One could interpret that as objectionably saying that a TWA800 or SR-111 event is a unitary accident and no different to a GA fatality - or one could see merit in not quantifying accidents in terms of deaths but more in numerical terms of meaningful and indicative "events".
News of this development came out rather low-key (and abstractedly) in the
"FAA Flight Plan"
(.49mb pdf file)
and has been further expanded upon in Safety Index Documentation (an MSWord document)
and its associated (MSExcel) spreadsheet:
"FAA Flight Plan"-data
It is to say the least a very "different" approach to defining accident and incident statistics. I for one would be very
interested in any informed views. You can email me at webmaster at iasa.com.au - or just post here.
Overtalk
One could interpret that as objectionably saying that a TWA800 or SR-111 event is a unitary accident and no different to a GA fatality - or one could see merit in not quantifying accidents in terms of deaths but more in numerical terms of meaningful and indicative "events".
News of this development came out rather low-key (and abstractedly) in the
"FAA Flight Plan"
(.49mb pdf file)
and has been further expanded upon in Safety Index Documentation (an MSWord document)
and its associated (MSExcel) spreadsheet:
"FAA Flight Plan"-data
It is to say the least a very "different" approach to defining accident and incident statistics. I for one would be very
interested in any informed views. You can email me at webmaster at iasa.com.au - or just post here.
Overtalk
Last edited by OVERTALK; 10th Sep 2003 at 23:33.
Suave yet Shallow
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: half way between the gutter and the stars.
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This middle link on your post didn't work 
I looked at the .xls file near the end, my first question would be where did they obtain the fleet & utilisation data, or how did they deduce those figures? - They don't look very accurate to me at all.
I only speed read the first doc, but if it is as you said and will analyse events, not just accidents then that good (in my book) - it will help sort some problems.
I also wouldn't say "The FAA has unilaterally decided to redefine aviation safety"...many companies and airlines already do this in an attempt to improve safety.
I won't waffle on...but event analysis (rather an accident analysis) is the right way to go about it.
Who in the FAA produced these docs...where did they come from?
I looked at the .xls file near the end, my first question would be where did they obtain the fleet & utilisation data, or how did they deduce those figures? - They don't look very accurate to me at all.
I only speed read the first doc, but if it is as you said and will analyse events, not just accidents then that good (in my book) - it will help sort some problems.
I also wouldn't say "The FAA has unilaterally decided to redefine aviation safety"...many companies and airlines already do this in an attempt to improve safety.
I won't waffle on...but event analysis (rather an accident analysis) is the right way to go about it.
Who in the FAA produced these docs...where did they come from?
Last edited by topcat450; 11th Sep 2003 at 00:21.
