Less safe?

jetman

New Member
Is it SAFER [as a passenger] to fly with the majors than the regionals? on my next trip i will be flying one leg with a regional and to the final destination with a major.If regionals are a steping stone to the majors and in general ,crews are less experience than their colegues in the majors ,am i at a greater risk of an accident flying the regionals?
thanks for input jetman
 

CK

Well-Known Member
I heard there was a survey and that the regionals were somthing like 3 times more dangerous then the majors. They conducted it after the CLT crash. Still a lot safer then driving tho.
 

IrishSheepdog

Sitting in the median
[ QUOTE ]
I heard there was a survey and that the regionals were somthing like 3 times more dangerous then the majors. They conducted it after the CLT crash. Still a lot safer then driving tho.


[/ QUOTE ]

They probably surveyed US Airways mainline pilots to get that statistic.
 

CK

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I *heard* there is a small colony of pink donkeys on Mars...whats your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was the colony of pink donkeys on CNN.
 

Baronman

Well-Known Member
With regard to terrorism I would guess that the regionals are safer.

I feel more comfortable as a passenger in a major airline flight. I imagine some guys up front, one like Doug, or A300 (even Tenney
), guys who have been around the block.

I feel safe aboard a regional but I imagine the guys up front to be less experienced.
 

Mr_Creepy

Well-Known Member
Nobody is more current and qualified than regional/commuter pilots. They fly more legs, do more landings, fly through more crap, etc ....

True about the experience but I think it balances out.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I heard there was a survey and that the regionals were somthing like 3 times more dangerous then the majors. They conducted it after the CLT crash. Still a lot safer then driving tho.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you take a very small number and triple it, it's still a very small number.
 

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
Hey Jetman!

I think it all depends.

It depends on the level of CRM of the crew, the level of experience of both pilots, the experience of the dispatchers, etc.

I probably flew more balls-to-the-wall handflown instrument approaches at a 1900 pilot, but I've flown more advanced equipment at the majors that gave me the ability to have a better 'big picture' of the situation.

I've probably flown through more crappy enroute weather in a Beech 1900, but the jets afford me more options to get around it, but a bigger dilemma in determining if it's worth burning all the gas to climb to FL 370, rather than the shortest route through the line.

And I could honestly go on and on, but it all just depends.
 

sixpack

New Member
I read that the probability of being killed on a major airline is about 1 in eight million flights.

If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would be approximately 22,000 years before he or she would be killed.

source: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

Personally, I'm going to stop flying when I reach my 21,999th birthday, so as not to push my odds
 

Tired

New Member
Ok, this survery compares major airlines to "commuter airlines." Typically when they say commuters they are talking about 135. However, regionals, being 121 operators now, are typically lumped in with the major airlines stats. Considering the better equipment regionals fly these days I don't doubt they are just as safe as major airlines. The firs CRJ crash only just happened this year.
 

hellmuth

Well-Known Member
The critical phases of flight with the largest risk of accident are take off and landing as well as approach and departure. In between these phases, the risk factor sinks considerably. Due to the nature of their operations, regional/commuter airline crew have to cope with substantially more approaches and departures per flight hour than their colleagues in mid-long range flights. Additionally, most of the smaller regional airlines don't have the same resources available to them as the major airlines which would allow them to invest much more than the required minimum in safety. These are a couple of reasons for the worse statistics.
 

Eagle

New Member
it may also be an issue of statistics.

if you have 2000 regional/national flights a day and 1000 Mainline flights two incidents on the regionals are equal to one on the majors, but they are "twice as likely"

Also the miles/hours flown would be interesting to look into
 

Mr_Creepy

Well-Known Member
Hellmuth I question the resources statement.

Commuters are for the most part flying much newer aircraft than majors. The BE1900D models are all less than 15 years old. The RJs less than 10. Compare that to the carriers out there flying B727s and B737-200s, all of which are 30 or more years old.

There is a lot of new technology in the commuters that you may lose when you go to the major. FMS, Glass Cockpit, etc.

These new stretch RJs are quite impressive. Full automation, LE devices, APUs, etc. Awesome!

I agree on the critical phase assessment, although RJ crews are flying fewer legs than B1900 and J31 crews. RJ stage lengths are starting to get pretty long - PHL-STL for example.

If there is a difference in safety it would have to be in crew experience. I know this is unpopular here, but you don't see many major carrier crews with 300 hr FOs (not even United anymore.)

The only RJ accident that I know of (I'd like to hear more about that CRJ crash that happened this year, don't know anything about it) was an ERJ that had a hard landing in RIC. Both crewmembers were decidedly low time, the CA had only 2500 hrs and her FO only had about 800.

No one was hurt but they did bang up an airplane.
 

Mr_Creepy

Well-Known Member
You didn't say it was European. They have different training standards than we do.

What an annoying site that airdisaster is - constant popups and crap like that.
 

jazlvr

New Member
I personally have no worries about flying with either a major or a regional carrier. It's driving to the airport that's scary!
 
Top