Aviation Transport Accident Statistics: Risk Assessment Data Directory

Risk Assessment Data Directory
Report No. 434 11.1

March 2010
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s
Aviation
transport
accident
statistics
P
ublications
Global experience
Te International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical
knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many diferent
terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines
for good practice by individual members.
Consistent high quality database and guidelines
Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-
tice throughout the world.
Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-
ent databases and records in certain felds. Te OGPs members are encouraged to use the
guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and
regulations which may apply locally.
Internationally recognised source of industry information
Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and
safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government
organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.
Disclaimer
Whilst every efort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,
neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless
of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which
liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any use
by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. Te recipient is obliged to inform
any subsequent recipient of such terms.
Tis document may provide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothing
herein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart fom such requirements. In
the event of any confict or contradiction between the provisions of this document and local legislation,
applicable laws shall prevail.
Copyright notice
Te contents of these pages are Te International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission
is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)
the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written
permission of the OGP.
Tese Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-
land and Wales. Disputes arising here fom shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.
RADD Aviation transport accident statistics
OGP

contents

1.0 Scope and Application........................................................... 1
1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Application ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Summary of Recommended Data............................................ 2
2.1 Helicopter Transport....................................................................................... 2
2.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport ....................................................................... 4
3.0 Guidance on use of data ........................................................ 6
3.1 General validity ............................................................................................... 6
3.2 Uncertainties ................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations ......................................... 6
3.3.1 Helicopter Risk ........................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Risk............................................................................................ 8
4.0 Review of data sources ......................................................... 9
4.1 Basis of data presented ................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 Helicopter Transport .................................................................................................. 9
4.1.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport................................................................................. 15
4.2 Other data sources ....................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Helicopter Transport ................................................................................................ 18
4.2.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport................................................................................. 18
5.0 Recommended data sources for further information ............ 18
6.0 References .......................................................................... 19
6.1 Helicopter References.................................................................................. 19
6.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft References................................................................... 19
6.3 Other References.......................................................................................... 20
Appendix I Statistical Methods .................................................... 21

OGP

Abbreviations:

CAA (UK) Civil Aviation Authority
DNV Det Norske Veritas
E&P Exploration and Production
FAR Fatal Accident Rate
GoM Gulf of Mexico
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
IR Individual Risk
MTOW Maximum Take Off Weight
NATS National Air Traffic Services
OGP Oil and Gas Producers
POB Personnel On Board
PLL Potential Loss of Life
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
SMS Safety Management System

TO/L Take-Off and Landing
UK(CS) United Kingdom (Continental Shelf)
WAAS World Aircraft Accident Summary

OGP

1
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 Scope
This datasheet provides information on aviation transport accident statistics for use in
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The data sheet includes guidelines for the use
of recommended data and a review of the sources of the data.
The data in this sheet are intended for two main uses:
Assessing the risk of helicopter transport;
Assessing the risk of fixed wing transport.

1.2 Application
This datasheet contains global data plus more detailed regional/national data where
relevant or where available. When using these data, it should be noted that they may
not be directly applicable to the specific location under study. Guidance on using
location specific data is given in Section 3.3.

1.3 Definitions
The data presented in Section 2.0 are for persons travelling by air during take-off,
flight and landing. They exclude risks to persons on the ground: ground staff,
flight/cabin crew and passengers boarding/leaving the air transport. Helicopter
transport risks also exclude non transport activities such as search and rescue
missions and winching.
Transport risks to persons are presented as:
I ndi vi dual Ri sk (I R): risk per year of fatality to a specific individual
Fatal Acci dent Rate (FAR): risk of fatality per 10
8
exposed hours
1

The following are used in the risk models presented in Sections 2.0 and 3.0:
Probabi l i ty of fatal acci dent Probability that an accident results in at least
one fatality
Probabi l i ty of death i n fatal acci dent Probability of death for one individual
on board aircraft/helicopter involved in fatal
accident

1
It should be noted that FARs are convenient for describing the risk in individual activities
(e.g. working on the drill floor, flying in a helicopter). Unlike individual risks per year, they do
not require any assumptions about what the individual does for the rest of the year. However,
they may be misleading because they represent a rate of risk per unit time in the activity. FAR
values for offshore workers are typically based on 26 weeks exposure per year (for a 2 weeks
on, 2 weeks off rota pattern), equivalent to 4380 hours per person per year; the corresponding
helicopter transport exposure is of the order of 30 hours per year. Hence, in contrast to
individual risks per year, FARs cannot sensibly be added together. Whereas FAR values are in
the range 144 to 815 for offshore transport (see Table 2.3), the total FAR in offshore activities
may be only 10 to 20. Adding these values would give a misleading impression of the relative
contribution of helicopter risk to the overall risk. Although it may still be a significant
contributor to the total IR and PLL, it should be judged in the context of those measures, and
the helicopter FAR value should not be added to the FAR values from other risks. However, it
may be compared with FAR values for other modes of transport (e.g. fixed wing aircraft.)
OGP

2
Data for the following helicopter activities are presented in Sections 2.1 and 4.1.1:
Offshore (all offshore helicopter activity)
Sei smi c (onshore seismic surveys)
Geophysi cal (onshore geophysical activity)
Pi pel i ne (onshore pipeline surveys and support)
Other (all other onshore activity, e.g. crew changes, rig moves, non seismic
external loads)

2.0 Summary of Recommended Data
The recommended frequencies and associated data are presented as follows:
Helicopter Transport (Section 2.1)
Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport (Section 2.2)

2.1 Helicopter Transport
The following model is recommended.
Individual risk (IR) per journey = In-flight IR + Take-off & landing (TO/L) IR
In-flight IR = Accident frequency in-flight (per hour) !
Flight time (hours) !
Probability of fatal accident !
Probability of death in fatal accident
TO/L IR = Accident frequency in TO/L (per flight stage) !
No of flight stages per journey !
Probability of fatal accident !
Probability of death in fatal accident

Wherever possible, local (country/regional or air transport operator) data should be
used (but see Section 3.3.1). Where these are not available, the frequencies and
probabilities recommended for use in this model are set out in Table 2.1 (offshore
transport) and Table 2.2 (other activities). The basis for the values in these tables is
set out in Section 4.1.1. No trend over time can be identified in the 9 years data
analysed.

OGP

3
Tabl e 2. 1 Offshore Hel i copter Transport Fl i ght Acci dent Data for
Ri sk Esti mati on Model
Regi on Fl i ght
Phase
Frequency uni t Probabi l i ty
of Fatal
Acci dent
Probabi l i ty
of Death i n
Fatal
Acci dent
In-flight 8.5 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.20 0.85

North Sea
Take-off &
Landing
4.3 ! 10
-7
per flight
stage
0.17

0.48

In-flight 8.5 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.33 0.59 Gulf of
Mexico
Take-off &
Landing
2.7 ! 10
-6
per flight
stage
0.24 0.49
In-flight 8.5 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.74 0.87 Rest of World
Take-off &
Landing
2.7 ! 10
-6
per flight
stage
0.24 0.49

Tabl e 2. 2 Other Acti vi ti es Hel i copter Fl i ght Acci dent Data for Ri sk
Esti mati on Model
Acti vi ty Fl i ght
Phase
of Fatal
Acci dent
Probabi l i ty
of Death i n
Fatal
Acci dent
In-flight 4.1 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.26 0.54 Seismic
Take-off &
Landing
1.8 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.15 0.74
In-flight 1.1 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
1.00 0.86 Geophysical
Take-off &
Landing
8.8 ! 10
-6

per flight
stage
0.16

0.34

In-flight 6.3 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.36 0.62 Pipeline
Take-off &
Landing
2.6 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.25 0.47
In-flight 4.1 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.26 1.00 Other
Take-off &
Landing
1.8 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.15 0.33

OGP

4
Table 2.3 gives FAR values for helicopter transport.

Tabl e 2. 3 Esti mated FAR Val ues for Hel i copter Transport
Acti vi ty Regi on FAR
North Sea 144
Gulf of Mexico 454
Rest of World 815
Offshore Transport
All 509
Seismic All 5268
Geophysical All 4792
Pipeline All 8883
Other All 2487
All except Offshore Transport All 3670

2.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport
Table 2.4 presents basis accident, individual risk and FAR data.

Tabl e 2. 4 Average Worl dwi de Western Jet Data (excl udi ng hosti l e attacks
and personal acci dents
1
)
Measure Val ue
Fatal accident
2
frequency per flight 6.2 ! 10
-7

Fatal accident
2
frequency per flight hour 3.4 ! 10
-7

Individual risk per person flight 4.1 ! 10
-7

Individual risk per person flight hour 2.3 ! 10
-7

FAR 23
Notes
1. Such as ground crew fatal injuries, slips, trips and falls.
2. Defined as fatality within 30 days of the accident. Excludes
fatal illnesses on board aircraft.

There appears to be a downward trend in accident frequencies of 4.5% a year [10].
Hence, as these values are based on 1990-2002 data (see Section 4.1.2), for 2008 a
modification factor of 0.58 (4.5% decrease/year ! 12 years since the mid-point of the
dataset) could be used.
A number of other factors could have an impact on the accident frequencies. The
tables below address:
the type of accident considered (Table 2.5);
the operating region/location (Table 2.6);
the type of operation scheduled, cargo etc. (Table 2.7); and
the type of aircraft used (Table 2.8).
OGP

5
Tabl e 2. 5 Mul ti pl i cati on Factors for Acci dent Frequenci es
Frequency Type Modi fi cati on Factor
Frequency of fatal accidents including hostile
acts and personal accidents
1.15
Frequency of ICAO defined accidents (i.e.
involving substantial damage to the aircraft
and/or serious/fatal injury to people)
3.53
Frequency of hull loss (i.e. events where the
aircraft is missing or damaged beyond economic
repair)
1.37

Tabl e 2. 6 Mul ti pl i cati on Factors for Operati ng Regi ons
Operati ng Regi on (Operator Domi ci l e) Modi fi cati on Factor
Western Europe, North America and Australasia 0.36
Middle East and Asia (excluding China) 1.8
Latin America 2.4
Eastern Europe (including Russia), Africa and
China
3.9

Tabl e 2. 7 Mul ti pl i cati on Factors for Types of Operati on
Operati on Modi fi cati on Factor
Scheduled passenger (e.g. major airlines) 0.83
Non-scheduled passenger (e.g. charter flights) 2.1
Scheduled cargo (e.g. UPS, FedEx, DHL etc) 2.0
Non-scheduled cargo 5.3

Tabl e 2. 8 Mul ti pl i cati on Factors for Types of Ai rcraft
Ai rcraft Type Modi fi cati on
Factor
First generation Western jets (e.g. B707, DC-8)* 11.8
Second generation Western jets (e.g. B727, DC-9, F28)* 1.25
Early widebody Western jets (e.g. B747, DC-10)* 2.24
Current Western jets (e.g. B757/767/777, A330/340, F100)* 0.65
Eastern built jets (e.g. Il76, Tu154) 2
Executive jets (e.g. Citation, Gulfstream, Learjet) 13
Early turboprops first delivered before 1970 (e.g. BAe 748,
F27)
4
Modern turboprops first delivered since 1970 (e.g. DH-8,
F50)
1.2
Piston-engine aircraft (e.g. Islander, Cessna 150, PA28) 19
* See Section 4.1.2.4 for a full list of aircraft types covered by these definitions.

OGP

6
3.0 Guidance on use of data
3.1 General validity
If transport risk is a relatively small contribution to an overall risk study, the data
above may be sufficient. However, if transport risk is the object of the study or is
believed to be significant, local data become very important. It is strongly
recommended that local data sources on accidents and transport risk are obtained
wherever possible (but see Section 3.3.1). This is because there can be large local
variations. In the absence of local data, the data presented in Section 2.0 can be used.
3.2 Uncertainties
With respect to the hel i copt er acci dent dat a in Section 2.1, the main uncertainties
arise from the relatively limited number of fatal accidents that have occurred in the
regions mentioned in Table 2.1, and from the small numbers of flights and of fatal
accidents in some of the activities mentioned in Table 2.2. These are discussed
further in Section 4.1.1.
The data presented in Section 2.1 are based on information provided to OGP by OGPs
members, and may not be representative in all geographical areas.
Variations may exist between different helicopter types: this is examined in Section
4.1.1. It is suggested there that there are no significant systematic variations in
accident rates between different helicopter types but it may be desirable to use type
specific data where available, at least as a sensitivity.
Regarding the f i xed wi ng ai rcraf t acci dent frequencies in Section 2.2, there are
significant uncertainties concerning the modification factors. It is preferable to
incorporate them in the analysis by some means rather than to use the basis
frequencies (Table 2.4) without modification for the specific situation addressed by
the QRA. The available data (see Section 4.1.2) do not permit rigorous analysis of the
all the factors involved and of possible correlations between them. Two possible
approaches may be adopted:
1. As a simple approach, it could be assumed that the above sets of modification
factors are independent and can be combined to estimate the risks in specific
cases. However, many of the factors could be correlated. For example, much of the
observed downward trend in accident frequency has resulted from the introduction
of current generation aircraft, which have been used mainly for scheduled
passenger services in Western countries. Meanwhile, older jets are used mainly in
developing countries and for cargo operations. Hence, the combination of factors
will tend to over-estimate the effects in cases where several factors all increase or
reduce the risk.
2. An alternative approach would be to select what are judged the most significant
issues and just use one or two modification factors. This is illustrated below in
Section 3.3.

3.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations
This datasheet contains global data plus more detailed regional data where available.
When using these data, it should be realised that they may not be directly applicable
to the specific location under study. It is therefore strongly recommended that local
data sources on accidents and transport risk be obtained before using the data given
in this sheet (but see Section 3.3.1). Local sources could include governmental or
OGP

7
other national or regional institutions, or the facility operator's or local air transport
operator's data.
Should local data not be available, or their reliability/applicability be uncertain, then
the data in this datasheet could be used after factoring for local circumstances.
However, data which have been adjusted to allow for local circumstances should
always be used with caution: the assumptions made are likely to be judgemental and
hence may reduce the reliability of the adjusted data vis--vis reality. Each
assumption should be clearly documented so that an audit trail is maintained.
3.3.1 Helicopter Risk
In Sections 3.1 and 3.3 the use of local data wherever possible is recommended.
However, the number of fatal accidents is relatively small. I t i s therefore
recommended that l ocal acci dent f requenci es, where avai l abl e, are
combi ned wi th the generi c probabi l i t i es gi ven i n Secti on 2. 1.
The following example illustrates how the data in Section 2.1 can be used to estimate
helicopter transport annual risks.
A North Sea installation crew member works 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The flight from
the heliport to their installation is in 2 stages (i.e. via another installation) and the total
time in the air is 1 hour. Their IR would be calculated as follows.
Total flight stages = 13 offshore trips/year ! 2 flights/trip ! 2 stages/flight = 52 stages/year
Total flight time = 13 offshore trips/year ! 2 flights/trip ! 1 hour/flight = 26 hours/year
In-flight IR = Accident frequency in-flight (8.5 ! 10
-6
per flight hour) !
Flight time (26 hours/year) !
Probability of fatal accident (0.20) !
Probability of death in fatal accident (0.85)
= 3.8 ! 10
-5
per year
TO/L IR = Accident frequency in TO/L (1.0 ! 10
-5
per flight stage) !
No of flight stages (52/year) !
! Probability of fatal accident (0.17) !
! Probability of death in fatal accident (0.48)
= 4.2 ! 10
-5
per year
Total IR = 3.8 ! 10
-5
+ 4.2 ! 10
-5
per year = 8.0 ! 10
-5
per year

The annual PLL (Potential Loss of Life) from helicopter transport for the installation
can be calculated with the following additional information.
The platform POB is 48. 2 crews operate back-to-back. Helicopter transport is
provided by the S-76, which has a passenger capacity of 12. Hence each crew change
requires 4 helicopter flights.
Total PLL = Total IR ! no. of crews ! flights/crew ! passengers/flight
=8.0 ! 10
-5
per year ! 2 ! 4 ! 12 = 7.7 ! 10
-3

OGP

8
However, it should be noted that in practice not all personnel visiting a platform work
exactly 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Additional personnel may be flown out for specific
tasks lasting perhaps just a few days; there may be visitors to the platform, perhaps
arriving and departing within the same day. Hence true risk estimates may vary
between individuals.

3.3.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Risk
To illustrate how the fixed wing data in Section 02.2 could be used, four examples are
set out below.
1. Worldwide average individual risks travelling on Western Jet in 2008
Basic FAR = 23
Trend factor ! 0.58 (see Section 2.2)
Current FAR = 13

2. Scheduled passenger jet flight in Western Europe, N. America, Australasia
Basic FAR = 23
Scheduled passenger ! 0.83 (from Table 2.7)
Operating Region ! 0.36 (from Table 2.6)
Local FAR = 7
N.B. Modification factors are based only on accident rates and not accident
consequences (probability of fatality in an accident) as the latter show relatively small
variations. In the above calculation the trend factor is not used, as the use of modern
aircraft has been widespread in these regions for some time.

3. Worldwide average individual risks travelling on Non scheduled passenger
flight in 2008
Basic FAR = 23
Trend factor ! 0.58 (see Section 2.2)
Non scheduled passenger ! 2.1 (from Table 2.7)
Current Local FAR = 28

4. Specific individual risks travelling on Non scheduled passenger flight in older
style of aircraft in Middle East
Basic FAR = 23
Non scheduled passenger ! 2.1 (from Table 2.7)
Operating Region ! 1.8 (from Table 2.6)
Specific Local FAR = 87

Sensitivity tests can involve applying extra (or fewer) modification factors to obtain
realistic ranges. For example in example 4 above, no trend factor was applied as older
OGP

9
aircraft were being assessed; however, if it were considered that operational
standards were equivalent to todays standards the trend factor could be applied (!
0.58) leading to a FAR range of 50 to 87.

4.0 Review of data sources
4.1 Basis of data presented
4.1.1 Helicopter Transport
4.1.1.1 Principal Analysis
The main source of data is the annual reports produced by OGP [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
for each year 1998 to 2006 apart from 1999. These have been supplemented by
operational data for 1999 and more detailed accident information provided on behalf
of OGP [9].
The operational data are presented by region for offshore activities and aggregated
worldwide for other activities.
The detailed accident data give: date, helicopter operator, activity, helicopter model
and type (see Section 4.1.1.2), country, nos. of passenger and crew injuries and
fatalities, flight phase, and a brief description of the accident cause. They do not give
the number of passengers carried on the flight.
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 summarise the operational and accident data for offshore
transport and other activities respectively. These form the basis of the analysis
presented in this datasheet.
Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 present the raw analysis of the data given in Table 4.1 and
Table 4.2 respectively. It will be noted that in some cases entries appear as 0.
Furthermore, given the limited accident data, it can be questioned whether the
differences between regions for offshore helicopter transport, and between activities
for other activities, are statistically significant. Figure 4.1 shows the accident
frequencies for offshore activities by region and overall, with error bars showing 90%
confidence limits (see Appendix I). From this it was concluded as follows:
The difference in i n-fl i ght accident frequencies between the three regions is not
statistically significant, so the overall value has been substituted in Table 2.1 for
the region specific values in Table 4.3.
The difference in take-off/ l andi ng accident frequencies between the GoM and
Other regions is not statistically significant, so the overall value for these two
regions has been substituted in Table 2.1 for the region specific values in Table
4.3.

OGP

10
Tabl e 4. 1 Summary of Offshore Operati onal and Acci dent Stati sti cs 1998-2006
North Sea Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Phase SE LT MT HT SE LT MT HT
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 0 414 341,470 971,320 - - - - 10 0 0 3 7 2 0 0 2 0 18
Take-off - - - - - - - - 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Landing - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TO/L - - - - 0 456 1,284,244 1,066,270 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

GoM Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 2,598,714 285,614 719,222 95,609 - - - - 36 30 2 4 0 12 10 1 1 0 27
Take-off - - - - - - - - 14 13 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6
Landing - - - - - - - - 21 18 1 2 0 4 4 0 0 0 7
TO/L - - - - 9,812,645 942,850 1,542,599 159,899 35 31 2 2 0 7 7 0 0 0 13

Other Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 401,561 117,569 2,127,399 464,692 - - - - 23 3 1 16 3 17 3 1 11 2 99
Take-off - - - - - - - - 8 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 13
Landing - - - - - - - - 15 1 0 11 3 5 0 0 3 2 12
TO/L - - - - 2,482,319 240,428 5,334,178 832,160 23 3 2 13 5 7 1 0 4 2 25
SE = Single Engine; LT = Light Twin; MT = Medium Twin; HT = Heavy Twin
OGP

11
Tabl e 4. 2 Summary of Other Operati onal and Acci dent Stati sti cs 1998-2006
Sei smi c Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 317,127 7,071 67,927 6,029 - - - - 18 17 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 7
Take-off - - - - - - - - 13 11 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 5
Landing - - - - - - - - 11 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
TO/L - - - - 1,221,253 9,046 146,785 9,072 24 22 0 2 0 3 2 0 1 0 6

Geophysi ca
l Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs
Acci dents by hel i type
Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 68,988 8,485 8,580 2,232 - - - - 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Take-off - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landing - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TO/L - - - - 63,881 6,815 6,028 2,633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pi pel i ne Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 183,288 6,832 25,312 6,138 - - - - 14 11 0 1 2 5 2 0 1 2 16
Take-off - - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
Landing - - - - - - - - 7 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4
TO/L - - - - 189,149 8,144 96,940 18,385 8 6 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 5

Other Fl i ght Hours Take-Offs and Landi ngs Acci dents by hel i type Fatal s by hel i type
Fl i ght
Acci dents SE
LT MT HT
Fatal
s SE LT MT HT
Fatal i ti e
s
In-flight 175,687 21,465 99,741 131,271 - - - - 16 11 1 3 1 4 2 1 0 1 28
Take-off - - - - - - - - 5 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Landing - - - - - - - - 12 8 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2
TO/L - - - - 292,044 24,774 396,507 158,576 17 12 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 5
OGP

12
Tabl e 4. 3 Offshore Transport Fl i ght Acci dent Data
Regi on Fl i ght
Phase
of Fatal
Acci dent
Probabi l i ty
of Death i n
Fatal
Acci dent
In-flight 8.5 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.20 1.00

North Sea
Take-off &
Landing
4.3 ! 10
-7
per flight
stage
0 0
In-flight 9.7 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.33 0.59 Gulf of
Mexico
Take-off &
Landing
2.8 ! 10
-6
per flight
stage
0.20 0.53
In-flight 7.4 ! 10
-6
per flight
hour
0.74 0.87 Rest of
World
Take-off &
Landing
2.6 ! 10
-6
per flight
stage
0.30 0.48

Tabl e 4. 4 Other Acti vi ti es Fl i ght Acci dent Data
Acti vi ty Fl i ght
Phase
of Fatal
Acci dent
Probabi l i ty
of Death i n
Fatal
Acci dent
In-flight 2.7 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.28 0.54 Seismic
Take-off &
Landing
1.0 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.13 0.74
In-flight 1.1 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
1.00 0.86 Geophysical
Take-off &
Landing
0 per flight
stage
0 0
In-flight 6.3 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.36 0.62 Pipeline
Take-off &
Landing
2.6 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.25 0.47
In-flight 3.7 ! 10
-5
per flight
hour
0.25 1.00 Other
Take-off &
Landing
1.9 ! 10
-5
per flight
stage
0.18 0.33

OGP

13
Fi gure 4. 1 Offshore Hel i copter Acci dent Frequenci es

No accidents on take-off and landing have occurred during geophysical activities
(Table 4.4); an accepted statistical technique of assuming 0.7 accidents to date (see
Appendix I) has been applied.
The significance of statistical differences in accident frequencies has been analysed
for other activities in similar manner to that above for offshore transport, as shown in
Figure 4.2. From this it was concluded that:
The differences in i n-fl i ght and take-off/ l andi ng accident frequencies between
Seismic and Other activities (i.e. apart from pipeline and geophysical activities) is
not statistically significant, so the overall values for these two activities have been
substituted in Table 2.2 for the activity specific values in Table 4.4.
Similar analysis can be applied to the fatal accident probabilities and the fatalities/fatal
accident fractions. Addressing first the zeroes in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4:
For take-off/ l andi ng accidents in the North Sea, the longer-term UK averages
based on CAA accident and exposure data have been used in Table 2.1.
The same has been done for the fatality rate in fatal i n-fl i ght accidents in the
North Sea.
For take-off/ l andi ng accidents in geophysi cal activities, the averages for all
non offshore transport activities have been used in Table 2.2.
Next, considering the significance of statistical differences, it was concluded that:
The differences in fatal accident probabilities for i n-fl i ght and take-off/ l andi ng
accidents during Seismic and Other activities are not statistically significant, so
the overall value for these two activities has been substituted in Table 2.2 for the
activity specific values in Table 4.4.
Apart from the above exceptions, the values in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 are the same as
those in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4.

OGP

14
Fi gure 4. 2 Other Acti vi ti es Hel i copter Acci dent Frequenci es

4.1.1.2 Effect of Helicopter Type
Helicopters are categorised as:
SE (Single Engine), e.g. AS350B Squirrel
LT (Light Twin), e.g. Eurocopter AS355
MT (Medium Twin), e.g. Sikorsky S-76A
HT (Heavy Twin), e.g. SA332 Super Puma
The OGP data enable comparisons to be made between these 4 categories. The
accident frequencies are shown in Figure 4.3. From this it would be reasonable to
conclude that there are no significant differences in accident frequencies for the
different helicopter types (although the in-flight frequency for SE helicopters and take-
off/landing frequency for MT helicopters could be considered to be significantly
different to the overall frequencies for the other types.) Hence no variation by
helicopter type is suggested.

OGP

15
Fi gure 4. 3 Hel i copter Acci dent Frequenci es by Type (al l acti vi ti es)


4.1.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport
4.1.2.1 Large Western Jets
4. 1. 2. 1. 1 Fatal Acci dent Frequenci es
The values in Section 2.2 are taken from [10], which uses the Airclaims World Aircraft
Accident Summary (WAAS) [11] as the primary data source. This was checked for
omissions using data from Boeing [12] and the websites PlaneCrashInfo
(www.planecrashinfo.com/) and Aviation Safety Network (http://aviation-
safety.net/statistics/). There are relatively few convenient sources of flight exposure
data. The main ones are reviewed by NATS [13]. The most convenient source is
Boeing [12], which covers large Western passenger jets (defined below).
[10] summarises 148 fatal accidents on Large Western Commercial Jets, 1990-2002. Of
these 19 were either hostile acts or personal accidents. Thus the total was 129
excluding these events.
During 1990-99 there were 157.5 million departures [12]. Departures in the subsequent
3 years have been reported as 18.14, 16.88 and 16.52 million [12], giving a total of
209.05 million during 1990-2002. The number of flight hours in the Boeing data during
1990-2002 has been estimated as 380 million. This gives an average flight length of
380/209 = 1.82 hours. This value has increased during the period, and appears to be
approximately 2.0 hours in 2002. This is significantly higher than the standard value of
1.5 hours quoted by Boeing [12], which seems to be based on much older data.
Based on the 129 fatal accidents and the exposure data above the Fatal accident
frequency per flight = 6.2 ! 10
-7
and the Fatal accident frequency per aircraft flight hour
is 3.4 ! 10
-7
as shown in Table 2.4.
The individual risk values in Table 2.4 are derived from the same data sources. The
relevant data are shown in Table 4.5.

OGP

16
Tabl e 4. 5 I ndi vi dual Ri sks on Large Western Commerci al Jets, 1990-2002
I ndi vi dual Ri sk per fl i ght I ndi vi dual Ri sk per fl i ght
hour
Fatalities 8213

Exposure 2.0 ! 10
10
person flights

3.6 ! 10
10
person flight hours
Risk
4.1 ! 10
-7
per person flight
2.3 ! 10
-7
per person flight hr
FAR = 23

4. 1. 2. 1. 2 Ai rcraft Acci dent Frequenci es
Aircraft accidents are events causing substantial damage to the aircraft or
serious/fatal injury to people. The Boeing database [5] for 1959-2002 includes 1337
aircraft accidents, of which 509 were fatal, i.e. 2.63 accidents per fatal accident. For
1993-2002 there were 385 accidents, of which 109 were fatal, i.e. 3.53 accidents per
fatal accident. This trend probably reflects improved reporting, so the more recent
number is used in Table 2.5.

4. 1. 2. 1. 3 Hul l Loss Frequenci es
Hull losses (also known as total losses) are events where the aircraft is missing,
inaccessible or damaged beyond economic repair.
The Boeing database [12] for 1959-2002 includes 695 hull losses, compared to 509
fatal accidents, i.e. 1.37 hull losses per fatal accident.

4.1.2.2 Impact of Operating Regions
[14] gives fatal accident frequencies for all commercial aircraft over 5700 kg MTOW
during 1980-2001 broken down by operator domicile. This data is used to develop the
modification factors summarised in Section 02.2.
It should be noted that local air traffic control is not a significant primary cause of
accidents (see e.g. [15]) and that the operator domicile dominates any geographic
factors.

4.1.2.3 Impact of Types of Operations
[16] presents frequencies of hull loss and/or fatal accidents on Western jets and
turboprops over 5700 kg MTOW world-wide during 1970-99 for different types of
operator:
Major operators, with large jet fleets, mainly scheduled passenger.
Integrators, with large scheduled cargo fleets (e.g. UPS, FedEx, DHL).
Supplemental air carriers, with mainly commuter turboprops.
Ad-hoc operators, with mainly unscheduled charter flights.
This shows that unscheduled (i.e. ad-hoc) passenger operations have an accident
frequency 2.5 times higher than scheduled (i.e. other) passenger operations. These
values have been used to derive the modification factors in Table 2.7.
OGP

17
4.1.2.4 Impact of Aircraft Type
The Boeing analysis includes hull loss frequencies for individual jet types. In most
cases the differences are either not statistically significant or reflect operating
features specific to the aircraft type (e.g. higher rates per departure for short-haul
types).
Boeing also groups the aircraft by generation, as follows:
First generation B707/720, DC-8.
Second generation B727, B737-100/200, DC-9, BAC 1-11, F-28.
Early widebody - B747-100/200/300/SP, DC-10, L-1011, A300
Current B717, B737-300 and later, B747-400, B757/767/777, MD-11/80/90, A300-
600, A310/319/320/321/330/340, F-70, F-100, BAe 146, RJ-70, RJ-85, RJ-100.
The different rates Boeing derived have been used to derive the first 4 values in Table
2.8.
[14] shows the fatal accident frequency for East ern built aircraft (jets and turboprops
over 5700 kg MTOW) roughly equal to that of Western built aircraft during 1980-89. The
difference appeared to widen in about 1990, and during the period 1990-2001 the fatal
accident frequency for Eastern built aircraft has been approximately a factor of 2
higher than for Western built aircraft.
Business (or execut i ve) jets are used for business or private transport, typically less
than 20 tonnes. They include Bombardier (Canadair) Challenger and Learjet. [13]
estimates a first-world airport-related crash frequency for executive jets of 2.2 crashes
per million movements, a factor of 15 higher than for Western jets (excluding first
generation jets) on scheduled passenger services. Since scheduled passenger
services have a modification factor of 0.83 compared to the basis dataset (Table 2.7),
the appropriate modification factor for executive jets is 15 ! 0.83 = 13.
[13] categorises Western airliner t urboprops as follows:
Early turboprops (T2) first delivered before 1970 BAe 748, Vanguard, Viscount,
Convair 540/580/600/640, Dart Herald, DH Twin Otter, Fairchild F27, FH227,
Fairchild Metro, Fokker F27, Gulfstream 1, Hercules, Electra, Skyvan.
Other turboprops (T1) first delivered in or after 1970 ATR 42, ATP 72, BAe ATP,
Jetstream 31/41, DH Dash 7/8, Do 228/328, EMB 110/120, Fokker F50, Saab
340/2000, Shorts 330/360.
Airport-related crash frequencies on Western airliner turboprops over 5700 kg MTOW
on scheduled passenger services during 1979-97, for first-world and world-wide, are
shown in [6] enabling the modification factors in Table 2.8 to be derived.
[6] estimates a UK airport-related crash frequency for piston-engine aircraft in
commercial use during 1985-97 of 3.27 crashes per million movements, 22 times
higher than for Western jets (excluding first generation jets) on scheduled passenger
services in the first world. This was assumed applicable to all piston-engine
operations in the UK. Since scheduled passenger services have a modification factor
of 0.83 compared to the basis dataset, the appropriate modification factor is 22 ! 0.83
= 19 (see Table 2.8).

OGP

18
4.2 Other data sources
4.2.1 Helicopter Transport
DNV has carried out a more detailed analysis of UK helicopter accident rates for one
OGP member based on data for the years 1970-2006 using the UK Civil Aviation
statistical reports up to the last year of their publication (2002 data) and for 2003
onwards by direct request to the CAA for the accident data. The CAAs exposure data
is tabulated by helicopter model as Public Transport Air Taxi Operations, which
cover mainly but not exclusively offshore transport operations.
DNV has previously analysed data for Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands. The
analysis was based on a combination of CAA and OGP data, which can be obtained by
country.
DNV also analysed Gulf of Mexico data in more detail. Gulf of Mexico helicopter
accident statistics were obtained from WAAS [11] and the NTSB accident database
[18]; flight exposure data was obtained from OGP.
As an example of using operator specific data, DNV estimated historical accident
frequencies in one companys offshore operations. Its experience prior to 1993
amounted to approximately 56,000 flying hours and 105,000 flight stages [19]. In that
time there were 2 crashes, one of which was on landing and one on flight. There were
no fatalities. This gives accident frequencies as follows:

At the time of the analysis, these accident frequencies were not significantly different
from the frequencies for other regions. Note that, compared with the exposure and
accident statistics given in Table 4.1 and SE = Single Engine; LT = Light Twin; MT =
Medium Twin; HT = Heavy Twin
Table 4.2, the numbers of flights and accidents are small, giving wide confidence
limits on the results.

4.2.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Transport
[20] derived individual risks on UK airlines doing international flights 1975-92 as a
FAR of 15.
[21][21] studied annual individual risk for workers in the USA during 1979-83 which
gave 9.0 ! 10
-4
for pilots and 1.6 ! 10
-4
for stewardesses. The difference between the
figures for pilots and stewardesses may result from the inclusion of general aviation
pilots.

5.0 Recommended data sources for further information
For further information, the data sources used to develop the frequencies presented in
Section 2.0 and discussed in Section 4.0 should be consulted. The references used
for the recommended data in Section 2.0 are shown in bol d in Section 6.0.
OGP

19
[22] provides an interesting model for comparing risks of using different transport
modes. However, it does not present any advantages or improved data analysis
compared with those presented in the preceding sections (and in the datasheets Land
Transport Accident Statistics and Water Transport Accident Statistics).

6.0 References
6.1 Helicopter References
[1] OGP 1999. Saf et y perf ormance of hel i copt er operat i ons i n t he oi l & gas
i ndust ry 1998, Report No. 6. 83/ 300. http:/ / www. ogp. org. uk/ pubs/ 300. pdf
(No report published with 1999 data; see [9].)
i ndust ry: 2000 dat a, Report No. 6. 61/ 333.
http:/ / www. ogp. org. uk/ pubs/ 333. pdf
i ndust ry: 2001 dat a, Report No. 341.
[9] OGP, pri vate communi cati on, 2008. Hel i copter operati onal data for
1999; addi ti onal data on hel i copter acci dents.

6.2 Fixed Wing Aircraft References
[10] DNV 2004. Ai rcraf t Acci dent Ri sks, Techni cal Note T25
[11] Ai rcl ai ms 2003. Worl d Ai rcraf t Acci dent Summary 1990-2002, CAP 479,
Ai rcl ai ms Ltd, London (updated annual l y).
[12] Boei ng 2003. St at i st i cal Summary of Commerci al Jet Ai rpl ane
Acci dent s, Worl dwi de Operat i ons, 1959-2003, Boei ng Commerci al
Ai rpl anes Group, Seattl e, WA, USA (updated annual l y).
[13] NATS 2000. A Met hodol ogy f or Cal cul at i ng I ndi vi dual Ri sk due t o
Ai rcraf t Acci dent s Near Ai rport s, P. G. Cowel l et al , R&D Report 0007,
Nati onal Ai r Traffi c Servi ces Ltd, London.
[14] I VW 2002. Ci vi l Avi at i on Saf et y Dat a 1980-2001, I nspecti e Verkeer en
Waterstaat, Hoofddorp, Netherl ands.
[15] Eurocontrol , 2005. ATM Cont ri but i on t o Ai rcraf t Acci dent s / I nci dent s,
Revi ew and Anal ysi s of Hi st ori cal Dat a, SRC Document 2, 4
th
ed.
ht t p: / / www. eur ocont r ol . i nt / sr c/ gal l er y/ cont ent / publ i c/ document s/ del i ver abl es/ sr cdoc2_e40_r i _web.
pdf
OGP

20
[16] Roel en, A. L. C. , Pi kaar, A. J. & Ovaa, W. , 2000. An Anal ysi s of t he
Saf et y Perf ormance of Ai r Cargo Operat ors, Report NLR-TP-2000-210,
Nati onal Aerospace Laboratory.
[17] CAA, UK Airline Statistics, Table 1 13 Public Transport Air Taxi Operations:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=80&pagetype=88&pageid=1&sglid=1
[18] NTSB. Accident Database and Synopses, 1962-present; query using
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
[19] Spouge, J.R., Smith, E.J., & Lewis, K.J., 1994. Helicopters or Boards Risk
Management Options for Transport Offshore, SPE Paper No. 27277, Conf. on Health,
Safety & Environment in Oil & Gas Production, Jakarta, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[20] Collings, H., 1994. Comparative Accident Rates for Passengers by Model of
Transport A Re-Visit, in Transport Statistics Great Britain 1994, Department of
Transport, London: HMSO.
[21] Leigh, J.P., 1995. Causes of Death in the Workplace, Quorum Books, Westport
CT, USA.

6.3 Other References
[22] Koornstra, M.J., 2008. A Model for the Determination of the Safest Mode of
Passenger Transport between Locations in any Region of the World, Report for Shell
International Exploration and Production B.V.
OGP

21
Appendix I Statistical Methods
I.1 Outline
Historical frequencies are estimated from experience of actual events and associated
exposure. In simple terms, the event frequency is given by:

The events may be accidents of a particular type, minor incidents with the potential to
lead to an accident, component failures or near misses. Examples are pipe leaks,
pump trips, ship collisions, lightning strikes, etc.
The associated exposure is a measure of size of the population from which the events
have been recorded. This is usually a number of items and/or a number of years. Both
the accident experience and the exposure must be comprehensive collections from
the same population.

I.2 Frequency Estimates
The observed events are used to estimate an underlying event frequency (or failure
rate), which can never be known exactly since the experience is limited. Normally the
event frequency F is calculated directly from the number of events N and the exposure
period Y as:

This is a simple and convenient estimate, but may be an under-estimate if there are
few or no failures in the observed period. A more conservative estimate, which
assumes that a further failure was about to occur when the end of the period was
reached, is:

However, this is not normally used in QRA since it appears counter-intuitive, and is a
negligible correction for large numbers of failures.

I.3 Frequency Estimates with No Failures
Where there have been no failures in the observed period, the above approach may
still be used, assuming a failure was about to occur at the end of the observed period.
A slightly less conservative (and more intuitively reasonable) estimate of the
underlying frequency is given by the 50% confidence limit on the true mean of a
Poisson distribution when no failures have been observed (also equal to the 50%
point on a chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom). This is:

In colloquial terms, this assumes that the system was '70% of the way to its first
failure' at the end of the observed period, or that '0.7 events' occurred in the period.
OGP

22
It might be thought that the 95% confidence limit would be more appropriate for a
cautious best-estimate than the 50% limit. However, this would result in a frequency
equivalent to 3 events having occurred in the observed period (see below), which is
usually considered excessively conservative.

I.4 Confidence Limits on Frequency Estimates
Statistical confidence limits may be attached to the frequency estimate, which reflect
the uncertainty in estimating the underlying frequency from a small sample of events.
Techniques for calculating confidence limits are presented in [23] and [24]. For QRA, a
90% confidence range is usually adequate, extending between a lower (5%) and an
upper (95%) confidence limit, defined in terms of a chi-square distribution as follows:

These imply a 90% chance that the true frequency lies within the stated range, a 5%
chance of it being lower than the lower limit, and a 5% chance of it being above the
upper limit. The upper limit as defined above takes account of the possibility that the
next event was about to occur when the end of the period was reached.
When no failures have occurred, the confidence limits cannot be expressed as
fractions of the mean (since this is zero). However, using a consistent approach, the
90% confidence range on the number of failures is then 0.05 to 3.0, with the 50%
confidence value being 0.7 as above.
These confidence ranges only take account of uncertainty due to estimating the
frequency from a small number of random events, assuming the underlying frequency
is constant. They do not take account of numerous other sources of uncertainty, such
as incomplete event data, inappropriate measures of exposure, trends in the
frequency etc. Therefore, the total uncertainty in the frequency may be much higher
than indicated, and the confidence limits estimated above may be misleading.

I.5 References
[23] Lees, F.P., 1996. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2
nd
. ed., Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
[24] CCPS, 1989. Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Centre of Chemical
Process Safety, New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
For further information and publications,
please visit our website at
www.ogp.org.uk
209-215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350
165 Bd du Souverain
4th Floor
B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159
Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk
e-mail: reception@ogp.org.uk

Aviation Transport Accident Statistics: Risk Assessment Data Directory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation Transport Accident Statistics: Risk Assessment Data Directory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Risk Assessment Data Directory

Report No. 434 11.1

You might also like