The TU-154 has 40 accidents where at least one person died. Is this the record for the jet age?

I assume the DC-3 has the most accidents with a fatality for all airliners everywhere.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... g_the_DC-3

kitplane01 wrote:

The TU-154 has 40 accidents where at least one person died. Is this the record for the jet age?

I assume the DC-3 has the most accidents with a fatality for all airliners everywhere.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... g_the_DC-3

Depends on what you consider an "airliner". Cape Air uses the Cessna 402 in scheduled airline service, the 400 series cessnas easily have 500+ fatal accidents among the lineup.

The 421 alone has 308 accidents, more than half fatal.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/db ... cType=C421

The 402 has 404 accidents. Easily 1000+ for the 400 series cessnas.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/db ... cType=C402

depends. the tu-154 has a low hull loss rate compared to its number in total. the 707 also was produced in about 1000 copies and has a disputable safety record. but all these numbers are very relative. remember the 737 killed a lot of pax due to it's rudder issue. is it unsafe? well, depends on the point of view. generally speaking, the lowest record will be with the Y-7. and also, from comet onwards the industry in general learned a lot, not only in the west. ilyushins, especially 86 and 97 have a great safety record, although little numbers. il7s on the other hand crash(ed) a lot, also due to the places and airlines that operated them. all early airliners were at greater risk of being lost than modern airliners. the tu5 is one of the best airliners ever built, and one of the safest as well, considering how they were operated. same for the 707, caravelles and so on. are they safer than a 777? no, not at all, but likely better than a DC-10.

kitplane01 wrote:

The TU-154 has 40 accidents where at least one person died. Is this the record for the jet age?

Probably not even close.

For a start, let's debunk the myth;

Wikipedia wrote:

The Tu-154 is described as having an average (or better than expected) safety record considering its length of service and heavy use in demanding conditions where other airliners are unable to operate.

As for the 40 fatal accidents, I see a total of just over 3,000 fatalities for the Tu-154

Now take the Boeing 737

Wikipedia wrote:

As of October 2015, a total of 368 aviation accidents and incidents involving all 737 aircraft have occurred, including 184 hull loss accidents resulting in a total of 4,862 fatalities

I haven't broken it down as to how many of the 368 incidents resulted in fatalities, but it is likely to be way more than 40, which answers your specific question.

And you are all welcome to point out that there are many more 737s flying than Tu-154s.
A true measure might be fatalities per million passenger miles flown, but I don't have those numbers.

The trick is to devide the number of crashes by the number of aircraft of that type that were ever built, then you get how many percent of them crashed. If of a certain type of aircraft 100 have been built and one has crashed, that's a 1% crash ratio. If of another type of aircraft one has been built and that one has crashed, that's a 100% crash ratio. The number of crashes is exactly the same, the percentage of crashes isn't.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The TU-154 has 40 accidents where at least one person died. Is this the record for the jet age?

Probably not even close.

For a start, let's debunk the myth;

Wikipedia wrote:

The Tu-154 is described as having an average (or better than expected) safety record considering its length of service and heavy use in demanding conditions where other airliners are unable to operate.

As for the 40 fatal accidents, I see a total of just over 3,000 fatalities for the Tu-154

Now take the Boeing 737

Wikipedia wrote:

As of October 2015, a total of 368 aviation accidents and incidents involving all 737 aircraft have occurred, including 184 hull loss accidents resulting in a total of 4,862 fatalities

I haven't broken it down as to how many of the 368 incidents resulted in fatalities, but it is likely to be way more than 40, which answers your specific question.

And you are all welcome to point out that there are many more 737s flying than Tu-154s.
A true measure might be fatalities per million passenger miles flown, but I don't have those numbers.

Every year, Boeing publishes an accident summary showing the cumulative accident rate as function of 1 million departures. Here's a link to the 2017 version based on data through 2016.

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... tatsum.pdf

Unfortunately, the TU-154 is not included.

The data on page 19 do show that for jet airliners certified since 1980, the MD-11 and the A310 have a statistically significant higher hull loss and fatality accident rate than other Western airliners.

It also shows how high the accident rates were for the initial jet airliners, (Comet, 707, DC-8, CV-880 etc)

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Every year, Boeing publishes an accident summary showing the cumulative accident rate as function of 1 million departures. Here's a link to the 2017 version based on data through 2016.

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... tatsum.pdf

Unfortunately, the TU-154 is not included.

The data on page 19 do show that for jet airliners certified since 1980, the MD-11 and the A310 have a statistically significant higher hull loss and fatality accident rate than other Western airliners.

It also shows how high the accident rates were for the initial jet airliners, (Comet, 707, DC-8, CV-880 etc)

Great info.

Only 56 fatal hull losses with the 727?

Thought it would be a lot more than that.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The trick is to devide the number of crashes by the number of aircraft of that type that were ever built, then you get how many percent of them crashed.

If you do this, the numbers can be a bit shocking. For example, Boeing lists a total of 153 707 hull loss accidents, out of 865 total built. That's almost 18% of all 707's ever built that crashed.

That said, while technically this means you'd have almost a 1 in 5 chance of being on a 707 that would eventually crash (assuming you flew on one), the chances of you actually being on it when that happens are still very small.

That Boeing PDF linked earlier does not show the percentage of aircraft that have crashed vs. the number produced for a given type, but it does show the accident rate per million departures. The 707 does have the highest accident rate of any airliner in their list, and by a pretty wide margin. The only other entry that even comes close is the one for the very early airliners.

I imagine the Tu-154 and 134 aren't included because there aren't reliable statistics available. Everybody suspects they have a spotty safety record but I'm not sure there even are official records and if there were, I'm not sure anyone would trust them since they'd date to the Soviet era.

The 707 had 74 accidents with at least one fatality. So way more than the 40 that was quoted in the original post for the Tu-154.

Lots of DC3/C47s have been shot down. Does that count?

cskok8 wrote:

Lots of DC3/C47s have been shot down. Does that count?

No. That's not an accident.

kitplane01 wrote:

cskok8 wrote:

Lots of DC3/C47s have been shot down. Does that count?

No. That's not an accident.

It is if it's Friendly Fire.

...Its gotta be something Russian.

I've seen a documentry about 10 years ago, comparing the Tu154 with the B727.
Both were built in similar amounts and had a comparable service life.
But the 727 crashed way more often and killed more passengers than the Russian counterpart, even though it has been used in less demanding environments.

If you look upon it has fatalities per million passenger miles flown, then the Concorde takes the cake.

TWA772LR wrote:

If you look upon it has fatalities per million passenger miles flown, then the Concorde takes the cake.

I was wondering when that particular enigma would surface.

On 25th July 2000 Concorde went from being the safest airliner ever made (zero fatal crashes) to one of the worst.

It is a statistical anomaly, and a tragedy at the same time.

spacecadet wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The trick is to devide the number of crashes by the number of aircraft of that type that were ever built, then you get how many percent of them crashed.

If you do this, the numbers can be a bit shocking. For example, Boeing lists a total of 153 707 hull loss accidents, out of 865 total built. That's almost 18% of all 707's ever built that crashed.

That said, while technically this means you'd have almost a 1 in 5 chance of being on a 707 that would eventually crash (assuming you flew on one), the chances of you actually being on it when that happens are still very small.

That Boeing PDF linked earlier does not show the percentage of aircraft that have crashed vs. the number produced for a given type, but it does show the accident rate per million departures. The 707 does have the highest accident rate of any airliner in their list, and by a pretty wide margin. The only other entry that even comes close is the one for the very early airliners.

Overall, the 707/720 and the DC-8 have similar accident statistics, in keeping with their pioneering role in jet transport operations.

- The 707 numbers include the 720, so the total produced was 1019 (865+154), lowering the hull loss percentage to 15.1%.

- DC-8 production was 556 with 75 hull losses, so its total loss percentage is 13.4%.

- The 707/720 and DC-8 have nearly identical fatal accident rates at 4.28 and 4.00 respectively.

- The DC-8 does have a better hull loss rate at 5.89 vs 8.84 for the 707/720.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

If you look upon it has fatalities per million passenger miles flown, then the Concorde takes the cake.

I was wondering when that particular enigma would surface.

On 25th July 2000 Concorde went from being the safest airliner ever made (zero fatal crashes) to one of the worst.

It is a statistical anomaly, and a tragedy at the same time.

But they love to grasp at that statistical figure like it's the only thing preventing the end of the world.

If something happened to a 747-8i, it would also become statistically fairly unsafe too because there aren't that many of them in service.

trijetsonly wrote:

But the 727 crashed way more often and killed more passengers than the Russian counterpart, even though it has been used in less demanding environments.

I have a feeling this is due to the amount of B727 aircraft in service over time and probably the use of the B727 by some operators with less than ideal safety records.