Aviation Safety Analysis: Accidents, Fatalities, Nature and Causes (2019 - 2024)

This report presents an in-depth analysis of aviation accidents and fatalities over the past year (2019 - 2024), based on data driven from the Aviation Safety Network’s global accident database. It provides a comprehensive breakdown of incidents by flight nature, phase of flight, accident location, and primary causes. The objective is to identify key trends and contributing factors, offering valuable insights into aviation safety and risk mitigation.

The analysis is structured around five key breakdowns:

1. Aircraft Type – Categorizing accidents by aircraft model (Jet, Piston, Turboprop).
2. Fatal vs. Non-Fatal – Differentiating incidents based on severity and casualty levels.
3. Land vs. Water Accidents – Identifying accident locations and environmental factors.
4. Airliner vs. Corporate Jet – Comparing accident data across commercial and private aviation sectors.

Incident Breakdown:

1. Events & Fatalities – Total number of accidents (907) and associated fatalities (1304).
2. Ground Fatalities – Impact of accidents on non-passengers (21).
3. Phase of Flight – Determining when accidents occur (takeoff, cruise, landing, etc.).
4. Primary Causes (ICAO Occurrence Categories) – Analyzing contributing factors based on ICAO classification.

By understanding these patterns, we aim to highlight critical areas for safety improvements and risk mitigation in the aviation industry.

First Analysis

98% of aircraft accidents occur on land and only 2% on water

several key insights can be drawn:

1. Higher Risk in Land-Based Operations

• Most aviation activities, including takeoff, landing, and taxiing, happen on land. These phases are statistically the most accident-prone.
• Terrain, obstacles, and infrastructure (such as runways, buildings, and vehicles) increase risks compared to open water.

2. Limited Water Exposure

• Only a small percentage of flights operate over large bodies of water for extended durations.
• Aircraft designed for water landings (e.g., seaplanes) are a niche category.
• Overwater routes often follow strict ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) regulations, reducing accident risks.

3. Emergency Landing Challenges

• Pilots have more controlled options for emergency landings on land (e.g., roads, fields, or airports).
• Water landings (ditching) are rare and challenging, often requiring calm sea conditions for a successful outcome.

4. Survivability Factors

• Land accidents vary in severity based on terrain, obstacles, and impact forces.
• Water landings can lead to drowning or hypothermia, but survivability is higher if executed well, as seen in the "Miracle on the Hudson."

5. Implications for Safety Measures

• More focus is needed on land-based accident prevention (e.g., runway safety, obstacle avoidance, and approach procedures).
• Water survival training and flotation devices remain critical for long-haul flights.

Second Analysis

69% of aviation accidents involve jet aircraft, 28% involve turboprops, and 3% involve piston aircraft.

1. Jet Aircraft Dominate Commercial Air Travel & Accidents

• Jet aircraft are the most common in commercial aviation, especially for airlines and long-haul travel.
• The high accident percentage aligns with their high operational volume.
• Most jet-related accidents occur in takeoff, landing, and approach phases, as these are the most critical.

2. Turboprops Have a Higher Accident Rate Relative to Flight Hours

• Turboprops are often used for regional and short-haul flights, which involve more frequent takeoffs and landings (higher risk exposure).
• They operate in challenging environments (e.g., smaller airports, remote areas, rough weather conditions).
• Despite making up only a small percentage of total air traffic, their accident rate is relatively high.

3. Piston Aircraft Have the Lowest Share of Accidents

• Piston aircraft are mainly used for general aviation, flight training, and private use.
• Their accident numbers are lower in total aviation but higher per flight hour, as they often lack advanced safety systems found in jets and turboprops.
• They operate in less regulated environments, sometimes with less experienced pilots.

4. Implications for Safety & Risk Management

• Jet aircraft safety should focus on approach, landing, and mid-air collision avoidance.
• Turboprop safety requires improvements in weather-related procedures, pilot training, and operational oversight.
• Piston aircraft need better pilot education, maintenance oversight, and safety technology adoption.

Third Analysis

This data highlights key trends in aviation accidents across different aircraft types, emphasizing which flight phases are most prone to accidents. Here’s a breakdown of the insights:

1. Jet Aircraft

• Landing (33%) is the most accident-prone phase, which aligns with the complexity of high-speed landings, runway conditions, and pilot workload.
• En Route (28%) has a surprisingly high share of accidents, which may indicate weather-related issues, loss of control, or system failures at cruising altitude.

Jets have a relatively higher percentage of En route accidents compared to other aircraft types, possibly due to high-speed travel and reliance on automation.

2. Turboprop Aircraft

• Landing (45%) has the highest accident rate, suggesting challenges with short-field operations, regional airports, or lower approach speeds.
• Takeoff (15%) and En Route (15%) have equal accident shares, indicating that performance issues and environmental factors might contribute to incidents during these phases.

Turboprops show a significant concentration of accidents during landing, possibly due to frequent operations at smaller airports with shorter runways.

3. Piston Aircraft

• Landing (36%) and Approach (24%) together account for 60% of accidents, suggesting that low-altitude phases are particularly critical for piston aircraft.
• En Route (24%) accidents might be due to weather, mechanical failures, or pilot decision-making in uncontrolled airspace.

Piston aircraft face the highest risk in approach and landing, possibly due to pilot inexperience, visual flight rules (VFR) operations, and low-speed handling challenges.

Overall Observations

• Landing phase is the most accident-prone across all aircraft types, with jets (33%), turboprops (45%), and pistons (36%) all showing high accident rates.
• En Route accidents are notably higher for jets (28%) compared to turboprops (15%) and pistons (24%), indicating different operational risks.
• Approach is a critical phase for piston aircraft (24%), while it is not as significant for jets and turboprops.
• Takeoff is a riskier phase for turboprops (15%) compared to jets and pistons, likely due to engine power management and weight considerations.

Fourth Analysis

This analysis highlights the key causes of aviation accidents across different aircraft types and suggests targeted mitigation strategies to reduce risks.

1. Jet Aircraft

Top Causes:

1. Turbulence (TURB) – 21.8% of jet accidents
2. Runway Excursion (RE) – 19.1% of jet accidents
3. Ground Collision (GCOL) – 13.2% of jet accidents

Analysis & Mitigation Strategies:

1- Turbulence (TURB)

    Causes: Wake turbulence, clear air turbulence (CAT), convective weather, or wind shear.

    Mitigation:

• Improve turbulence detection with better forecasting tools and onboard LIDAR systems.
• Enhance pilot training on turbulence avoidance and response.
• Encourage passenger seatbelt compliance to prevent injuries.

2- Runway Excursion (RE)

Causes: High-speed landings, wet or contaminated runways, unstable approaches, pilot decision-making errors.

Mitigation:

• Implement enhanced braking systems and improved runway condition monitoring.
• Enforce stabilized approach criteria with mandatory go-arounds for unstable approaches.
• Improve runway safety zones and overrun areas.

3- Ground Collision (GCOL)

Causes: Taxiing accidents, miscommunications with ground control, congested ramp areas.

Mitigation:

• Increase ground movement surveillance using airport surface radar and automated alerts.
• Improve ATC communication procedures and use standardized taxi clearances.
• Expand ground crew training to reduce ramp incidents.

2. Turboprop Aircraft

Top Causes:

1. Runway Excursion (RE) – 26.8% of turboprop accidents
2. Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC) – 13.0% of turboprop accidents
3. Unknown Cause (UNK) – 12.6% of turboprop accidents

Analysis & Mitigation Strategies:

1- Runway Excursion (RE)

Causes: Shorter runways, poor braking, unstable approaches, adverse weather conditions.

Mitigation:

• Encourage use of reverse thrust and proper braking techniques.
• Improve runway friction measurement at smaller regional airports.
• Enhance crew training on crosswind landings and unstable approach recovery.

2- Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC)

Causes: Hard landings, bounces, improper flare technique.

Mitigation:

• Train pilots on smooth flare techniques and proper touchdown procedures.
• Improve approach guidance systems for better landing precision.
• Implement advanced landing monitoring systems to detect unstable landings early.

3- Unknown Causes (UNK)

Causes: Limited accident investigation data, lack of flight data recorders (FDR) on some turboprops.

Mitigation:

• Mandate flight data recording equipment for all commercial turboprop aircraft.
• Enhance accident investigation procedures to gather better data.

3. Piston Aircraft

Top Causes:

1. Loss of Control Inflight (LOC-I) – 20% of piston accidents
2. System/Component Failure – Powerplant (SCF-PP) – 20% of piston accidents
3. Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC) – 12% of piston accidents
4. Unknown Causes (UNK) – 12% of piston accidents
5. Undershoot/Overshoot (USOS) – 12% of piston accidents

Analysis & Mitigation Strategies:

1- Loss of Control Inflight (LOC-I)

Causes: Pilot disorientation, stalls, overbanking, aerodynamic instability.

Mitigation:

• Require enhanced upset recovery training for piston pilots.
• Encourage installation of angle-of-attack indicators to prevent stalls.
• Promote simulator-based flight training for emergency handling.

2- System/Component Failure – Powerplant (SCF-PP)

Causes: Engine malfunctions, fuel starvation, mechanical failures.

Mitigation:

• Implement stricter engine maintenance programs.
• Promote dual-engine redundancy where feasible.
• Encourage more reliable fuel management training.

3- Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC)

Causes: Hard landings, bounces, excessive flare height.

Mitigation:

• Improve landing training with emphasis on stable approaches.
• Promote precision approaches to improve touchdown accuracy.

4- Undershoot/Overshoot (USOS)

Causes: Poor approach judgment, misjudged glide path, late go-around decisions.

Mitigation:

• Enhance go-around training to reduce the risk of runway overruns.
• Improve VFR approach pattern guidance at uncontrolled airfields.

Final Insights

• Turbulence (TURB) is the top accident cause for jets (21.8%), emphasizing the need for better turbulence forecasting and avoidance.
• Runway Excursions (RE) are the most common issue for both jets (19.1%) and turboprops (26.8%), requiring better landing safety procedures.
• Loss of Control Inflight (LOC-I) is the biggest risk for piston aircraft (20%), highlighting the need for advanced pilot training.
• Turboprops face significant challenges with Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC) (13%), suggesting the need for improved landing techniques.
• System Failures (SCF-PP) account for 20% of piston accidents, pointing to maintenance and engine reliability concerns.

Fifth Analysis

The data suggests that jet aircraft account for the majority of aviation fatalities (67%), followed by turboprops (31%), and piston aircraft (only 2%). Here’s an analysis and possible mitigation strategies for each category:

Jets (67%)

• Jet aircraft are typically used for commercial airline operations and business aviation, meaning they carry more passengers, leading to higher fatality counts per accident.
• High-speed operations and complex systems increase the risk of catastrophic failures.
• Accidents often involve controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), runway excursions, or loss of control at high altitudes.

Mitigation Strategies for Jets:

• Advanced Safety Systems: Enhance predictive maintenance and system redundancy to prevent catastrophic failures.
• Crew Training & CRM: Strengthen Crew Resource Management (CRM) and simulator training for scenarios like CFIT, loss of control, and emergency landings.
• Runway Safety Measures: Improve runway monitoring systems to prevent overruns and excursions.

Turboprops (31%)

• Turboprop aircraft are commonly used for regional and charter flights, often operating in remote or challenging environments.
• Factors such as poor weather, short runways, and older airframes contribute to accident risks.
• Pilot workload is high, and automation is often less advanced than in jets, increasing human error potential.

Mitigation Strategies for Turboprops:

• Enhanced Weather Monitoring: Equip aircraft with better weather detection tools to avoid challenging flying conditions.
• Standardized Operations: Enforce stricter maintenance and operational oversight for regional carriers.
• Automation Assistance: Introduce better automation for workload reduction and error prevention.

Piston Aircraft (2%)

• Piston-engine aircraft are mostly used for general aviation (private flights, flight training).
• They have lower speeds, fly at lower altitudes, and carry fewer people, reducing fatality rates.
• The accidents tend to be less severe due to lower kinetic energy, and many involve survivable crash landings.

Mitigation Strategies for Piston Aircraft:

• Pilot Training & Safety Culture: Focus on decision-making and situational awareness to prevent pilot-induced errors.
• Technology Integration: Encourage the use of glass cockpits and terrain awareness warning systems (TAWS) in general aviation.
• Pre-flight Risk Assessments: Implement standardized safety checks before each flight.

If you have any comments or insights, please share them below. We value your thoughts on aviation safety. For a deeper dive into this topic, read the full article here

Confidence Rating

This analysis is a self-effort and does not reflect official statements or conclusions. As such, the confidence rating for this analysis is considered unofficial and subject to further investigation.

Keep Updated

Stay connected for real-time updates and exclusive content. Follow us on X.com and LinkedIn to get the latest accident news and industry insights. Join the conversation and stay informed with AirSpaceNews.com