Is flying in a small plane safe?

With no accident-related deaths on commercial passenger jets, the year 2017 set a new standard for aviation safety. Despite the pandemic's lingering challenges and a few shocking crashes - including two fatal accidents of B737 MAX - the continuous efforts of the aerospace industry towards safety have paid off, as 2023 saw no incidents of commercial jet aircraft crashes (again). The 1H 2023 data from IATA available for commercial turbo-props and jets set its fatality risk score at 0.05. A rough estimation of mine determined that it would take 11,460 years of daily flying for a passenger to experience a fatal accident, on average.

Why raise the topic now?

The aviation industry is expected to maintain a high level of safety, regardless of the size of the aircraft. Still, the complexities surrounding the tracking of general aviation aircraft and the absence of a unified investigation platform make it arduous to accurately portray the safety of private flying.

You may be wondering what motivated me to address this significant issue at this time. Was there a recent high-profile celebrity accident? Or am I attempting to prove someone incorrect?

As the world of general aviation prepares to embrace electric technology, the topics of flight automation and constantly shifting weather patterns provide ample reason to discuss safety as a central theme. However, there was a separate incident that sparked my article, which is closely tied to one of the crucial components of aviation safety - data.

In late 2023, our civil aviation authority publicly released the statistics for a combined 39.7 million flight hours from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. This, together with the precise metrics on 1,319 accidents from the office of accident investigation and prevention has provided new insights into the safety indices of different aircraft and aerial operations, including commercial (Part 135) and private (Part 91) flights.

As a well-established air charter company, we are constantly asked about the safety of our marketed aircraft and the benefits of air taxi compared to private flights. In the below article I will answer some of the most pressing and vital questions related to safety in general aviation, without making it overly complex. While my research primarily focuses on Brazil, the second largest general aviation market in the world, I am open to drawing comparisons to the US market as well.

The pitfalls of blindly trusting air taxi safety data

A vital sector of the economy, general aviation comprises commercial charter, private jet management, helicopter tours, oil and gas operations, and crop dusting, among others. Many aviation accident investigation authorities, journalists, and data companies tend to lump all segments together without distinguishing their varying safety records. Furthermore, they link the overall number of accidents solely to the fleet size, disregarding any correlation with the actual flight hours of each specific aircraft type.

Looking for an example? Helicopter model that crashed in Recife holds the record for accidents, reads an article on the tier 1 media channel. In the data set we analyzed, the said piston-based aircraft has a higher safety coefficient than its turboshaft-powered variant (R66), as far as commercial operations are concerned. In our analysis we focus on the most objective safety indicator, namely the number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

How safe are private jets?

Private jets are the most commonly used type of aircraft for charter flights, followed by turbo-props, helicopters and piston planes. Consequently, this is the aircraft category that we give top priority.

The data collected by CENIPA from 2014 to 1H 2023 reveals that private jets operating with commercial licenses (Part 135) experienced an accident rate of just 1 per 100,000 flight hours*. During the analyzed time period, no fatalities were attributed to turbofan engine-powered aircraft (jets), making it a perfect safety record.

The ratio for privately administered private jets (Part 91) saw an accident rate of 2 per 100,000 flight hours, with a total of 15 occurrences, five of which were fatal (that's 0.7 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours). The inadequate utilization of aircraft flight controls (3), lack of proper training (3), incorrect flight planning (3), and inadequate posture (3) and judgement (3) by pilots have been identified as the major factors leading to fatalities of the non-commercial jets. It can be deduced from widely accessible data that two of the five fatal accidents were linked to illegal air taxi and aircraft sales activities.

As seen, commercial private jet operations can be deemed exceptionally safe, exceeding by 3.2x ANAC's own target for general aviation's average accident rate, stated in the 2023-2035 strategic safety plan. In light of comparison, the FAA's present target is to cap general aviation fatal accidents at no more than 0.94 fatal occurrences per 100,000 flight hours.

Are bigger private jets safer?

There is a widespread belief that bigger private jets are inherently safer. The high-level data we aggregated reinforces this thesis.

Let us take a closer look. Statistics can be skewered to support the argument that bigger jets are safer because of their larger cabins, more powerful engines, or better avionics. The undeniable truth is that the wing loading of smaller planes is generally lower than that of larger planes, making them more susceptible to turbulence. While more turbulence may reduce comfort, it is seldom pinpointed as the primary cause of accidents.

The accident ratio, however, is closely linked to other factors, such as the level of technological advancement and management of the aircraft. Ultra-long range jets, for example, are typically owned by billionaires who ensure their aircraft are equipped with top-notch crews and flight support teams. They also prioritize regular maintenance and do not cut corners. Safety is not determined by size alone, but rather by the level of care that accompanies the flight operations.

Consequently, the good old Learjets 35s which were first introduced in the 1973s, were among the lowest performing aircraft in our study (12.9 accidents per 100'000 flight hours). Citation Mustang, a very light jet launched in 2006, has a clean safety record, despite its smaller size. Looking at the current commercial fleet in Brazil, the average age of the heavy jets and ultra-long jets is 3.5 years, as compared to 30 years for light jets. Now that's a major discrepancy!

It's no surprise that light jets were the only type of private jets in the air taxi segment to have a recorded accident during the analyzed timeframe (Do not mistake this for very light jets, like Phenom 100 or HondaJet). At that time, it's worth highlighting that the air charter industry distinguishes between seven private jet categories. To simplify our graph we broke the list into just three: light, medium and large business jets. For Part 91 (general aviation) the differences between light and medium safety levels are minimum, with the latter accruing just 0.1 accidents more per 100.000 flight hours.

Most importantly, in the last ten years, no individual jet model has had more than one fatal accident. These are fantastic developments that demonstrate uniformity among the top OEMs in the industry.

Are private jets safer than turbo-props?

Our research reveals that newer turbo-prop aircraft, such as the Pilatus PC-12 and King Air 350, boast a higher safety record than older private jets like the original Citations and Learjets. While looking for a benchmark we juxtaposed turbo-prop airplanes with light jets due to similar MTOWs (maximum take off weights), ranging from to 4,740 kg for PC-12 to 6,800 kg for King Air 350 to 7,761 kg for CJ4. Here is our key finding:

Single-engine turbo-props are safer than twin-engine turbo-props

Only two single-engine turbo-props (PC-12 and C208) were used for commercial operations in our analyzed geography, logging 330,830 hours of flight between 2014 and 1H 2023. This compares to a total of 14 twin-engine planes, including the King Air family, Cheyennes, MU2s and popular Bandeirantes, totaling 881,290 flight hours worth of data.

Both general- and commercial charter operations showed that single-engine turbo-props had a safety advantage when compared to their twin-engine equivalent. At this stage it's worth highlighting that I am primarily interested in comparing identical aircraft models and I deliberately left out four turbo-prop models that have never operated as air taxis in Brazil (and vice versa). Those were Piper Malibu, Socata TBM-700, Kodiak 100 and 695 Jet Prop Commander. Yet, even when adding their flight hours and accident statistics to the sample, the conclusion remains the same: single-engines turbo-propellers are safer than twins, with the ratio now showing 3.5 (single) vs 3.8 (twin) accidents per 100'000 flight hours.

In the US, NTSB studies dating back to 1960 have consistently found that twin-engine aircraft are at a greater risk for fatal crashes due to engine failure, although the ratio of fatal accidents wouldn't always give an advantage to the latter. I manually combined the data from NTSB Accident Dashboard with the historical flight hours data from the FAA. As the FAA employs a more elaborate taxonomy which considers ambulance flights and flights managed by corporate departments, my assessment was confined to on-demand air taxi and personal use aircraft only. The specific number of hours for the light jet category was not provided by the FAA.

The twin-engine aircraft seemed much safer this time, as the gap between Part 91 and Part 135 widened significantly. There was a total of 13 fatal accidents between 2014 and 2022 involving commercial air taxis, as compared to 49 accidents among personal use aircraft.

One thing was clear from the NTSB table: the defining events behind accidents were not clearly correlated with the number of engines; they include occurrences, such as loss of control in-flight or abnormal runway contact.

How reliable are piston aircraft?

The analyzed data revealed that piston airplanes had the lowest safety record, with an accident ratio 4.5 times higher than the turbo-props. While the air taxi category showed little variation in safety between single and twin-engine planes, the private category exhibited significant discrepancies in favor of the twin-engine setup. The overall results were primarily affected by the following models' poor performance, as they also logged a high number of flight hours: Cessnas C172, C182, C210 and Pipers Navajo and Cherokee Six.

If you're curious about the safety stats behind today's high-performance piston aircraft, such as the highly-rated Diamond DA62 or Cirrus SR22, read on. I split the stats by the OEM:

• Cessna: Bonanza G36 (1 accident, 1 fatal), Baron G58 (1 accident, 1 fatal)
• Cirrus: SR20 (2 accidents, 2 fatal), SR22 (15 accidents, 1 fatal)
• Diamond: DA41 (1 accident, no fatalities), DA62 (2 accident, 1 fatal)

Even with one recorded fatal accident, the Cirrus SR22 stands out for its low risk of fatalities. It ranks as the second most flown airplane in Brazil in the past 10 years - following Piper Seneca - and boast a good safety score of 4.5 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Overall, the piston aircraft with the best safety statistics among those that accrued at least?10,000 flight hours were Cessna C402 (no accidents), Cessna 310 (score of 3.0) and SR20 (3.2).

Why chartering an airplane is the safest way to travel

Before we continue // Author's note // My intention is not to discredit private flight operations. A number of aircraft management companies have maintained flawless safety records, and certain private jet categories have equally high safety ratings for both types of operations. Despite this, my determination to call out illegal charter flights and promote operational procedures known from commercial air taxi operations remains unwavering.

It is evident from our data that commercial air taxi operations are, for the most part, safer and more dependable than private flights. Private jet owners are not required to fulfill the same obligations as air carriers operating under Part 135.

In short, the Part 135 certification is a set of rules that imposes more rigorous standards for commercial charter and ridesharing operations. Among its key advantages are:

• More rigorous maintenance program. Along with the yearly inspection, operators must also conduct continuous safety evaluations.
• Pilot training. This includes an annual flight simulation program. Unlike private operations, every air taxi plane in Brazil is flown by two pilots.
• Runway factoring. As a standard practice, your charter aircraft must have a 40% margin above its performance profile when landing at a general aviation airport, and there are also strict guidelines for managing weather conditions.
• Mandatory insurance policy. Air taxi companies are required to adhere to mandatory insurance plans and usually provide extra coverage ranging from US$10 million to US$20 million for compensation in case of fatal accidents.
• Infrastructure and operations. As per the AOC certificate regulations, the operator is required to have a suitable setup for both passengers and crew members. The operations team is composed of a well-rounded group, consisting of an Operations Director, Maintenance Director, Safety Manager, and Chief Pilot.

All of this brings us to two final conclusions:

1. Flying a small airplane is safe, although our data clearly proved that the more modern and sophisticated the aircraft, the better. Based on the latest available data flying a general aviation airplane in Brazil is safer than taking an elevator (19 aviation accidents vs 42 accidents involving elevators, as per ABEEL data for S?o Paulo in 2022).
2. Certified commercial private jets and turbo-props are the safest way to travel. Think twice before booking a clandestine flight for your next travel. Trust the experts.

At Flapper, we take pride in our partnerships with top-rated air taxi operators, having diligently vetted more than 2,300 airplanes on our proprietary marketplace for safety. We are the first company in the Southern Hemisphere to be rated ARGUS-compliant and we boast impeccable safety records.

About the author: I lead Flapper, the first on-demand air mobility marketplace in South America. Flapper’s long-term vision revolves around catalyzing the entry of hybrid-electric aircraft into urban- and regional air mobility. The company currently holds one of the highest number of contracts within the AAM space, having signed LoIs with the likes of Eve, MagniX, Destinus and Supernal. I also sit on the advisory boards of Eve and Supernal. I am a proud honoree of the Forbes Under 30, the MIT Under 35 and the eVTOL Power Book 2024 awards.

* In our overall analysis we purposively excluded the data related to IAI 1124 Westwind aircraft. This early version of a Gulfstream jet largely polluted the data with both accident and incident data above the average.

** I am not a pilot, but I consider myself a decent analyst.

*** Please consider the limitation of our data comparing to widely available US statistics. It's for the first time that such research is being published and I hope to improve it upon the next release.