Aviation safety

{{short description|State in which risks associated with aviation are at an acceptable level}} {{more citations needed|date=October 2017}} [[File:Air Malta Pre Flight Inspection Airbus A320.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|An [[Air Malta]] crewman performing a [[pre-flight inspection]] of an [[Airbus A320]]]]

'''Aviation safety''' is the study and practice of managing risks in [[aviation]]. This includes preventing [[aviation accidents and incidents]] through research, training aviation personnel, protecting passengers and the general public, and designing safer aircraft and aviation infrastructure. The aviation industry is subject to significant regulations and oversight to reduce risks across all aspects of flight.<ref name="FAA-Weather">{{cite web |title=Aviation Weather Handbook (FAA-H-8083-28) |website=Federal Aviation Administration |url=https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2023-02/FAA-H-8083-28.pdf |access-date=21 August 2025}}</ref> Adverse weather conditions such as turbulence, thunderstorms, icing, and reduced visibility are also recognized as major contributing factors to aviation safety outcomes.<ref name="IATA_2024"/>

[[Aviation security]] is focused on protecting air travelers, aircraft and infrastructure from intentional harm or disruption, rather than unintentional mishaps.<ref name=AirbusFeb2023/>

==Statistics==

===Evolution=== [[File:Number of fatalities from airliners hull-loss accidents per year.svg|thumb|Yearly fatalities{{efn|from 14+ passengers airliners hull losses}} since 1942, 5 year average in red: fatalities peaked in 1972.<ref>{{citation |url= http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=A1 |title= fatal airliner (14+ passengers) hull-loss accidents |publisher= Flight Safety Foundation |work= Aviation Safety Network |access-date= 2012-12-21 |archive-date= 2012-07-26 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120726023922/http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=A1 |url-status= live }}</ref>]] [[File:Fatalities per revenue passenger kilometre in air transport since 1970.png|thumb|Fatalities per trillion [[revenue passenger kilometre]]s since 1970 (five-year moving average for fatalities)]]

[[Aviation]] is safer today than it has ever been. Modern commercial aviation boasts an accident rate of approximately 1 fatal accident per 16 million flights, far lower than historic numbers.<ref name="IATA_2024">{{Cite web |title=IATA Annual Safety Report |url=https://www.iata.org/en/publications/safety-report/ |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=www.iata.org |language=en}}</ref>

On December 14, 1903, the [[Wright brothers|Wright Brothers]] conducted a test flight of their powered airplane from the slope of Big Kill Devil Hill in North Carolina. Upon takeoff, the airplane lifted about 15 feet off the ground, stalled, and crashed into the sand.<ref>{{Cite web |title=1901 to 1910 {{!}} The Wilbur and Orville Wright Timeline, 1846 to 1948 {{!}} Articles and Essays {{!}} Wilbur and Orville Wright Papers at the Library of Congress {{!}} Digital Collections {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/articles-and-essays/the-wilbur-and-orville-wright-timeline-1846-to-1948/1901-to-1910/#:~:text=December%2014,%201903,Wright,%2014%20December%201903%5D. |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA}}</ref> Only three days later, on December 17, 1903, Wilbur's brother, [[Orville Wright]] flew the airplane for the world's first powered, sustained, and controlled heavier-than-air flight in history. Although the failed test flight on December 14 would be mostly forgotten in aviation, it remains one of the earliest recorded aviation accidents in history.

In the early years of air travel, accidents were exceedingly common. In 1928 and 1929, the overall accident rate was about 1 in every million miles (1.6 million kilometers) flown.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Gattuso |first=James L. |title=Air Travel: A Hundred Years of Safety |url=https://www.mackinac.org/V2003-30 |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=Mackinac Center |language=en}}</ref> In today's industry, that accident rate would translate to about 7,000 fatal accidents each year.

For the ten-year period 2002 to 2011, 0.6 fatal accidents happened per one million flights globally, 0.4 per million hours flown, 22.0 fatalities per one million flights or 12.7 per million hours flown.<ref>{{citation |url= http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201036%20Global%20Fatal%20Accident%20Review%202002%20to%202011.pdf |title= Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011 |date= June 2013 |section= 7.10 |publisher= [[UK Civil Aviation Authority]] |access-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170802210140/http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201036%20Global%20Fatal%20Accident%20Review%202002%20to%202011.pdf |url-status= live }}</ref>

From 310 million passengers in 1970, air transport had grown to 3,696 million in 2016, led by 823 million in the United States, then 488 million in [[China]].<ref>{{citation |url= http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR?year_high_desc=true |title= Air transport, passengers carried |author= International Civil Aviation Organization |work= Civil Aviation Statistics of the World |publisher= World Bank |access-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170802204423/http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR?year_high_desc=true |url-status= live }}</ref> In 2016, 19 fatal accidents involved civil airliners with more than 14 passengers. These accidents resulted in 325 fatalities, the second safest year ever after 2015 with 16 accidents and 2013 with 265 fatalities.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/12/29/preliminary-asn-data-show-2016-to-be-one-of-the-safest-years-in-aviation-history/ |title= Preliminary ASN data show 2016 to be one of the safest years in aviation history |date= 29 December 2016 |work= Aviation Safety Network |publisher= [[Flight Safety Foundation]] |access-date= 2 January 2017 |archive-date= 3 January 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170103003853/https://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/12/29/preliminary-asn-data-show-2016-to-be-one-of-the-safest-years-in-aviation-history/ |url-status= live }}</ref> For planes heavier than 5.7 metric tones, there were 34.9 million departures and 75 accidents worldwide with 7 of these fatal for 182 fatalities, the lowest since 2013 : {{#expr:182/34.9round2}} fatalities per million departures.<ref name="ICAO">{{citation |url= https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2017_18072017.pdf |title= Safety Report |date= 2017 |publisher= ICAO |access-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-date= 2017-08-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170802212840/https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2017_18072017.pdf |url-status= live }}</ref> [[File:Figure.NTSB’s Worldwide Airplane Mishaps Investigation Data Since 2006.jpg|alt=The visualization shows that unstable landing was most likely to result in a mishap, while the uncontrolled-descent had the highest fatality rate, up to 60%.The mishaps data comes from CAROL, which is NTSB's query tool for information about investigations and recommendations.|left|thumb|520x520px|Stage of flight in which incidents occur, according to [[National Transportation Safety Board]] data from 2006 to 2023]] {{Chart|definition=Aviation Accidents.chart|data=Aviation Accidents.tab|Width=200}}

In 2017, there were 10 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 44 occupant fatalities and 35 persons on the ground: the safest year ever for commercial aviation, both by the number of fatal accidents as well as in fatalities.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/12/30/preliminary-asn-data-show-2017-safest-year-aviation-history/ |title= ASN data show 2017 was safest year in aviation history |date= 30 December 2017 |work= Aviation Safety Network |publisher= [[Flight Safety Foundation]] |access-date= 2 January 2018 |archive-date= 2 January 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180102220418/https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/12/30/preliminary-asn-data-show-2017-safest-year-aviation-history/ |url-status= live }}</ref>  By 2019, fatal accidents per million flights decreased 12 fold since 1970, from 6.35 to 0.51, and fatalities per trillion [[revenue passenger kilometre]] (RPK) decreased 81 fold from 3,218 to 40.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://theblogbyjavier.com/2020/01/02/aviation-safety-evolution-2019-update/ |date= Jan 2, 2020 |title= Aviation safety evolution (2019 update) |author= Javier Irastorza Mediavilla |access-date= January 2, 2020 |archive-date= January 2, 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200102075818/https://theblogbyjavier.com/2020/01/02/aviation-safety-evolution-2019-update/ |url-status= live }}</ref>

=== Typology === Runway safety represents {{#expr:41/(2+20+8+18+16+5+41+3)*100round0}}% of accidents, ground safety {{#expr:20/(2+20+8+18+16+5+41+3)*100round0}}% and loss of control in-flight {{#expr:18/(2+20+8+18+16+5+41+3)*100round0}}%.<ref name="ICAO" />

{{Chart|definition="Aviation Safety Accidents 2016".chart|data="Aviation Safety Accidents 2016".tab|Width=100}} [[loss of control (aeronautics)|Loss of control]] inflight represents 35% of the fatal accidents, [[Controlled flight into terrain]] 21%, [[runway excursion]]s 17%, system or [[component failure]]: 6%, Touchdown off the [[runway]]: 5%, [[Hard landing|Abnormal Runway Contact]]: 4% and [[fire]]: 2%.<ref name=AirbusFeb2023/>

Safety has improved from better [[aircraft design process]], engineering and maintenance, the evolution of navigation aids, and safety protocols and procedures.

===Transport comparisons=== There are three main ways in which the risk of fatality in a certain mode of travel can be measured: (1) deaths per billion typical ''journeys'' taken, (2) deaths per billion ''hours'' traveled, and (3) deaths per billion ''kilometers'' traveled. The following table displays these statistics for the United Kingdom (1990–2000),<ref>[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm The risks of travel] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020826123946/http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm |date=August 26, 2002 }}. The site cites the source as an October 2000 article by Roger Ford in the magazine ''[[Modern Railways]]'' and based on a DETR survey.</ref> and has been appended. (Note that aviation safety does not include travelling to the airport.)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Beck | first1 = L. F. | last2 = Dellinger | first2 = A. M. | last3 = O'neil | first3 = M. E. | year = 2007 | title = Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences | journal = American Journal of Epidemiology | volume = 166 | issue = 2| pages = 212–218 | doi=10.1093/aje/kwm064| pmid = 17449891 | doi-access = free }}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=January 2024|reason=Relevant to topic, but nothing from source is used in article (anymore).}}

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: right;" ! rowspan=2 | Transportation type ! colspan=3 | Deaths per billion |- ! Journeys ! Hours ! Kilometers |- | Bus || 4.3 || 11.1 || 0.4 |- | Rail || 20 || 30 || 0.6 |- | Van || 20 || 60 || 1.2 |- | Private Car || 40 || 130 || 3.1 |- | Foot || 40 || 220 || 54.2 |- | Water || 90 || 50 || 2.6 |- | Air || 117 || 30.8 || 0.05 |- | Pedal cycle || 170 || 550 || 44.6 |- | Motorcycle || 1640 || 4840 || 108.9 |- style="border-top: 3px solid darkgray;" | Paragliding{{Efn|The death per billion hours when skydiving assumes a 6-minute skydive (not accounting for the plane ascent). The death per billion journey when paragliding assumes an average flight of 15 minutes, so 4 flights per hour.{{cn|date=April 2026}}}} | || {{#expr:11/(27615*45)*1000000000round-1}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://federation.ffvl.fr/sites/ffvl.fr/files/accidentologie%202012%20parapente.pdf |title= Rapport 2012 sur les chiffres de l'accidentologie du parapente |publisher= [[:fr:Fédération Française de Vol Libre|FFVL]] |language= fr |date= 15 Nov 2012 |access-date= 16 July 2018 |archive-date= 17 August 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160817020331/http://federation.ffvl.fr/sites/ffvl.fr/files/accidentologie%202012%20parapente.pdf |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.dhv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/aktuell_zu_halten/dhv/der_dhv/dhv_mitgliederumfrage2018_s.pdf |title= DHV Mitglieder-Umfrage 2018 |access-date= 2020-04-13 |archive-date= 2020-04-19 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200419140058/https://www.dhv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/aktuell_zu_halten/dhv/der_dhv/dhv_mitgliederumfrage2018_s.pdf |url-status= live }}</ref> || |- | Skydiving || {{#expr:1000000000/133571round-2}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://uspa.org/Find/FAQs/Demographics |title= Incidents And Accidents |publisher= [[:en:United States Parachute Association|USPA]] |language= en |date= 11 Oct 2008 |access-date= 10 August 2018 |archive-date= 10 August 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180810142806/https://uspa.org/Find/FAQs/Demographics |url-status= live }}</ref> || {{#expr:(60/6)*(1000000000/133571)round-3}}<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.chattanoogaskydivingcompany.com/dropzone/skydiving-articles/how-long-does-a-skydive-last/ |title= How long does a skydive last |language= en |date= 19 Apr 2017 |access-date= 10 August 2018 |archive-date= 10 August 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180810144042/http://www.chattanoogaskydivingcompany.com/dropzone/skydiving-articles/how-long-does-a-skydive-last/ |url-status= live }}</ref> || |- | Space Shuttle<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/566250main_2011.07.05%20SHUTTLE%20ERA%20FACTS.pdf |title= Space Shuttle Era Facts |publisher= NASA |date= 2011 |access-date= 2018-02-09 |archive-date= 2017-02-08 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170208022559/https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/566250main_2011.07.05%20SHUTTLE%20ERA%20FACTS.pdf |url-status= live }}</ref> || {{#expr: 14/848*1000000000round-6}} || {{#expr: 134/848*14/(1320*24+1+32/60+44/3600)*1000000000round-4}} || {{#expr: 134/848*14/537114016*1.609344*1000000000round1}} |}

The first two statistics are computed for typical travels by their respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel "from A to B". For example, these statistics suggest that a typical flight from [[Los Angeles]] to [[New York City|New York]] would carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. However, car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical; that journey would be as long as ''several dozen'' typical car travels, and thus the associated risk would be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated with making this journey by car would be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel is less risky than each hour of flight.

For risks associated with long-range intercity travel, the most suitable statistic is the third one: deaths per billion kilometers. Still, this statistic can lose credence in situations where the availability of an air option makes an otherwise inconvenient journey possible.

Aviation industry insurers base their calculations on the ''deaths per journey'' statistic while the aviation industry itself generally uses the ''deaths per kilometre'' statistic in press releases.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html|title=Flight into danger – 07 August 1999 – New Scientist Space|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=18 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140818011117/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles flown,{{Citation needed|date=July 2013}} and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by [[passenger miles|distance traveled]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-17 |title=What is the Safest Mode of Transportation – 2025 Updated |url=https://teamjustice.com/safest-mode-of-transportation/ |access-date=2026-03-20 |language=en-US}}</ref>

''[[The Economist]]'' notes that air travel is safer by distance travelled, but trains are as safe as planes.<ref name=":0"/> It also notes that cars are four times more hazardous for deaths per time travelled, and cars and trains are respectively three times and six times safer than planes by number of journeys taken.<ref name=":0">{{cite news |url= https://www.economist.com/babbage/2013/01/07/difference-engine-up-up-and-away |title= Difference Engine: Up, up and away |quote= Can air travel keep on getting safer and safer? |date= Jan 7, 2013 |newspaper= [[The Economist]] |access-date= May 19, 2021 |archive-date= May 19, 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210519012839/https://www.economist.com/babbage/2013/01/07/difference-engine-up-up-and-away |url-status= live }}</ref> Because the above figures are focused on providing a perspective to the realm of everyday transportation, air travel is taken to include only standard civil passenger aviation, as offered commercially to the general public. Military and special-purpose aircraft are excluded.

=== United States ===

Between 1990 and 2015, there were 1874 commuter and [[air taxi]] accidents in the U.S. of which 454 ({{#expr:454/18.74round0}}%) were fatal, resulting in 1,296 deaths, including 674 accidents (36%) and 279 fatalities (22%) in Alaska alone.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aviation/ |title= Aviation Safety Research Program |date= October 22, 2018 |publisher= United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health |access-date= September 8, 2017 |archive-date= November 16, 2007 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071116174132/http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aviation/ |url-status= live }}</ref>

The number of deaths per passenger-mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2015/tables/ch6/table6_1|title=Fatalities|publisher=Bureau of Transportation Statistics|access-date=2018-10-04|archive-date=2018-10-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004145007/https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2015/tables/ch6/table6_1|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles|title=U.S. Passenger miles|publisher=Bureau of Transportation Statistics|access-date=2019-03-12|archive-date=2019-03-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190315021536/https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles|url-status=live}}</ref> For driving, the rate was 150 per 10 billion vehicle-miles for 2000: 750 times higher per mile than for flying in a commercial airplane.

There were no fatalities on large scheduled commercial airlines in the United States for over nine years, between the [[Colgan Air Flight 3407]] crash in February 2009, and a catastrophic engine failure on [[Southwest Airlines Flight 1380]] in April 2018.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/nyc-to-dallas-southwest-jet-is-forced-to-land-with-engine-damage |title=Southwest Jet Engine Blows Out in Flight, Killing Passenger |website=[[Bloomberg News]] |date=17 April 2018 |access-date=2018-04-18 |archive-date=2018-04-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180417210534/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/nyc-to-dallas-southwest-jet-is-forced-to-land-with-engine-damage |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Security === Another aspect of safety is protection from intentional harm or [[property damage]], also known as ''security''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-18 |title=Definition of SECURITY |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref>

The [[September 11, 2001 attacks|terrorist attacks]] of 2001 are not counted as accidents.<ref>{{Cite web |title=9/11 Investigation |url=https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/911-investigation |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=Federal Bureau of Investigation |language=en-us}}</ref> However, even if they were counted as accidents they would have added about 1 death per billion person-miles. Two months later, [[American Airlines Flight 587]] crashed in New York City, killing 265 people, including 5 on the ground, causing 2001 to show a very high fatality rate. Even so, the rate that year including the attacks (estimated here to be about 4 deaths per billion person-miles), is safe compared to some other forms of transport when measured by distance traveled.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-data/ARG06-01.pdf|title=Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data<br>U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2001|website=libraryonline.erau.edu|publisher=National Transportation Safety Board}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=risk|title=A Comparative Analysis of Six Methods for Calculating Travel Fatality Risk|website=scholars.unh.edu|last=Halperin|first=Kopl|year=1993}}</ref>

==Developments==

===Before WWII=== The first aircraft electrical or electronic device [[avionics]] system was [[Lawrence Sperry]]'s [[autopilot]], demonstrated in June 1914.<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017/> The [[Transcontinental Airway System]] chain of beacons was built by the [[Commerce Department]] in 1923 to guide [[airmail]] flights.<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017/>

[[Gyrocopters]] were developed by [[Juan de la Cierva]] to avoid [[Aerodynamic stall|stall]] and [[Spin (aircraft)|spin]] accidents, and for that invented [[cyclic and collective]] controls used by [[helicopter]]s.<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017>{{Cite news|url=http://aviationweek.com/AirSafetyInnovations|title=A short history of making flying safer|date=1 Aug 2017|work=Aviation Week & Space Technology|access-date=2 August 2017|url-status=live|archive-date=27 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171227203130/http://aviationweek.com/AirSafetyInnovations}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=George |first=Alice |title=How Quixote’s Windmills Inspired a Spanish Inventor to Envision Vertical Flight |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-quixotes-windmills-inspired-a-spanish-inventor-to-envision-vertical-flight-180981423/ |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=Smithsonian Magazine |language=en}}</ref> The first flight of a gyrocopter was on June 9th, 1923.<ref>{{Cite web |title=First Autogiro Flight {{!}} History {{!}} Research Starters {{!}} EBSCO Research |url=https://www.ebsco.com/ |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=EBSCO |language=en}}</ref>

During the 1920s, the first laws were passed in the United States of America to regulate [[civil aviation]], notably the [[Air Commerce Act of 1926]], which required pilots and aircraft to be examined and licensed, for accidents to be properly investigated, and for the establishment of safety rules and navigation aids; under the Aeronautics Branch of the [[United States Department of Commerce]] (US DoC).

A network of [[aerial lighthouse]]s was established in the United Kingdom and Europe during the 1920s and 1930s.<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=Flight|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1921/1921%20-%200280.html|title=The Aerial Lighthouse|access-date=2011-11-29|archive-date=2011-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110307114904/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1921/1921%20-%200280.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Use of the lighthouses has declined with the advent of radio navigation aids such as [[non-directional beacon]] (NDB), [[VHF omnidirectional range]] (VOR), and [[distance measuring equipment]] (DME). The last operational aerial lighthouse in the United Kingdom is on top of the [[cupola]] over the [[RAF College Cranwell|RAF College]] main hall at [[RAF Cranwell]].

One of the first aids for [[air navigation]] to be introduced in the United States in the late 1920s was [[Approach lighting system|airfield lighting]], to assist pilots in making landings in poor weather or after dark. The [[Precision Approach Path Indicator]] (PAPI) was developed from this in the 1930s, indicating to the pilot the angle of descent to the airfield. This later became adopted internationally through the standards of the [[International Civil Aviation Organization]] (ICAO).

[[Jimmy Doolittle]] developed [[instrument rating]] and made his first 'blind' flight in September 1929. The March 1931 wooden wing failure of [[1931 Transcontinental & Western Air Fokker F-10 crash|a Transcontinental & Western Air Fokker F-10]] carrying [[Knute Rockne]], coach of the [[University of Notre Dame]]'s football team, showed cause for all-metal [[airframe]]s and led to a more formal [[accident investigation]] system.

On 4 September 1933, a [[Douglas DC-1]] test flight was conducted with one of the two engines shut down during the takeoff run, climbed to {{Convert|8000|ft|0|abbr=off}}, and completed its flight, proving twin [[aircraft engine]] safety. With greater range than lights and weather immunity, [[radio navigation]] aids were first used in the 1930s, like the Australian Aeradio stations guiding transport flights, with a light beacon and a modified [[Lorenz beam]] transmitter (the German blind-landing equipment preceding the modern [[instrument landing system]] - ILS).<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017/> ILS was first used by a scheduled flight to make a landing in a snowstorm at [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]], in 1938, and a form of ILS was adopted by the ICAO for international use in 1949.

=== Post-WWII ===

Hard [[runway]]s were built worldwide for World War II to avoid waves and floating hazards plaguing [[seaplane]]s.<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017/>

Developed by the U.S. and introduced during World War II, [[LORAN]] replaced the sailors' less reliable [[compass]] and [[celestial navigation]] over water and survived until it was replaced by the [[Global Positioning System]].<ref name=AvWeek1Aug2017/>

[[File:MAKS-2007-Radar.jpg|thumb|upright=1|An airborne [[pulse-Doppler radar]] antenna. Some airborne radars can be used as [[Weather radar|meteorological radars]].]] Following the development of [[radar in World War II]], it was deployed as a landing aid for civil aviation in the form of [[ground-controlled approach]] (GCA) systems then as the [[airport surveillance radar]] as an aid to [[air traffic control]] in the 1950s.

A number of ground-based [[weather radar]] systems can detect areas of precipitation such as thunderstorms, which are associated with severe turbulence.

A modern [[Honeywell Aerospace|Honeywell]] Intuvue weather system visualizes weather patterns up to {{convert|300|mi||}} away.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}}

[[Distance measuring equipment]] (DME) in 1948 and [[VHF omnidirectional range]] (VOR) stations became the main route navigation means during the 1960s, superseding the low frequency radio ranges and the [[non-directional beacon]] (NDB): the ground-based VOR stations were often co-located with DME transmitters and the pilots could establish their bearing and distance to the station.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-01-12 |title=How It Works: Distance Measuring Equipment |url=https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/january/flight-training-magazine/how-it-works-distance-measuring-equipment |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=www.aopa.org |language=en}}</ref>

=== Jetliners ===

To highlight the [[jetliner]] evolution, [[Airbus]] split them in four generations: # From 1952, early jets ([[de Havilland Comet|Comet]], [[Sud Aviation Caravelle|Caravelle]], [[BAC One-Eleven|BAC-111]], [[Hawker Siddeley Trident|Trident]], [[Boeing 707|B707]], [[Douglas DC-8|DC-8]]...) have dials and gauges [[cockpit]]s and early auto-flight systems; # From 1964, new designs ([[Airbus A300|A300]], [[Fokker F28 Fellowship|F28]], [[British Aerospace 146|BAe 146]], [[Boeing 727|B727]], original [[Boeing 737|B737]] and [[Boeing 747|B747]], [[Lockheed L-1011 TriStar|L-1011]], [[McDonnell Douglas DC-9|DC-9]], [[McDonnell Douglas DC-10|DC-10]]...) have more elaborate [[autopilot]] and [[autothrottle]] systems; # From 1980, [[glass cockpit]] & [[Flight management system|FMS]] designs ([[Airbus A310|A310]]/A300-600, [[Fokker 100|F100]], [[Boeing 737 Classic|B737 Classic]] & NG/MAX, [[Boeing 757|B757]]/[[Boeing 767|B767]], [[Boeing 747-400|B747-400]]/-8, [[Bombardier CRJ]], [[Embraer ERJ family|Embraer ERJ]], [[McDonnell Douglas MD-11|MD-11]], [[McDonnell Douglas MD-80|MD-80]]/[[McDonnell Douglas MD-90|MD-90]]...) have improved navigation performance and [[Terrain awareness and warning system|Terrain Avoidance System]]s, to reduce [[Controlled flight into terrain|CFIT]] accidents; # From 1988, [[Fly-By-Wire]] (in the [[Airbus A220|A220]], [[Airbus A320|A320 family]], [[Airbus A330|A330]]/[[Airbus A340|A340]], [[Airbus A350|A350]], [[Airbus A380|A380]], [[Boeing 777|B777]], [[Boeing 787|B787]] and [[Embraer E-Jets]]) enabled [[flight envelope protection]] to reduce [[Loss of control (aeronautics)|LOC]] in flight accidents.<ref name=AirbusFeb2023/> The fatal accident rate fell from 3.0 per million flights for the first generation to 0.9 for the next, 0.3 for the third and 0.1 for the last.<ref name=AirbusFeb2023>{{cite web |url= https://accidentstats.airbus.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/Statistical-Analysis-of-Commercial-Aviation-Accidents-2023.pdf |title= A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2022 |date= February 2023 |publisher= [[Airbus]]}}</ref> However, certain aircraft have higher than average hull loss rates, such as the [[Fokker F28 Fellowship|F28]], [[McDonnell Douglas MD-11|MD-11]], [[Concorde]], and [[Airbus A310|A310]] due to various circumstances and/or design decisions. According to Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents 1959–2024, the F28 has a hull loss rate of 4.62 per million flights.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 2025 |title=Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations {{!}} 1959‑2024 |url=https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf |access-date=25 March 2026 |publisher=The Boeing Company}}</ref> This is significantly higher than similar aircraft of its era, such as the 737-100/200 and DC-9, which have loss rates of 1.78 and 1.45 respectively.<ref name=":2" /> Similarly, the A310 and MD-11 have unusually high hull loss rates, with the A310 having the highest fatal hull loss rate and the MD-11 having the highest overall rate of all widebody commercial airliners. In the 1959–2003 edition, the Concorde is listed as having a hull loss rate of 11.36 per million flights as a result of its low number of flights.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=May 2004 |title=Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations, 1959 -2003 |url=https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/3809.pdf |access-date=25 March 2026 |publisher=The Boeing Company}}</ref> Consequently, its loss rate is higher than both the DC-8 and 707 (which have rates of 9.15 and 5.82 in that edition).<ref name=":4" /> Aircraft with high loss rates often have fundamental design flaws. The F28 has a known sensitivity to icing, which has led to numerous accidents including [[Air Ontario Flight 1363]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/C-FONF|title=Air Ontario Flight 1363, C-FONF|website=faa.gov|publisher=[[Federal Aviation Administration]]}}</ref> and [[USAir Flight 405]].<ref>{{cite book |url=https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9302.pdf |title=Aircraft Accident Report, Takeoff Stall in Icing Conditions, USAir Flight 405, Fokker 28-4000, N485US, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, New York, March 22, 1992 |publisher=[[National Transportation Safety Board]] |id=NTSB/AAR-93/02 |date=February 17, 1993 |access-date=February 6, 2016 |archive-date=March 28, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328103250/http://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9302.pdf |url-status=live }} - [https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR93-02.pdf Copy at] [[Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University]].</ref> Similarly, the MD-11 incorporated a [[relaxed stability]] design, which may have contributed to numerous landing accidents that have occurred, including [[FedEx Express Flight 80|Fedex Express Flight 80]] and [[Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460]].{{cn|date=April 2026}} The Concorde has a well-documented susceptibility to tire failures, experiencing up to 57 failures during its service, in which 32 of the blowouts resulted in damage to the structure, hydraulic systems or engines.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2002-07-07 |title=Fallen Icon - Aviation Safety |url=https://aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/fallen-icon/ |access-date=2026-03-26 |website=aviationsafetymagazine.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

With the arrival of [[Wide Area Augmentation System]] (WAAS), satellite navigation has become accurate enough for altitude as well as positioning use, and is being used increasingly for instrument approaches as well as en-route navigation. However, because the GPS constellation is a [[single point of failure]], on-board [[Inertial Navigation System]] (INS) or ground-based navigation aids are still required for backup.

In 2017, [[Rockwell Collins]] reported it had become more costly to certify than to develop a system, from 75% engineering and 25% certification in past years.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/what-certification-tipping-point |title= What Is The Certification Tipping Point? |date= Apr 7, 2017 |author= John Croft |work=[[Aviation Week & Space Technology]]|access-date= April 10, 2017 |archive-date= April 10, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170410214635/http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/what-certification-tipping-point |url-status= live }}</ref> It calls for a global harmonization between certifying authorities to avoid redundant engineering and certification tests rather than recognizing the others approval and validation.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-world-needs-seamless-aviation-certification-standards#comment-937861 |title= Opinion: World Needs Seamless Aviation Certification Standards |date= Nov 1, 2017 |author= Kent Statler, Rockwell Collins |work= Aviation Week & Space Technology |access-date= November 2, 2017 |archive-date= November 2, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171102151959/http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-world-needs-seamless-aviation-certification-standards#comment-937861 |url-status= live }}</ref>

Groundings of entire classes of aircraft out of equipment safety concerns is unusual, but this has occurred to the [[de Havilland Comet]] in 1954 after multiple crashes due to metal fatigue and hull failure, the [[McDonnell Douglas DC-10]] in 1979 after the crash of [[American Airlines Flight 191]] due to engine loss, the [[Boeing 787 Dreamliner]] in 2013 after its [[2013 Boeing 787 Dreamliner grounding|battery problems]], and the [[Boeing 737 MAX groundings|Boeing 737 MAX in 2019]] after two crashes preliminarily tied to a flight control system.

==Hazards==

=== Unapproved parts === {{Main|Unapproved aircraft part}} Parts manufactured without an aviation authority's approval are described as "unapproved". Unapproved parts include inferior counterfeits, those used beyond their time limits, those that were previously approved but not properly returned to service, those with fraudulent labels, production overruns that were not sold with the agency's permission, and those that are untraceable.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20040228114747/http://www.jdmag.wpafb.af.mil/bogus%20parts.pdf Unapproved Aircraft Parts Investigation]." Joint Depot Maintenance Activities Group of the [[U.S. Air Force]]. 3/16. Retrieved on December 1, 2022.</ref> Unapproved faulty parts have caused hundreds of incidents and crashes, some fatal, including about 24 crashes between 2010 and 2016.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/unapproved-airplane-parts-creating-safety-risk-in-aviation/110281/ |title=Unapproved Airplane Parts Creating Safety Risk in Aviation|website=NBC Bay Area |author=Stephen Stock, Jeremy Carroll and Kevin Nious|date=3 November 2016|access-date= 1 December 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Mckenzie |first1=Victoria |title=Who's Policing Counterfeit Airplane Parts? |url=https://thecrimereport.org/2017/09/20/faa-warned-boeing-777-737-ntsb-airplane-parts-china/ |access-date=1 December 2022 |work=The Crime Report |publisher=Center on Media Crime and Justice of [[John Jay College of Criminal Justice|John Jay College]] |date=September 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220521174736/https://thecrimereport.org/2017/09/20/faa-warned-boeing-777-737-ntsb-airplane-parts-china/ |archive-date= 21 May 2022}}</ref>

=== Foreign object debris === {{Main|Foreign object debris}}

Foreign object debris (FOD) includes items left in the aircraft structure during manufacture/repairs, debris on the runway and solids encountered in flight (e.g. hail and dust). Such items can damage engines and other parts of the aircraft. In 2000, [[Air France Flight 4590]] crashed after hitting a part that had fallen from a departing Continental Airlines DC-10.<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 July 2025 |title=What caused the Concorde Air France crash? 25 years on from the tragedy |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/concorde-crash-paris-2000-anniversary-supersonic-aircraft-b2795396.html |access-date=20 November 2025 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>

=== Misleading information and lack of information === A pilot misinformed by a printed document (manual, map, etc.), reacting to a faulty instrument or indicator (in the cockpit or on the ground),<ref>{{cite news |last1=Blumenkrantz |first1=Zohar |title=Two planes nearly crash at Ben Gurion Airport due to glitch |url=https://www.haaretz.com/news/two-planes-nearly-crash-at-ben-gurion-airport-due-to-glitch-1.278096 |agency=Haaretz |date=June 15, 2009 |access-date=May 28, 2010 |archive-date=October 24, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024165640/http://www.haaretz.com/news/two-planes-nearly-crash-at-ben-gurion-airport-due-to-glitch-1.278096 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[http://new.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=160314 Jerusalem Post] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713122517/http://new.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=160314 |date=2011-07-13 }}: Weeds blamed for spate of near-misses at Ben-Gurion Airport</ref> or following inaccurate instructions or information from flight or ground control can lose [[situational awareness]], or make errors, and accidents or near misses may result.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://momento24.com/en/2010/01/21/ezeiza-an-error-in-the-control-tower-almost-caused-two-planes-to-collide/|title=Momento24.com|website=momento24.com|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023239/http://momento24.com/en/2010/01/21/ezeiza-an-error-in-the-control-tower-almost-caused-two-planes-to-collide/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://abc7news.com/archive/7359230/|title=NTSB, FAA investigate near-miss mid-air collision at San Francisco International Airport|first=Lisa Amin|last=Gulezian|website=ABC7 San Francisco|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=11 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911024752/http://abc7news.com/archive/7359230/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/nyregion/20laguardia.html|title=La Guardia Near-Crash Is One of a Rising Number|first=Matthew L.|last=Wald|newspaper=The New York Times|date=20 July 2007|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=11 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180411170035/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/nyregion/20laguardia.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>[http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_016/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2002/Report__02__AX001-1-2___C3_9Cberlingen__Report,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_02_AX001-1-2_Überlingen_Report.pdf Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung Investigation Report on crash near Ueberlingen]{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The crash of [[Air New Zealand Flight 901]] was a result of receiving and interpreting incorrect coordinates, which caused the pilots to inadvertently fly into a mountain.

===Lightning=== Boeing studies showed that airliners are struck by [[lightning]] twice per year on average; aircraft withstand typical lightning strikes without damage.

The dangers of more powerful [[Lightning#Positive and negative lightning|positive lightning]] were not understood until the destruction of a [[Glider (sailplane)|glider]] in 1999.<ref name=schleicher>{{cite web|url=http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/december_1999/schleicher_500699.cfm|title=Schleicher ASK 21 two seat glider, 17 April 1999 - GOV.UK|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=31 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200531134338/https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/schleicher-ask-21-two-seat-glider-17-april-1999|url-status=live}}</ref> It has since been suggested that positive lightning might have caused the crash of [[Pan Am Flight 214]] in 1963. At that time, aircraft were not designed to withstand such strikes because their existence was unknown. The 1985 standard in force in the US at the time of the glider crash, Advisory Circular AC 20-53A,<ref name=schleicher /> was replaced by Advisory Circular AC 20-53B in 2006.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet&CFID=11301165&|title=FAA Advisory Circulars|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608055516/http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet&CFID=11301165&|archive-date=8 June 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, it is unclear whether adequate protection against positive lightning was incorporated.<ref>[http://www.nolan-law.com/hiding-requirements-suspicion-theyre-inadequate/ Hiding requirements = suspicion they're inadequate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100525195947/http://www.nolan-law.com/hiding-requirements-suspicion-theyre-inadequate/ |date=2010-05-25 }}, Nolan Law Group, January 18, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.lightningtech.com/pdfs/A_PROPOSED_ADDITION_TO_LIGHTNING_ENVIRONMENT_STDS.pdf A Proposed Addition to the Lightning Environment Standards Applicable to Aircraft] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713204928/http://www.lightningtech.com/pdfs/A_PROPOSED_ADDITION_TO_LIGHTNING_ENVIRONMENT_STDS.pdf |date=2011-07-13 }}. J. Anderson Plumer. Lightning Technologies, Inc. published 2005-09-27.</ref>

The effects of typical lightning on traditional metal-covered aircraft are well understood and serious damage from a lightning strike on an airplane is rare. Modern airliners like the [[Boeing 787 Dreamliner]] with exteriors and wings made from [[carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer]] have been tested and shown to receive no damage from lightning strikes during testing.<ref name="www.wired.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/boeing-787-withstands-lightning-strike/ |magazine=Wired |title=Boeing 787 Withstands Lightning Strike |author=Jason Paur |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=March 5, 2017 |archive-date=July 2, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130702195815/http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/boeing-787-withstands-lightning-strike/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Ice and snow=== [[File:Boeing 747-400 (British Airways) (5282775118).jpg|thumb|right|[[Snow]] building on the intake to a [[Rolls-Royce RB211]] engine of a [[Boeing 747-400]]. Snow and ice present unique threats and aircraft operating in these weather conditions often require de-icing equipment.]] Ice and [[snow]] can be major factors in airline accidents. In 2005, [[Southwest Airlines Flight 1248]] slid off the end of a [[runway]] after landing in heavy snow conditions, killing one child on the ground.

Even a small amount of [[icing (aviation)|icing]] or coarse [[frost]] can greatly impair the ability of a wing to develop adequate [[Lift (force)|lift]], which is why regulations prohibit ice, snow or even frost on the wings or tail, prior to takeoff.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2027/03_027_001.htm |title=FAA Chapter 27 |access-date=2011-10-11 |archive-date=2011-10-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111028043646/http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v03%20tech%20admin/chapter%2027/03_027_001.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Air Florida Flight 90]] crashed on takeoff in 1982, as a result of ice/snow on its wings.

An accumulation of ice during flight can be catastrophic, as evidenced by the loss of control and subsequent crashes of [[American Eagle Flight 4184]] in 1994, and [[Comair Flight 3272]] in 1997. Both aircraft were [[turboprop]] airliners, with straight wings, which tend to be more susceptible to inflight ice accumulation, than are swept-wing jet airliners.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.airlinesafety.com/letters/atr.htm|title=Comair EMB-120, Unheeded Warning, ATR-72 Icing, airline icing accidents, FAA, AMR 4184, Loss of control accidents, Turboprop airliners|website=www.airlinesafety.com|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=19 February 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090219215010/http://airlinesafety.com/letters/atr.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

Airlines and airports ensure that aircraft are properly [[Ground deicing of aircraft|de-iced]] before [[takeoff]] whenever the weather involves [[icing conditions]]. Modern airliners are designed to prevent ice buildup on [[wing]]s, [[Aircraft engine|engines]], and tails ([[empennage]]) by either routing heated air from [[jet engine]]s through the [[leading edge]]s of the wing, and inlets,<ref>{{Cite web |title=AIR6284: Forced Air or Forced Air/Fluid Equipment for Removal of Frozen Contaminants - SAE International |url=https://www.sae.org/standards/content/air6284 |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=www.sae.org}}</ref> or on slower aircraft, by use of inflatable rubber "[[Deicing boot|boots]]" that expand to break off any accumulated ice.

Airline flight plans require [[Flight dispatcher|airline dispatch offices]] to monitor the progress of weather along the routes of their flights, helping the [[Aviator|pilots]] to avoid the worst of inflight icing conditions. Aircraft can also be equipped with an [[ice detector]] in order to warn pilots to leave unexpected ice accumulation areas, before the situation becomes critical.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Jackson |first1=Darren G. |last2=Goldberg |first2=Joshua I. |title=SAE Technical Paper Series |date=2007-09-24 |chapter=Ice Detection Systems: A Historical Perspective |volume=1 |article-number=2007-01-3325 |chapter-url=https://saemobilus.sae.org/papers/ice-detection-systems-a-historical-perspective-2007-01-3325 |language=English |publisher=SAE International |doi=10.4271/2007-01-3325|chapter-url-access=subscription }}</ref> [[Pitot tube]]s in modern airplanes and helicopters have been provided with the function of "Pitot Heating" to prevent accidents like [[Air France Flight 447]] caused by the pitot tube freezing and giving false readings.

=== Wind shear or microburst === [[Image:Windshearaircraftnasa.gif|thumb|right|200 px|Effect of wind shear on aircraft trajectory. Note how merely correcting for the initial gust front can have dire consequences.]] A [[wind shear]] is a change in wind speed and/or direction over a relatively short distance in the atmosphere. A [[microburst]] is a localized column of sinking air that drops down in a thunderstorm. Both of these are potential weather threats that may cause an aviation accident.<ref name="Shiavo" />

[[File:Delta 191 wreckage.jpg|thumb|left|Wreckage of [[Delta Air Lines Flight 191]] tail section after a microburst slammed the aircraft into the ground]] Strong outflow from thunderstorms causes rapid changes in the three-dimensional wind velocity just above ground level. Initially, this outflow causes a headwind that increases airspeed, which normally causes a pilot to reduce engine power if they are unaware of the wind shear. As the aircraft passes into the region of the downdraft, the localized headwind diminishes, reducing the aircraft's airspeed and increasing its sink rate. Then, when the aircraft passes through the other side of the downdraft, the headwind becomes a tailwind, reducing lift generated by the wings, and leaving the aircraft in a low-power, low-speed descent. This can lead to an accident if the aircraft is too low to effect a recovery before ground contact. Between 1964 and 1985, wind shear directly caused or contributed to 26 major civil transport aircraft accidents in the U.S. that led to 620 deaths and 200 injuries.<ref name="National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center">{{cite web|author=National Aeronautics and Space Administration, [[Langley Research Center]] |url=http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Windshear.html |title=Making the Skies Safer From Windshear |date=June 1992 |access-date=2012-11-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100329221032/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Windshear.html |archive-date=March 29, 2010 }}</ref>

===Engine failure=== {{further|Turbine engine failure|ETOPS}} An engine may fail to function because of [[fuel starvation]] (e.g. [[British Airways Flight 38]]), [[fuel exhaustion]] (e.g. [[Gimli Glider|Air Canada Flight 143]]), [[foreign object damage]] (e.g. [[US Airways Flight 1549]]), mechanical failure due to [[metal fatigue]] (e.g. [[Kegworth air disaster]], [[El Al Flight 1862]], [[China Airlines Flight 358]]), mechanical failure due to improper maintenance (e.g. [[American Airlines Flight 191]]), mechanical failure caused by an original manufacturing defect in the engine (e.g. [[Qantas Flight 32]], [[United Airlines Flight 232]], [[Delta Air Lines Flight 1288]]), and pilot error (e.g. [[Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701]]).

In a multi-engine aircraft, failure of a single engine usually results in a precautionary landing being performed, for example, landing at a [[diversion airport]] instead of continuing to the intended destination. Failure of a second engine (e.g. [[US Airways Flight 1549]]) or damage to other aircraft systems caused by an uncontained engine failure (e.g. [[United Airlines Flight 232]]) may, if an [[emergency landing]] is not possible, result in the aircraft crashing.

===Structural failure of the aircraft=== Examples of failure of aircraft structures caused by [[Fatigue (material)|metal fatigue]] include the [[de Havilland Comet]] accidents (1950s) and [[Aloha Airlines Flight 243]] (1988). Improper repair procedures can also cause structural failures include [[Japan Air Lines Flight 123]] (1985) and [[China Airlines Flight 611]] (2002). Now that the subject is better understood, rigorous inspection and [[nondestructive testing]] procedures are in place.

[[Composite material]]s consist of layers of [[fiber]]s embedded in a [[resin]] matrix. In some cases, especially when subjected to [[cyclic stress]], the layers of the material separate from each other ([[delamination|delaminate]]) and lose strength. As the failure develops inside the material, nothing is shown on the surface; instrument methods (often [[ultrasound]]-based) have to be used to detect such a material failure. In the 1940s several [[Yakovlev Yak-9]]s experienced delamination of [[plywood]] in their construction.

===Design flaws=== An error in the design of the aircraft itself can be a cause of accidents, even if the error was not the primary cause of the accident. Examples of this are [[Lion Air Flight 610]] (2018) and [[Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302]] (2019), which both suffered a [[Loss of control (aeronautics)|loss of control]] in flight leading to both planes crashing. The cause was discovered to be a design flaw in the [[Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System]] (MCAS) software that was designed to improve the handling of the [[Boeing 737 MAX]] aircraft. But instead caused both aircraft to pitch nose down uncontrollably in flight due to a faulty [[angle of attack]] sensor, as the design allowed for only one sensor's readings to be used.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/06/06/boeing-737-max/ |title=Boeing 737 MAX |date=6 June 2024 |access-date=2025-06-20}}</ref> Another example is [[Airlines PNG Flight 1600]] (2011) which suffered a fatal [[forced landing]], primarily due to a engine failure. This failure was discovered to be caused by a design flaw in the [[thrust lever|power levers]], which allowed the pilot to accidentally place the levers into reverse due to the design of the levers.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-17/png-madang-crash/5530664 |title=Airlines PNG modifies its Dash 8 aircraft after fatal plane crash in Madang in 2011 |work=ABC News |date=17 June 2014 |access-date=2025-06-20}}</ref>

===Stalling=== [[Stall (flight)|Stalling]] an aircraft (increasing the [[angle of attack]] to a point at which the wings fail to produce enough [[Lift (force)|lift]]) is dangerous and can result in a crash if the pilot fails to make a timely correction.

Devices to warn the pilot when the aircraft's speed is decreasing close to the stall speed include stall warning horns (now standard on virtually all powered aircraft), [[stick shaker]]s, and voice warnings. Most stalls are a result of the pilot allowing the airspeed to be too slow for the particular weight and configuration at the time. Stall speed is higher when ice or frost has attached to the wings and/or tail stabilizer. The more severe the icing, the higher the stall speed, not only because smooth airflow over the wings becomes increasingly more difficult, but also because of the added weight of the accumulated ice.

Crashes caused by a full stall of the airfoils include: * [[British European Airways Flight 548]] (1972) * [[United Airlines Flight 553]] (1972) * [[Aeroflot Flight 7425]] (1985) * [[Arrow Air Flight 1285]] (1985) * [[Northwest Airlines Flight 255]] (1987) * The [[Paul Wellstone]] crash (2002) * [[Colgan Air Flight 3407]] (2009) * [[Turkish Airlines Flight 1951]] crash (2009) * [[Air France Flight 447]] (2009)

===Fire=== {{main|In-flight fire}}

[[File:Controlled impact demonstration dummies.jpg|thumb|right|NASA air safety experiment ([[Controlled Impact Demonstration|CID project]])]] Safety regulations control aircraft materials and the requirements for automated fire safety systems. Usually these requirements take the form of required tests. The tests measure [[Inflammability|flammability]] of materials and [[toxicity]] of [[smoke]]. When the tests fail, it is on a prototype in an engineering laboratory rather than in an aircraft.

Fire and its toxic smoke have been the cause of accidents. An electrical fire on [[Air Canada Flight 797]] in 1983 caused the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers, resulting in the introduction of floor level lighting to assist people to evacuate a smoke-filled aircraft. In 1985, a fire on the runway caused the loss of 55 lives, 48 from the effects of incapacitating and subsequently lethal toxic gas and smoke in the [[British Airtours Flight 28M]] accident which raised serious concerns relating to survivability – something that had not been studied in such detail. The swift incursion of the fire into the fuselage and the layout of the aircraft impaired passengers' ability to evacuate, with areas such as the forward galley area becoming a bottle-neck for escaping passengers, with some dying very close to the exits. Much research into evacuation and cabin and seating layouts was carried out at [[Cranfield Institute]] to try to measure what makes a good evacuation route, which led to the seat layout by [[Overwing exits]] being changed by mandate and the examination of evacuation requirements relating to the design of galley areas. The use of [[smoke hood]]s or misting systems were also examined although both were rejected.

[[South African Airways Flight 295]] was lost in the Indian Ocean in 1987 after an in-flight fire in the cargo hold could not be suppressed by the crew. The cargo holds of most airliners are now equipped with automated [[Halomethane|halon]] fire extinguishing systems to combat a fire that might occur in the baggage holds. In May 1996, [[ValuJet Flight 592]] crashed into the Florida [[Everglades]] a few minutes after takeoff because of a fire in the forward cargo hold. All 110 people on board were killed.

At one time, fire fighting [[foam path]]s were laid down before an emergency landing, but the practice was considered only marginally effective, and concerns about the depletion of firefighting capability due to pre-foaming led the United States FAA to withdraw its recommendation in 1987.

One possible cause of fires in airplanes is wiring problems that involve intermittent faults, such as wires with breached insulation touching each other, having water dripping on them, or short circuits. Notable was [[Swissair Flight 111]] in 1998 due to an arc in the wiring of [[Inflight entertainment|IFE]] which ignited flammable [[MPET]] insulation. These are difficult to detect once the aircraft is on the ground. However, there are methods, such as [[spread-spectrum time-domain reflectometry]], that can feasibly test live wires on aircraft during flight.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Smith, Paul |author2=Cynthia Furse|author2-link=Cynthia Furse |author3=Jacob Gunther |name-list-style=amp|title=Analysis of Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectometry for Wire Fault Location. |journal=IEEE Sensors Journal |date=Dec 2005 |volume=5 |issue=6 |pages=1469–1478 |doi=10.1109/JSEN.2005.858964 |bibcode=2005ISenJ...5.1469S |s2cid=12576432 |url=http://livewiretest.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-wire-fault-location/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100501195055/http://livewiretest.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-wire-fault-location/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=2010-05-01 }}</ref>

===Bird strike=== {{Main|Bird strike}}

''Bird strike'' is an aviation term for a collision between a bird and an aircraft. Fatal accidents have been caused by both engine failure following bird ingestion and bird strikes breaking cockpit windshields.

Jet engines have to be designed to withstand the ingestion of birds of a specified weight and number and to not lose more than a specified amount of thrust. The weight and numbers of birds that can be ingested without hazarding the safe flight of the aircraft are related to the engine intake area.<ref>"Part33-Airworthiness standards-Aircraft Engines" section 33.76 Bird ingestion</ref> The hazards of ingesting birds beyond the "designed-for" limit were shown on [[US Airways Flight 1549]] when the aircraft struck Canada geese.

The outcome of an ingestion event and whether it causes an accident, be it on a small fast plane, such as military jet fighters, or a large transport, depends on the number and weight of birds and where they strike the fan blade span or the nose cone. Core damage usually results with impacts near the blade root or on the nose cone.

The highest risk of a bird strike occurs during takeoff and [[landing]] in the vicinity of [[airport]]s, and during low-level flying, for example by military aircraft, crop dusters and helicopters. Some airports use active countermeasures, including a person with a [[shotgun]], playing recorded sounds of predators through loudspeakers, or employing [[Falconry|falconers]]. Poisonous grass can be planted that is not palatable to birds, nor to insects that attract [[Insectivore|insectivorous]] birds. Passive countermeasures involve sensible{{clarify|define 'sensible'|date=February 2019}} land-use management, avoiding conditions attracting flocks of birds to the area (e.g. [[landfill]]s). Another tactic found effective is to let the grass at the airfield grow taller (to approximately {{convert|12|in|cm|disp=or}}) as some species of birds won't land if they cannot see one another.

===Human factors=== {{See also|Aviation medicine}} [[File:CID slapdown.jpg|thumb|right|NASA air safety experiment ([[Controlled Impact Demonstration|CID project]]). The airplane is a [[Boeing 720]] testing a form of jet fuel, known as "[[antimisting kerosene]]", which formed a difficult-to-ignite gel when agitated violently, as in a crash.]] [[Human factors]], including [[pilot error]], are another potential set of factors, and currently the factor most commonly found in aviation accidents.<ref>Kelly, D., & Efthymiou, M. (2019). An analysis of human factors in fifty controlled flight into terrain aviation accidents from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.009</ref><ref>Kharoufah, H., Murray, J., Baxter, G., & Wild, G. (2018). A review of human factors causations in commercial air transport accidents and incidents: From to 2000–2016. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 99, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.03.002</ref> Much progress in applying human factors analysis to improving aviation safety was made around the time of [[World War II]] by such pioneers as [[Paul Fitts]] and [[Alphonse Chapanis]]. However, there has been progress in safety throughout the history of aviation, such as the development of the pilot's [[checklist]] in 1937.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.atchistory.org/History/checklst.htm |title=How the Pilot's Checklist Came About |access-date=2007-07-18 |archive-date=2012-10-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121014052107/http://www.atchistory.org/History/checklst.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> CRM, or [[crew resource management]], is a technique that makes use of the experience and knowledge of the complete flight crew to avoid dependence on just one crew member, and to improve [[pilot decision making]].

Pilot error and improper communication are often factors in the [[collision]] of aircraft. This can take place [[mid-air collision|in the air]] (1978 [[Pacific Southwest Airlines]] [[PSA Flight 182|Flight 182]]) ([[TCAS]]) or on the ground (1977 [[Tenerife disaster]]) ([[Runway Awareness and Advisory System|RAAS]]). The barriers to effective communication have internal and external factors.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/BarriersToCommunication.htm|title = Barriers to Effective Communication: Implications for the Cockpit|date = 2014|access-date = October 7, 2015|website = airline safety.com|publisher = The Aviation Consulting Group|last = Baron|first = Robert|archive-date = August 11, 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150811052646/http://airlinesafety.com/editorials/BarriersToCommunication.htm|url-status = dead}}</ref> The ability of the flight crew to maintain [[situational awareness]] is a critical human factor in air safety. Human factors training is available to general aviation pilots and called [[single pilot resource management]] training.

Failure of the pilots to properly monitor the flight instruments caused the crash of [[Eastern Air Lines Flight 401]] in 1972. [[Controlled flight into terrain]] (CFIT), and error during take-off and landing can have catastrophic consequences, for example causing the crash of [[Prinair Flight 191]] on landing, also in 1972.

==== Pilot fatigue ==== {{Main|Pilot fatigue}}

The [[International Civil Aviation Organization]] (ICAO) defines fatigue as "A physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload."<ref>{{cite journal|title = Operation of Aircraft|journal = International Standards and Recommended Practices|date = February 25, 2013|url = http://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/FRMS%20Tools/Amendment%2037%20for%20FRMS%20SARPS%20(en).pdf|access-date = December 8, 2015|archive-date = February 22, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160222002745/http://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/frms%20tools/amendment%2037%20for%20frms%20sarps%20(en).pdf|url-status = live}}</ref> The phenomenon places great risk on the crew and passengers of an airplane because it significantly increases the chance of [[pilot error]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Caldwell|first1=John|last2=Mallis|first2=Melissa|title=Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=January 2009|volume=80|issue=1|pages=29–59|doi=10.3357/asem.2435.2009|pmid=19180856}}</ref> Fatigue is particularly prevalent among pilots because of "unpredictable work hours, long duty periods, [[Circadian dysrhythmia|circadian disruption]], and insufficient sleep".<ref name=":3">{{cite journal|last1=Caldwell|first1=John A.|last2=Mallis|first2=Melissa M.|last3=Caldwell|first3=J. Lynn|title=Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=January 2009|volume=80|issue=1|pages=29–59|doi=10.3357/asem.2435.2009|pmid=19180856}}</ref> These factors can occur together to produce a combination of [[sleep deprivation]], circadian rhythm effects, and 'time-on task' fatigue.<ref name=":3" /> Regulators attempt to mitigate fatigue by limiting the number of hours pilots are allowed to fly over varying periods of time. Experts in aviation fatigue{{who|date=December 2015}} often find that these methods fall short of their goals.

====Piloting while intoxicated==== Rarely, flight crew members are arrested or subject to disciplinary action for being [[Alcohol intoxication|intoxicated]] on the job. In 1990, three [[Northwest Airlines]] crew members were sentenced to jail for flying while drunk. In 2001, Northwest fired a pilot who failed a [[breathalyzer]] test after a flight. In July 2002, both pilots of [[America West Airlines Flight 556]] were arrested just before they were scheduled to fly because they had been drinking alcohol. The pilots were fired and the FAA revoked their pilot licenses.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sptimes.com/2005/02/01/State/Court_blocks_doctors_.shtml|title=U.S. drops prosecution of allegedly tipsy pilots (second story)|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305141525/http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/01/State/Court_blocks_doctors_.shtml|archive-date=2016-03-05|url-status=dead}}</ref> At least one fatal airliner accident involving drunk pilots occurred when [[Aero Flight 311]] crashed at Kvevlax, Finland, killing all 25 on board in 1961. Another example is the crash [[Aeroflot Flight 821]], in which the captain's intoxication contributed to the accident, killing all 88 on board.

====Pilot suicide and murder==== {{Main|Suicide by pilot}}

There have been rare instances of [[Suicide by pilot#By pilots in control of whole flight|suicide by pilots]]. Although most air crew are [[Mental health in aviation|screened for psychological fitness]], a very few authorized pilots have flown acts of suicide and even [[mass murder]].<ref>Wu, A. C., Donnelly-McLay, D., Weisskopf, M. G., McNeely, E., Betancourt, T. S., & Allen, J. G. (2016). Airplane pilot mental health and suicidal thoughts: a cross-sectional descriptive study via anonymous web-based survey. Environmental Health, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0200-6</ref>

In 1982, [[Japan Airlines Flight 350]] crashed while on approach to the Tokyo Haneda Airport, killing 24 of the 174 on board. The official investigation found the mentally ill captain had attempted suicide by placing the inboard engines into reverse thrust, while the aircraft was close to the runway. The first officer did not have enough time to countermand before the aircraft stalled and crashed.

In 1997, [[SilkAir Flight 185]] suddenly went into a high dive from its cruising altitude. The speed of the dive was so high that the aircraft began to break apart before it finally crashed near [[Palembang]], [[Sumatra]]. After three years of investigation, the Indonesian authorities declared that the cause of the accident could not be determined. However, the US NTSB concluded that deliberate suicide by the captain was the only reasonable explanation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Crash of SilkAir Flight MI 185 |url=https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=e7981dc3-714b-45d6-a647-1abcddf1b19a |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=www.nlb.gov.sg}}</ref>

In 1999 in the case of [[EgyptAir Flight 990]], it appears that the [[First Officer (civil aviation)|first officer]] deliberately crashed into the Atlantic Ocean while the captain was away from his station.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Langewiesche |first=William |date=2001-11-01 |title=The Crash of EgyptAir 990 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-crash-of-egyptair-990/302332/ |access-date=2026-03-23 |work=The Atlantic |language=en |issn=2151-9463}}</ref>

Crew involvement is [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Crew involvement|one of the speculative theories]] in the disappearance of [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 370]] on 8 March 2014. <ref>{{Cite web |title=What Really Happened to Flight MH370? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2025/12/what-really-happened-to-flight-mh370/ |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=thediplomat.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

On 24 March 2015, [[Germanwings Flight 9525]] (an [[Airbus A320-200]]) crashed {{Convert|100|km|0|abbr=off}} north-west of Nice, in the [[French Alps]], after a constant descent that began one minute after the last routine contact with air traffic control, and shortly after the aircraft had reached its assigned cruise altitude. All 144 passengers and six crew members were killed. The crash was intentionally caused by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. Having been declared 'unfit to work' without telling his employer, Lubitz reported for duty, and during the flight locked the captain out of the flight-deck. In response to the incident and the circumstances of Lubitz's involvement, aviation authorities in Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Australia implemented new regulations that require two authorised personnel to be present in the cockpit at all times. Three days after the incident, the [[European Aviation Safety Agency]] (EASA) issued a temporary recommendation for airlines to ensure that at least two crew members, including at least one pilot, are in the cockpit at all times of the flight. Several airlines announced they had already adopted similar policies voluntarily.

====Deliberate aircrew inaction==== Inaction, [[omission (law)|omission]], failure to act as required, willful disregard of safety procedures, disdain for rules, and unjustifiable risk-taking by pilots have also led to [[Aviation accidents and incidents|accidents and incidents]].

Although Smartwings QS-1125 flight of 22 August 2019 successfully made an emergency landing at destination, the captain was censured for failing to follow mandatory procedures, including for not landing at the nearest possible diversion airport after an engine failure.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-07-26 |title=Investigation Blames Pilot Error For Smartwings Engine Shutdown Incident {{!}} AirlineGeeks.com |url=https://airlinegeeks.com/2020/07/26/investigation-blames-pilot-error-for-smartwings-engine-shutdown-incident/ |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=airlinegeeks.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

====Human factors of third parties====

Unsafe human factors are not limited to pilot errors. Third party factors include ground crew mishaps, ground vehicle to aircraft collisions and engineering maintenance related problems. For example, failure to properly close a cargo door on [[Turkish Airlines Flight 981]] in 1974 caused the loss of the aircraft. (However, design of the cargo door latch was also a major factor in the accident.) In the case of [[Japan Air Lines Flight 123]] in 1985, improper repair of previous damage led to explosive decompression of the cabin, which in turn destroyed the [[vertical stabilizer]] and damaged all four hydraulic systems which powered all the flight controls.

====Controlled flight into terrain==== {{Main|Controlled flight into terrain}}

{{see also|Box canyon (aviation)}} ''Controlled flight into terrain'' (CFIT) is a class of accidents in which an aircraft is flown under control into terrain or man-made structures. CFIT accidents typically result from pilot error or of navigational system error. Failure to protect [[ILS critical area]]s can also cause CFIT accidents{{dubious|date=August 2013}}. In December 1995, [[American Airlines Flight 965]] tracked off course while approaching [[Cali]], [[Colombia]], and hit a mountainside despite a [[terrain awareness and warning system]] (TAWS) terrain warning in the cockpit and desperate pilot attempt to gain altitude after the warning. Crew position awareness and monitoring of navigational systems are essential to the prevention of CFIT accidents. {{As of|2008|2}}, over 40,000 aircraft had enhanced TAWS installed, and they had flown over 800 million hours without a CFIT accident.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-02-27/cfit-blamed-last-years-crash-egpws-equipped-king-air-200|title=CFIT blamed for last year's crash of EGPWS-equipped King Air 200|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=2021-12-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211206170748/https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-02-27/cfit-blamed-last-years-crash-egpws-equipped-king-air-200|url-status=live}}</ref>

Another anti-CFIT tool is the [[Minimum safe altitude warning|Minimum Safe Altitude Warning]] (MSAW) system which monitors the altitudes transmitted by aircraft transponders and compares that with the system's defined minimum safe altitudes for a given area. When the system determines the aircraft is lower, or might soon be lower, than the minimum safe altitude, the [[air traffic control]]ler receives an acoustic and visual warning and then alerts the pilot that the aircraft is too low.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Minimum_Safe_Altitude_Warning_(MSAW)|title=Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) - SKYbrary Aviation Safety|website=www.skybrary.aero|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=22 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180322143344/https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Minimum_Safe_Altitude_Warning_(MSAW)|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Electromagnetic interference==== {{see also|Mobile phones on aircraft|Electromagnetic interference}} The use of certain electronic equipment is partially or entirely prohibited as it might interfere with aircraft operation,<ref name=ladkin-elec-inter>{{cite web |last1=Ladkin |first1=Peter B. |last2=with colleagues |title=Electromagnetic Interference with Aircraft Systems: why worry? |url=http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html |publisher=[[University of Bielefeld]] – Faculty of Technology |access-date=December 24, 2015 |date=October 20, 1997 |archive-date=December 28, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151228234000/http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html |url-status=live }}</ref> such as causing [[compass]] deviations.{{Citation needed|date=September 2012}} Use of some types of personal electronic devices is prohibited when an aircraft is below {{convert|10000|ft|||}}, taking off, or landing. Use of a [[mobile phone]] is prohibited on most flights because in-flight usage creates problems with ground-based cells.<ref name=ladkin-elec-inter/><ref name=live-sci-cells>{{cite web |last1=Hsu |first1=Jeremy |title=The Real Reason Cell Phone Use Is Banned on Airlines |url=http://www.livescience.com/5947-real-reason-cell-phone-banned-airlines.html |website=livescience.com |access-date=December 24, 2015 |date=December 21, 2009 |archive-date=October 20, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151020101110/http://www.livescience.com/5947-real-reason-cell-phone-banned-airlines.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Wireless devices such as cellphones feature an [[airplane mode]].

===Ground damage=== [[File:Ground damage to aircraft.jpg|thumb|Ground damage to an aircraft. Several [[Stringer (aircraft)|stringers]] were cut and the aircraft was grounded.]] Various [[ground support equipment]] operate in close proximity to the fuselage and wings to service the aircraft and occasionally cause accidental damage in the form of scratches in the paint or small dents in the skin. However, because aircraft structures (including the outer skin) play such a critical role in the safe operation of a flight, all damage is inspected, measured, and possibly tested to ensure that any damage is within safe tolerances.

An example problem was the depressurization incident on [[Alaska Airlines Flight 536]] in 2005. During ground services, a [[baggage handler]] hit the side of the aircraft with a tug towing a train of [[baggage cart]]s. This damaged the metal skin of the aircraft. This damage was not reported and the plane departed. Climbing through {{convert|26000|ft|m}} the damaged section of the skin gave way under the difference in pressure between the inside of the aircraft and the outside air. The cabin depressurized explosively necessitating a rapid descent to denser (breathable) air and an emergency landing. Post-landing examination of the fuselage revealed a {{convert|12|in|cm|adj=on}} hole on the right side of the airplane.<ref>{{Cite journal |title= National Transportation Safety Board – Aviation Accidents: SEA06LA033 |date= 2006-08-29 |url= https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051229X02026&key=1 |access-date= 2007-07-14 |publisher= [[National Transportation Safety Board]] |journal= |archive-date= 2007-09-29 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123808/http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051229X02026&key=1 |url-status= live }}</ref>

===Volcanic ash=== {{Main|Volcanic ash and aviation safety}}

Plumes of [[volcanic ash]] near active [[volcano]]es can damage [[Propeller (aircraft)|propellers]], [[Aircraft engine|engines]] and cockpit windows.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Effects/Ash+Aircraft.html|title=USGS: Volcano Hazards Program|first=Volcano Hazards|last=Program|website=volcanoes.usgs.gov|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=13 May 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513192025/http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Effects/Ash+Aircraft.html|url-status=live}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Volcanic_Ash|title=Volcanic Ash - SKYbrary Aviation Safety|website=www.skybrary.aero|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=4 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171204222933/https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Volcanic_Ash|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1982, [[British Airways Flight 9]] flew through an ash cloud and temporarily lost power from all four engines. The plane was badly damaged, with all the leading edges being scratched. The front windscreens had been so badly "sand" blasted by the ash that they could not be used to land the aircraft.<ref>Flightglobal archive Flight International 10 July 1982 p59</ref>

Prior to 2010 the general approach taken by airspace regulators was that if the ash concentration rose above zero, then the airspace was considered unsafe and was consequently closed.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Marks|first1=Paul|title=Can we fly safely through volcanic ash?|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18797-can-we-fly-safely-through-volcanic-ash/|access-date=2018-04-04|work=New Scientist|date=20 April 2010|archive-date=2018-04-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405090415/https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18797-can-we-fly-safely-through-volcanic-ash/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Volcanic Ash Advisory Center]]s enable liaison between [[meteorologist]]s, [[volcanologist]]s, and the aviation industry.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs030-97/|title=Volcanic Ash–Danger to Aircraft in the North Pacific, USGS Fact Sheet 030-97|website=pubs.usgs.gov|access-date=21 March 2018|archive-date=2 June 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602061556/http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs030-97/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Runway safety === [[File:Mitsubishi_Outlander_Flight_Safety_Patrol_Car_of_Taipei_Songshan_Airport_20161220.jpg|thumb|Airport safety car at an Airport in Taiwan]]

Types of runway safety incidents include: * [[Runway excursion]] – an incident involving only a single aircraft making an inappropriate exit from the runway. * [[Runway overrun]] – a specific type of excursion where the aircraft does not stop before the end of the runway (e.g., [[Air France Flight 358]]). * [[Runway incursion]] – incorrect presence of a vehicle, person, or another aircraft on the runway (e.g., [[Tenerife airport disaster]]). * Runway confusion – crew misidentification of the runway for landing or take-off (e.g., [[Comair Flight 5191]], [[Singapore Airlines Flight 6]]).

The last two types can be prevented with [[airport surveillance and broadcast systems]], a [[Runway Awareness and Advisory System]], and landing navigation systems (e.g. [[transponder landing system]], [[microwave landing system]], [[instrument landing system]]).

===Terrorism=== Aircrew are normally trained to handle [[Aircraft hijacking|hijack]] situations.<ref name='Terrorism1'>Elias, B. (n.d.). CRS Report for Congress Arming Pilots Against Terrorism: Implementation Issues for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20040109_RL31674_7843a6ab69c39a85d33622d388603203d9a35aa4.pdf</ref><ref>Jansen, N. (2024, September). Training Pilots for the Post 9/11 World. Air Education and Training Command. https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3902723/training-pilots-for-the-post-911-world/</ref> Since the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], stricter [[airport security|airport]] and [[airline security]] measures are in place to prevent [[terrorism]], such as security checkpoints and locking the cockpit doors during flight.

In the United States, the [[Federal Flight Deck Officer]] program is run by the [[Federal Air Marshal Service]], with the aim of training active and licensed airline pilots to carry weapons and defend their aircraft against criminal activity and terrorism. Upon completion of government training, selected pilots enter a covert law enforcement and counter-terrorism service. Their jurisdiction is normally limited to a flight deck or a cabin of a commercial airliner or a cargo aircraft they operate while on duty.

===Military action=== Passenger planes have rarely been attacked in both peacetime and war. Examples: * In 1955, Bulgaria shot down [[El Al Flight 402]]. * In 1973, Israel shot down [[Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114]]. * In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down [[Korean Air Lines Flight 007]]. * In 1988, the United States shot down [[Iran Air Flight 655]]. * In 2001, the Ukrainian Air Force accidentally shot down [[Siberia Airlines Flight 1812]] during an exercise. * In 2014, Russia shot down [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=MH17 - The Open Source Investigation Three Years Later|url=https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf|url-status=live|website=[[Bellingcat]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170717001308/https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf |archive-date=2017-07-17 }} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502164315/https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf|date=2019-05-02}}</ref> * In 2020, Iran shot down [[Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752]].

==Accident survivability== {{Further|Pre-flight safety demonstration|Aircraft safety card|Brace position|Aircraft rescue and firefighting|Airport crash tender}}

Earlier tragedies investigations and improved engineering has allowed many safety improvements that have allowed an increasing safer aviation.<ref name="Shiavo" />

===Airport design=== [[File:Functional EMAS Bed - NTSB Docket Photo.jpg|thumb|200px|[[engineered materials arrestor system|EMAS]] bed after being run over by landing gear]] Airport design and location can have a large impact on aviation safety, especially since some airports such as [[Chicago Midway International Airport]] were originally built for propeller planes and many airports are in congested areas where it is difficult to meet newer safety standards. For instance, the FAA issued rules in 1999 calling for a [[runway safety area]], usually extending {{convert|500|ft|m|order=flip}} to each side and {{convert|1000|ft|m|order=flip}} beyond the end of a runway. This is intended to cover ninety percent of the cases of an aircraft leaving the runway by providing a buffer space free of obstacles.<ref name="Abend" /> Many older airports do not meet this standard. One method of substituting for the {{convert|1000|ft|m|order=flip}} at the end of a runway for airports in congested areas is to install an [[engineered materials arrestor system]] (EMAS). These systems are usually made of lightweight, crushable concrete that absorbs the energy of the aircraft to bring it to a rapid stop. {{As of|2008}}, they have stopped three aircraft at [[John F. Kennedy International Airport|JFK Airport]].

===Emergency airplane evacuations=== According to a 2000 report by the [[National Transportation Safety Board]], [[emergency aircraft evacuation]]s happen about once every 11 days in the U.S. While some situations are extremely dire, such as when the plane is on fire, in many cases the greatest challenge for passengers can be the use of the [[evacuation slide]]. In a ''Time'' article on the subject, Amanda Ripley reported that when a new supersized Airbus A380 underwent mandatory evacuation tests in 2006, thirty-three of the 873 evacuating volunteers got hurt. While the evacuation was considered a success, one volunteer suffered a broken leg, while the remaining 32 received slide burns. Such accidents are common. In her article, Ripley provided tips on how to make it down the airplane slide without injury.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080127125417/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706188,00.html How to Escape Down an Airplane Slide – and Still Make Your Connection!] Amanda Ripley. ''TIME''. January 23, 2008.</ref> Another improvement to airplane evacuations is the requirement by the [[Federal Aviation Administration]] for planes to demonstrate an evacuation time of 90 seconds with half the emergency exits blocked for each type of airplane in their fleet. According to studies, 90 seconds is the time needed to evacuate before the plane starts burning, before there can be a very large fire or explosions, or before fumes fill the cabin.<ref name="Shiavo" /><ref name="Abend" />

=== Aircraft materials and design === Changes such as using new materials for seat fabric and insulation has given between 40 and 60 additional seconds to people on board to evacuate before the cabin gets filled with fire and potential deadly fumes.<ref name="Shiavo">{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/02/americas/aeromexico-plane-crash/index.html |title='I fell from the sky and survived.' Passengers aboard Aeromexico flight recount fiery crash |date=2 August 2018 |access-date=August 2, 2018 |first=Holly |last=Yan |publisher=[[CNN]] |archive-date=2 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180802172903/https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/02/americas/aeromexico-plane-crash/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Other improvements through the years include the use of properly rated seatbelts, impact resistant seat frames, and airplane wings and engines designed to shear off to absorb impact forces.[[File:Inspector’s Window1.jpg|thumb|The small black triangle marks the location of the "Inspector’s Window," the specific seat that provides the most unobstructed view of the aircraft's wing. It serves the crew to confirm de-icing, inspect the flaps and slats, and check for engine smoke, sparks, or structural damage.]]<ref name="Abend">{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/opinions/pilot-how-everyone-can-survive-plane-crash-abend/index.html|title=Pilot: How a plane can crash and everyone survives|date=2 August 2018|access-date=August 3, 2018|first=Les|last=Abend|publisher=[[CNN]]|archive-date=2 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180802221223/https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/opinions/pilot-how-everyone-can-survive-plane-crash-abend/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Radar and wind shear detection systems === As the result of the accidents due to wind shear and other weather disturbances, most notably the 1985 crash of [[Delta Air Lines Flight 191]], the U.S. [[Federal Aviation Administration]] mandated that all commercial aircraft have [[Airborne wind shear detection and alert system|on-board wind shear detection systems]] by 1993.<ref name="National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center"/> Since 1995, the number of major civil aircraft accidents caused by wind shear has dropped to approximately one every ten years, due to the mandated on-board detection as well as the addition of Doppler [[weather radar]] units on the ground ([[NEXRAD]]).<ref>Hallowell, R., & Cho, J. (2010). Wind-Shear System Cost-Benefit Analysis. N LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL, 18(2). https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/page/doc/2018-05/18_2_3_Hallowell.pdf</ref> The installation of high-resolution [[Terminal Doppler Weather Radar]] stations at many U.S. airports that are commonly affected by wind shear has further aided the ability of pilots and ground controllers to avoid wind shear conditions.<ref name=tdwr-nws>{{cite web |url=http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/tdwr/info/specs.html |title=Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Information |access-date=4 August 2009 |publisher=National Weather Service |archive-date=16 February 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090216210140/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/tdwr/info/specs.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Accidents and incidents== * [[List of airship accidents]] * [[:Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents|Lists of aviation accidents and incidents]] * [[Aviation accidents and incidents]] * [[List of airliner shootdown incidents]] * [[Flight recorder]], includes ''flight data recorder'' and ''cockpit voice recorder''

===National investigation organizations=== * [[Australian Transport Safety Bureau]] * [http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/luftfahrt/behoerden/fusbmvit.html Flugunfalluntersuchungsstelle im BMVIT] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080921203453/http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/luftfahrt/behoerden/fusbmvit.html |date=2008-09-21 }} (Austria) * [http://www2.fab.mil.br/cenipa/ Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos] (Brazil) * [[Transportation Safety Board of Canada]] * [[Air Accidents Investigation Institute]] (Czech Republic) * [https://www.hcl.dk/ Danish Aircraft Accident Investigation Board] * [[Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'Aviation Civile]] (France) * [[Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung]] (Germany) * [http://www.civilaviation.gov.in/en/aaib Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau] (India) * [http://knkt.go.id KNKT - Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi] (Indonesia) * [[International Civil Aviation Organization]] * [[Air Accident Investigation Unit]] (Ireland) * [[ANSV|Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo]] (Italy) * [[Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission]] (Japan) * [[Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand]] * [[Transport Accident Investigation Commission]] (New Zealand) * [[Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid]] (The Netherlands) * [[Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines]] * [[South African Civil Aviation Authority]] (South Africa) * [[Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil]] (Spain) * [[Swedish Accident Investigation Board]] * [[Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (Switzerland)|Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau]] (Switzerland) * [[Air Accidents Investigation Branch]] (UK) * [[National Transportation Safety Board]] (USA) * [https://archive.today/20010303200204/http://eccairs-www.jrc.it/ European Co-ordination Center for Aircraft Incident Reporting Systems] (ECCAIRS)

==Air safety investigators==

Air safety investigators are trained and authorized to investigate aviation accidents and incidents: to research, analyse, and report their conclusions. They may be specialized in flight operations, training, aircraft structures, air traffic control, flight recorders or human factors. They are employed by government organizations responsible for aviation safety, manufacturers or unions, though only government organizations have statutory powers to investigate. ==Safety improvement initiatives== The safety improvement initiatives are aviation safety partnerships between regulators, manufacturers, operators, professional unions, research organizations, and international aviation organizations to further enhance safety.<ref name="Annex19">{{cite book |year=2013 |title=Annex 19. Safety Management |url=https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2422.pdf |language=EN |location=Montreal |publisher=ICAO |pages=44 |isbn=978-92-9249-232-8 |access-date=2018-01-11 |archive-date=2016-04-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160417192221/http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2422.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Some major safety initiatives worldwide are:

* [[Commercial Aviation Safety Team]] (CAST) in the United States. The Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) was founded in 1998 with a goal to reduce the commercial aviation fatality rate in the United States by 80 percent by 2007. * [[US Helicopter Safety Team|U.S. Helicopter Safety Team]] (USHST) in the United States. The USHST was formed in 2013 as a regional partner within the [[International Helicopter Safety Team]] (IHST) to lead a government and industry cooperative effort to promote safety and work to reduce civil helicopter accidents and fatalities.<ref name="FAA-USHST-2018">{{cite web |date=February 2018 |title=U.S. Helicopter Safety Team Names FAA’s Wayne Fry as Government Co-Chair |url=https://ushst.org/Press_Releases/2018GovernmentCoChair.pdf |access-date=January 15, 2026 |publisher=Federal Aviation Administration |format=PDF}}</ref> * [[European Strategic Safety Initiative]] (ESSI). The European Strategic Safety Initiative (ESSI) is an aviation safety partnership between the [[European Union Aviation Safety Agency]] (EASA), other regulators and the industry. The initiative objective is to further enhance safety for citizens in Europe and worldwide through safety analysis, implementation of cost-effective action plans, and coordination with other safety initiatives worldwide. * After the disappearance of [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 370]], in June 2014, the [[International Air Transport Association]] said it was working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in flight in real time. A special panel was considering a range of options including the production of equipment especially designed to ensure real-time tracking.<ref name="FlightTracking">{{cite news |title= IATA wants new airline tracking equipment |url= http://www.malaysiasun.com/news/222727817/iata-wants-new-airline-tracking-equipment |date= 9 June 2014 |newspaper= Malaysia Sun |access-date= 2 August 2017 |archive-date= 2 August 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170802204229/http://www.malaysiasun.com/news/222727817/iata-wants-new-airline-tracking-equipment |url-status= live }}</ref>

Since pilot error accounts for between one-third and 60% of aviation accidents, advances in automation and technology could replace some or all of the duties of the aircraft pilots. Automation since the 1980s has already eliminated the need for flight engineers. In complex situations with severely degraded systems, the problem-solving and judgment capability of humans is challenging to achieve with automated systems, for example the catastrophic engine failures experienced by [[United Airlines Flight 232]] and [[Qantas Flight 32]].<ref>{{cite news |url= https://airwaysmag.com/best-of-airways/robot-co-pilot-go-wrong-click-go-wrong/ |title= Robot is My Co-Pilot: What could go wrong?—click! Go Wrong? |date= May 10, 2016 |author= Eric Auxier |work= Airways international |access-date= August 17, 2017 |archive-date= August 17, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170817163051/https://airwaysmag.com/best-of-airways/robot-co-pilot-go-wrong-click-go-wrong/ |url-status= live }}</ref> However, with more accurate software modeling of aeronautic factors, test planes have been successfully flown in these conditions.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Active/index.html|publisher=NASA| work=Past Research Projects| title=Active Home Page| access-date=June 1, 2006| archive-date=September 30, 2006| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060930191203/http://www1.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Active/index.html| url-status=live}}</ref>

While the accident rate is very low, to ensure they do not rise with the air transport growth, experts recommend creating a robust culture of collecting information from employees without blame.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-how-keep-accidents-low-air-traffic-increases |author= Jon Beatty, president and CEO of [[Flight Safety Foundation]] |title= Opinion: How To Keep Accidents Low As Air Traffic Increases |date= Nov 20, 2017 |work= Aviation Week & Space Technology |access-date= November 21, 2017 |archive-date= November 22, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171122173427/http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-how-keep-accidents-low-air-traffic-increases |url-status= live }}</ref>

==Regulators== * {{flag|Australia}}: [[Civil Aviation Safety Authority]] * {{flag|Canada}}: [[Transport Canada]] * {{flag|European Union}}: [[European Aviation Safety Agency]] * {{flag|India}}: [[Directorate General of Civil Aviation (India)]] * {{flag|Indonesia}}: [[Directorate General of Civil Aviation (Indonesia)]] * {{flag|Ireland}}: [[Irish Aviation Authority]] * {{flag|Philippines}}: [[Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines]] * {{flag|United Kingdom}}: [[Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom)|Civil Aviation Authority]] * {{flag|United States}}: [[Federal Aviation Administration]] ** [[Federal Aviation Regulations]]

== Navigation and procedural innovation == Advancements in satellite navigation, digital flight data, and instrument flight procedure design have significantly contributed to reducing controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) incidents. Implementation of WAAS/LPV and RNP approaches provides improved vertical guidance, while PBN-based helicopter procedures enhance safety during low-visibility and low-altitude operations.<ref>{{cite web |last=Langfield |first=Mandy |date=March 2025 |title=Interview: Supporting safety from every angle (Chris Baur, CEO of Hughes Aerospace) |url=https://www.airmedandrescue.com/latest/long-read/interview-supporting-safety-every-angle |access-date=October 6, 2025 |website=AirMed & Rescue}}</ref>

==See also== {{Portal|Aviation}} {{Div col|colwidth=24em}} *[[Air traffic control]] *[[Aircraft fire trainer]] *[[Aircraft hijacking]] *[[Airport security]] *[[Aviation Safety Network]] (ASN) *[[Aviation Safety Reporting System]] *[[Ballistic parachute]] *[[Crashworthiness]] *[[Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation]] *[[Hazard analysis]] *[[Health hazards of air travel]] *[[Human Intervention Motivation Study]] *[[IATA Operational Safety Audit]] *[[Incident pit]], conceptual model from diving for explaining incident development and recovery *[[JACDEC|Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre]] (JACDEC) *[[Lasers and aviation safety]] *[[Mid-air collision]] *[[Pilot error]] *[[Safety of emergency medical services flights]] *[[Sensory illusions in aviation]] *[[Sixty second review]], a technique used by flight attendants to focus and prepare for a sudden emergency *[[SKYbrary]] *[[Swiss cheese model]] *[[System accident]] *[[Tombstone mentality]] *{{Section link|Travel|Safety}} *[[Uncontrolled decompression]] *[[Wind shear]] *[[Zonal safety analysis]] {{Div col end}}

==Notes== {{notelist}}

== References == {{Reflist}}

==External links== * [https://aviation-safety.net/about/ Aviation safety network database] * [https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/10-airplane-crashes-that-changed-aviation#slide-1 10 Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation] * [http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Portal:Safety_Behaviours_-_Guide_for_Pilots Safety Behaviours – a guide for pilots] (comprehensive human factors information) * [http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)] * [http://aviation-safety.net/ Latest Aviation Safety Occurrences at the Aviation Safety Network] * [http://www.gao.gov/atext/d0433.txt Aviation Safety: Advancements Being Pursued to Improve Airliner Cabin Occupant Safety and Health, 2003]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Aviation Safety}} [[Category:Aviation safety| ]] [[Category:Aircraft maintenance|Safety]]