I raise this because of the NYT article that appeared a couple of days ago, focusing on AUS, but also indicating that AUS is by no means the only airport with far too few air traffic controllers relative to the number of planes landing and departing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/business/air-traffic-control-austin-airport-fedex-southwest.html?searchResultPosition=1
Still, I wonder if AUS is worse than most, and if any are notably safer. Has anyone researched this?
Pay wall. Couldn't read. So how many crashes have there been at that airport? Out of how many take offs and landings?
"There has not been a fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline since 2009, but close calls have been happening, on average, multiple times a week this year,"
No crashes in Austin but a near miss in Feb. No fatal crashes in 14 years.
Thanks for gifting the article, EP.
I think what it also depends on for me is picking an airline with a good safety record and experienced pilots.
In terms of risks of a crash on take off or landing, there are many airports with excellent safety records. The possibility of a take off or landing crash is so remote that I'm not sure it's really quantifiable. That's not to say there have never been incidents such as runway incursions, close calls, and the like. But even those are rare when compared to the volume of take offs and landings. I've always thought the most dangerous part of a trip is the drive to and from the airport.
Fortunately incidents like this are so low in frequency, that trying to determine an airport to use or avoid due to risk is a bit of a fools errand. It is a bit like selecting your driving route through the Central US to avoid tornadoes, seems like science, but not effective.
But the article does focus on where the biggest danger in air travel is, that is taxiing and mistakes made in entering runways. Oddly, I worked for a company that identified this decades ago and developed an outline for a ground control system augmented with GPS and transponders, as well as better mapping of runways and support approaches. It went nowhere, airports were not interested, airlines didn't see the need, the FAA was more interested in planes in flight.
@TC - no fatal airplane crashes in Atlanta since 1941 when it was still Candler Field. Amazing that Eddy Rickenbacker was on the plane and lived.
"Crashed into a hill in pine woods while trying to make an instrument landing approach in rain and fog due to altimeter misread. The aircraft found next day at 6:30 CT. Passenger Edward Vernon "Eddy" Rickenbacker (50) survived. Congressman William D. Byron (45) died."
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19410226-0
Here is the link to every incident in Atlanta including tail strikes, bird strikes, etc
https://aviation-safety.net/database/airports/ATL
And to the OP, this link might give you the information you seek about airport with the least problems.
(I'm interested because my Dad was an Air Traffic Controller back in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. He was posted to both Austin TX and ATL - where he did his initial training in the late 40s.)
Not sure AUS is any more dangerous than other US airports just happened to have an 'incident' for the NYT to use as a focal point for their story.
I was on a plane coming in for a landing at SEA and was expecting the 'landing thump' to happen ( we were that close to the ground) when the engines roared to life, got pushed back into the seat and did a go around.
Joe32, I wonder if I was on that flight with you. Got a really good look at Smith Tower!
Pam, many thanks for the link. Fascinating information. For a number of years I lived in an apartment complex near the Atlanta airport and got to know a number of pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers. That's where I first came to believe that driving to the airport was more dangerous that the flying itself.
Surely this should be posted in the Beyond Europe section.
A shortage of air traffic controllers does not lead to unsafe situations. What it can lead to is more frequent delays and flight cancellations.
I don't subscribe to the NYT, so what airports should I avoid?
Estimated Prophet replied above with the unlocked NYT article if you care to read.
In the US there have been 0 crashes since 2009. This is a completely useless thing to worry about. There are so many actual real things to worry about - will my dog get enough cheese? The likelihood of a crash is not one of them.
As a statistician, I can tell you, definitively, that 0/10000 (in Airport 1) and 0/200000 (Airport 2) are not statistically different. They are both 0. Do not worry about crashes. Worry about pickpockets.
Former military controller here- and I can tell you that the author of the piece is now persona non grata for the bulk of current controllers - you don't make a system safer by doing a hit piece on the controller that allegedly erred, NATCA's rep was completely correct.
Because, of course, there is not ONE error here, there are multiple; just like in many plane crashes, there is not usually ONE error, there are multiple (there are some exceptions). The FAA is to blame for understaffing; SW is to blame for an overly long take off time, etc. This is no different than when there was a crash in 1991 at LAX - controller accepted the blame but there was loads of blame to go around.
We used to say the 7110 (the controller's bible) was written in blood due to the changes made because of a crash (for example - after the In and Out Burger crash at John Wayne, 757s were immediately considered a heavy, and a/c behind it were given the appropriate extra distance and wake turbulence calls).
Bottom line, no airport is overly safer than others, JFK isn't necessarily the safest when it's snowing, but you plan for that (deicing, etc)... I don't have a problem with any major airport, even San Diego's tiny little airport in downtown SD...