National Air Transportation Association (NATA) President James K. Coyne issued the following statement in response to the May 9, 2005 cover story in Forbes Magazine titled "Flight of Fear." In his article Flight of Fear (May 9, 2005, Forbes Magazine) Seth Lubove's misuse of facts is more befitting the entertainment tabloids, then a credible publication like Forbes. The article is filled with bad statistics, bad information, a complete lack of understanding of a complex industry, dubious quotes, and the reporter's blatant bias toward an industry that has a very strong safety record that is improving every day. To illustrate, Lubove cites as an example of the safety "problems" of the charter industry an accident involving Air Sunshine in July of 2003. What Lubove overlooked was the fact that the Air Sunshine plane was a scheduled commuter flight whose crash was listed in the airline safety statistics against which he compares the on-demand charter safety record. Throughout the article, Lubove paints an entire reputable industry with the same very wide brush. However, statistically speaking, not every Part 135 operator is providing on-demand passenger charter services. Part 135 operators include air construction operators, air ambulance and rescue flight operators, and even small Alaskan ski and float plane operators landing in the remote wilderness. To statistically lump these more hazardous duty operations with the "cross country round-trip Gulfstream II" kind of on-demand air charter again shows his lack of understanding about this industry. As an example, on-demand passenger jet charter experienced only five fatal accidents in the past four years according to the National Transportation Safety Board which does not equal "18 times as likely" to end up in an accident compared to commercial jet aviation as stated in the article. Furthermore, the industry is composed of well over 11,000 individual aircraft more than are operated by all of the scheduled airlines combined. The National Air Transportation Association believes that any accident is a great tragedy, and as a representative of the industry we work to make improvements in safety. This includes participation in efforts to revise current regulations as participants in the Part 135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), introduction of new safety enhancing technology, and advanced simulator training for pilots (on par with the airline industry.) In order for an on-demand operator to qualify for a Part 135 certificate, the operator must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) how they will comply with every one of hundreds of rigorous regulations. Additionally, the overhaul of charter rules to which Lubove refers is actually a two-year process involving many different segments of the industry. The ARC, of which NATA is a member, is tasked with further improving the stellar safety record of on-demand operators. Additionally, industry sponsored safety programs like the NATA Safety 1st Program and the Safety Management System (SMS), which seek to identify best practices to further reduce en route and on ground accidents, are receiving unprecedented participation from operators. To further demonstrate the author's lack of credible reporting, NATA provided Lubove with quotes, statistics, and even arranged for him to visit with a reputable on-demand operator. Despite this, he failed to even once mention any of that side of the industry in his article. Additionally, Lubove took the comments of several FAA employees meeting in an informal setting to discuss the perception of a problem out of context and attributed them all to one official. To read Lubove's story, one would mistakenly assume aircraft charter is patently unsafe, which could not be farther from the truth. A more accurate piece of reporting would have included guidance to the reader that would help them select a reputable and safe operator, such as NATA's publication Chartering An Aircraft, A Consumer Guide To Help You Fly Smarter. On-demand operators are safe, are much less expensive than described in Lubove's article, and deserve to be portrayed in a fair and accurate light. NATA is very disappointed in Forbes for failing its readers so badly on this issue and for falsely characterizing an entire segment of our national air transportation system based upon faulty data, inaccurate assumptions, and the anecdotal actions of a few allegedly bad apples. At a time when the media is constantly under fire for failing to accurately report the facts, it appears that the only fiery crash present in this article is Lubove's credibility going down in smoke for trying to make a name for himself with sensationalism instead of truth. Click here to view the joint NATA, NBAA, GAMA rebuttal sent to Forbes Magazine. To learn more about business aviation's safety record click here.
	Our Commitment F A Q  Passenger Safety See the Future Pricing and Conditions Current Issues Contact us Home