[throw2016]

The accidents rates by country paints a completely different picture. [1] This wikipedia list of glaring pilot incompetence leading to fatalities doesn't seem to show any bias for specific regions. [2]

When using anecdotal data one just can't make sweeping judgements and conclusions data does not support, that takes discussion into the region of prejudice and bigotry.

This anecdotal one person usually 'an insider' finding one thing wrong or incident in some country and casually conflating it to the whole is seen too often and creates grossly inaccurate stereotypes, when the exact same issue or incident exists everywhere else.

This is not harmless and derails informed discussion. It creates prejudice and in this case stress among travelers when they travel to other countries thinking about 'training, hull loss, safety' based on uninformed discussion not supported by data on the ground. If you are going to travel in a Cessna the standards including pilot training is not comparable to jets whichever country you are in. But no stable functioning country in the world takes passenger and running jets casually as the accident and safety data shows.

1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america-russia-and-...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error#Notable_examples

[azernik]

That first link is pretty inapplicable - the numbers it shows are total fatalities and total accidents since 1945, not scaled for population of the country, not scaled for the quantity of air travel (in a time range where, especially early on where air travel was least safe, there were vast regional differences in wealth and frequency of flying), and over a long enough period that it doesn't really reflect the current reality.

Your second link is exactly the same kind of anecdotal BS you're complaining about - a list compiled by English-speaking editors on a Western-centric website of pilot errors they've personally heard about.

Discussion with actual numbers is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18206505

[avar]

These numbers seem correct, but I don't see how they add up to "extreme [pilot] incompetence" mentioned upthread. The countries that do worse are poorer, and therefore consistently fly older airframes with worse maintenance schedules, and regulations aren't as strict.

For all we know Africa has the best pilots in the world but the crappiest airframes, or fantastic pilots and awesome airframes but their maintenance is atrocious.

I'm not saying I find that especially plausible, but until these numbers are at the very least adjusted for hull loss rates by region of operator per million departures per age of airframe we're comparing apples to oranges.

[throw2016]

This is the IATA data for hull loss rates for 2017 per million departures from your link:

Asia Pacific - 0.18

CIS - 0.92

Europe - 0.13

Latin America and the Caribbean - 0.41

Middle East and North Africa - ​​0.00

North America - 0.00

And it ends there. No mention of any problems or concern for 'safety limits' for any region. Infact the IATA data is overall happy with the rates across regions. If you can find anything on that page that points out a problem for a specific region please link to it.

[azernik]

From same link: "2017 was a very good year for aviation safety."

The link includes a comparison with the previous year (2016) - onboard fatalities were ~90% lower and jet hull losses were ~75% lower. You're cherry-picking a very atypical year.

[ryanwaggoner]

I don’t think your links show that.

That first link tells you little without knowing the denominator for each country. How many flights did they have over that period of time?

And it covers more than 70 years, which is way too long to tell us whether a country or region has a bad safety record today...maybe America had 99% of its crashes in 1945, whereas the other countries on the list had all of theirs last year.