Study on trend of typical incidents of civil aviation in China

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.1459

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the trend of the number of civil aviation incidents in China, this study collected 5 591 incident data from 2000 to 2020 through the China civil aviation safety information statistical report, and analyzed the trends and characteristics of total incidents and seven typical incidents by using time series analysis techniques such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test and Engle-Granger (EG) test, and explored the long-term equilibrium relationship between incidents and flight hours. The results show that the number of flight hours and the total number of incidents show an overall increasing trend from 2000 to 2020, which is a non-stationary unit root process. Among the seven typical incidents, bird strike, lightning strike, obstacle hit and near miss are non-stationary, and the first three incidents have an increasing trend. Engine in flight shutdown, runway overrun/excursion and non-landing gear grounding have a stable decreasing trend. The total incidents and the typical incidents of bird strike, lightning strike, and obstacle hit are the same as the integration order of flight hours. There is a long-term and stable equilibrium relationship between lightning strikes and flight hours, which is called co-integration relationship. The co-integration regression model shows that a 1% change in the number of flight hours will be followed by a 2.059% change in the number of lightning strikes in the same direction.

Key words: civil aviation, typical incident, flight hour, stationarity analysis, co-integration relationship

HE Peng, SUN Ruishan. Study on trend of typical incidents of civil aviation in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7): 133-139.

Figures/Tables 7

Tab.1

Incident standards of civil aviation in China

标准	起止时间	相较上一版标准的主要变化
MH 2001—1996	1996.01—2004.06	—
MH 2001—2004	2004.07—2008.12	在飞行事故征候的基础上划分了严重飞行事故征候和训练飞行事故征候
MH/T 2001—2008	2009.01—2012.02	进一步将事故征候划分为运输航空飞行事故征候、运输航空事故征候、通用航空事故征候、航空器地面事故征候;增加了航空器地面事故征候的条款
MH/T 2001—2011	2012.03—2013.02	合并、修订、增加运输航空一般事故征候的相关条款,按照严重程度,修改了跑道入侵的定义;通用航空事故征候中增加了双向陆空通信联系中断的内容
MH/T 2001—2013	2013.03—2015.08	增加运输航空一般事故征候条款,如平行跑道同时仪表运行时,航空器进入非侵入区,导致其他航空器避让;修订通用航空事故征候条款;增加运输航空严重事故征候条款,如航空器未按规定进行除、防冰等除、防污染作业起飞
MH/T 2001—2015	2015.09—2018.12	新增了运输航空事故征候的条款,如程序管制区域的间隔要求、航空器超过最大允许起飞重量起飞;增加通用航空事故征候条款,如在起飞或初始爬升过程中明显未达到预定性能
MH/T 2001—2018	2019.01—2021.09	将航空器地面事故征候修改为运输航空地面事故征候;完善了事故征候的判定标准,如减小运输航空严重事故征候中的危险接近间隔;增加《航空器小于规定雷达管制间隔事件危险指数评价方法》、《可控飞行撞地的危险指数计算方法》作为附录A和附录B
AC-395-AS-01	2021.10至今	将术语“事故征候”改为“征候”;增加“非法飞行”、“飞行中”等术语定义;增加运输航空严重征候条款,如飞行中遇有颠簸或机组操纵等原因导致3(含)人以上人员轻伤;修订、合并运输航空一般征候部分条款、运输航空地面征候部分条款;增加附录C《民用航空器征候样例清单》

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.3

Fitting model and ADF test results of incident series

变量	最优模型	模型构成	t 值	显著性
lnINC	Trend, lag(1)	$Δ l n I N C i = 1.579 + 0.040 i - 0.369 l n I N C i - 1 + 0.460 Δ l n I N C i - 1$	-2.023	0.553
lnBDS	Trend, lag(0)	$Δ l n B D S i = 2.516 + 0.105 i - 0.711 l n B D S i - 1$	-2.803	0.212
lnLTS	Trend, lag(1)	$Δ l n L T S i = 0.311 + 0.100 i - 0.499 l n L T S i - 1 - 0.335 Δ l n L T S i - 1$	-1.517	0.787
lnENG	Trend, lag(4)	$Δ l n E N G i = 8.273 - 0.092 i - 2.451 l n E N G i - 1 + 1.331 Δ l n E N G i - 1 + 1.285 Δ l n E N G i - 2 + 1.080 Δ l n E N G i - 3 + 0.958 Δ l n E N G i - 4$	-4.008^**	0.031
lnRNW	Trend, lag(2)	$Δ l n R N W i = 3.410 - 0.040 i - 1.821 l n R N W i - 1 + 0.688 Δ l n R N W i - 1 + 0.461 Δ l n R N W i - 2$	-3.806^**	0.041
lnOBS	Trend, lag(4)	$Δ l n O B S i = - 1.289 + 0.135 i - 0.131 l n O B S i - 1 - 0.740 Δ l n O B S i - 1 - 0.460 Δ l n O B S i - 2 - 0.642 Δ l n O B S i - 3 - 0.824 Δ l n O B S i - 4$	-0.304	0.981
lnGND	Trend, lag(0)	$Δ l n G N D i = 1.631 - 0.053 i - 1.122 l n G N D i - 1$	-3.362^*	0.095
lnNM	Drift, lag(2)	$Δ l n N M i = - 1.159 + 0.401 l n N M i - 1 - 1.271 Δ l n N M i - 1 - 0.953 Δ l n N M i - 2$	1.288	0.992

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Engle-Granger cointegration test results

线性回归				残差的ADF检验
因变量	回归方程	显著性	R²	t值	显著性
lnINC	$l n I N C = 0.873 l n F H$	0.000	0.895	-1.180	> 0. 1
lnBDS	$l n B D S = - 3.630 + 1.320 l n F H$	0.000	0.959	-2.067	> 0. 1
lnLTS	$l n L T S = - 10.405 + 2.059 l n F H$	0.000	0.906	-4.206^**	< 0.05
lnOBS	$l n O B S = 0.229 l n F H$	0.000	0.077	-2.870	> 0. 1

Tab.5

References 16

[1]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 民用航空器事件技术调查规定(CCAR-395-R3)[L]. 2022-11-01.
[2]	MARSHALL P, HIRMAS A, SINGER M. Heinrich's pyramid and occupational safety: a statistical validation methodology[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 101: 180-189. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.005
[3]	HE Peng, SUN Ruishan. Research on cross-correlation, co-integration, and causality relationship between civil aviation incident and airline capacity in China[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(9): DOI:10.3390/su14094999. doi: 10.3390/su14094999
[4]	International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO. 2021 safety report[DB/OL]. [2022-06-01]. https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO%20Safety%20Report%202021%20Edition.pdf.
[5]	Boeing Company. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents: worldwide operations(1959-2020)[DB/OL]. [2022-06-01]. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/32664.pdf.
[6]	Airbus Company. Fatal accidents[DB/OL]. [2022-06-01]. https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/fatal-accidents.
[7]	王昌顺. 中国民航安全管理研究[D]. 合肥: 中国科学技术大学, 2007.
	WANG Changshun. Research on safety management of civil aviation in China[D]. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China, 2007.
[8]	程明, 梁文娟. MLR和ARIMA模型在民航安全业绩预测中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(2): 25-30.
	CHENG Ming, LIANG Wenjuan. Application of both MLR and ARIMA model in predicting civil aviation safety performance[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(2): 25-30.
[9]	王剑辉, 邓伟, 夏正洪, 等. 运输航空飞行安全风险评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(12): 110-116. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.12.018
	WANG Jianhui, DENG Wei, XIA Zhenghong, et al. Flight risk assessment method of transport aviation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(12): 110-116. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.12.018
[10]	AGUIAR M, STOLZER A, BOYD D D. Rates and causes of accidents for general aviation aircraft operating in a mountainous and high elevation terrain environment[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2017, 107: 195-201. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.017
[11]	VALDES R, COMENDADOR V, SANZ L P, et al. Prediction of aircraft safety incidents using Bayesian inference and hierarchical structures[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 104: 216-230. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.008
[12]	NI Xiaomei, WANG Huawei, CHE Changchang, et al. Civil aviation safety evaluation based on deep belief network and principal component analysis[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 112: 90-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.10.012
[13]	GAO Yi, HAO Yang, WANG Sen, et al. The dynamics between voluntary safety reporting and commercial aviation accidents[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 141: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105351. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105351
[14]	DAVID A, DICKEY W A F. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979, 74(336): 427-431.
[15]	ENGLE R F, GRANGER C. Cointegration and error-correction: representation, estimation and testing[J]. Econometrica, 1987, 55(2): 251-276. doi: 10.2307/1913236
[16]	JOHANSEN S. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in gaussian vector autoregressive models[J]. Econometrica, 1991, 59(6): 1551-1580. doi: 10.2307/2938278

变量	最小值	最大值	均值	合计	标准差
FH/10⁴h	142.37	1 231.13	571.02	1 1991.49	345.48
INC	93	599	266.24	5 591	184.10
BDS	21	306	126.43	2 655	96.96
LTS	1	66	19.76	415	19.34
ENG	10	33	19.67	413	6.34
RNW	3	8	5.33	112	1.83
OBS	0	13	4.90	103	3.69
GND	0	5	2.61	55	1.77
NM	0	9	2.52	53	2.73

变量	检验模型	t 值	显著性	平稳性
lnINC	None,lag(0)	-2.270^**	0.026	平稳
lnBDS	Drift, lag(1)	-3.028^*	0.051	平稳
lnLTS	Drift, lag(0)	-8.015^***	0.000	平稳
lnOBS	Trend, lag(4)	-4.081^**	0.032	平稳
lnNM	Drift, lag(1)	-6.591^***	0.003	平稳