Is flying getting more dangerous? Scientists reveal why so many planes are crashing - as Learjet disaster kills all nine on board

On November 1, a Learjet 60 airplane bound for the Bahamas from Austin, Texas, entered a sudden nosedive and plummeted into a multi-lane highway.In the hours after the crash, which killed all nine on board, social media was filled with grisly footage showing the exact moment of impact.With these disturbing images in mind, many have begun to question whether flying is becoming more dangerous.If you have a holiday planned, you'll be relieved to hear that decades of plane crash data suggest the simple answer is no.In fact, Jan-Arwed Richter, founder and CEO of the German Aviation Safety Bureau (JACDEC), told the Daily Mail that we are now in 'the safest era of air travel in history'.However, there is one important exception to the rule.Although commercial airlines have become safer over the last 25 years, private jets, small aircraft, and helicopters remain considerably riskier. On November 1, a Learjet 60 bound for the Bahamas from Austin, Texas entered a sudden nosedive and plummeted into a multi-lane highway, leaving many wondering whether air travel is still safe While high-profile stories like the recent Learjet crash or last year's Air India disaster are rightly alarming, the experts say that the long-term data paints a very reassuring picture.Mr Richter, whose company JACDEC collects air safety data, told the Daily Mail: 'Over the course of the last 25 years, the average number of fatalities is way down compared to the 1990s or even the 2000s.'However, the expert points out that the more impressive statistic is the number of passengers carried each year.He explained: 'At the beginning of the millennium, there were 1.7 billion counted air travellers per year. A quarter of a century later, we counted almost five billion passengers worldwide, an increase of a whopping 192 per cent.'At the same time, the number of fatalities has shrunk from 1,155 in 2001 to just 499 in 2025, across all forms of civil aviation in the air or on the ground.What makes this particularly remarkable is the fact that the improvements have been universal and global.Mr Richter notes that the implementation of new safety regulations in countries from the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, and Iran to places like Papua New Guinea has drastically improved air-travel standards.'I can't think of any other industry that has learned from faults, mishaps, and disasters in a similar fashion to civil aviation,' he says. However, although private charter jets are still statistically very safe, experts say they do carry more risk.Both commercial airlines and charter jets are subject to strict safety regulations, but private jets are subject to slightly different rules and pressures.Mr Richter says that it is extremely difficult to produce accurate fatality records for private charters, since companies often keep their passengers confidential.However, he is still certain that the fatality rate of private, or 'non-scheduled', aviation is higher than that of commercial airlines.What makes commercial air travel so safe is the way the flights are operated. They fly above the weather, the crew operates on strict duty times, all systems are regularly checked, and pilots are very well-trained and experienced.Private charter jets, on the other hand, often face operational pressures that cause some of these standards to slip.Most importantly, private pilots are under a lot more pressure to keep to their schedules no matter what.Mr Richter says: 'Almost no commercial pilot has to fear any disciplinary action when diverting to an alternate airport for safety reasons, despite the risk of upsetting their passengers. Experts say that air travel in general is extremely safe, but fatality rates for private charter jets are higher than for commercial airlines. Pictured: The crater left by last week's fatal Learjet crash How many aircrash fatalites are there each year? 2025: 4492024: 3402023: 1242022: 2332021: 732020: 3202019: 2982018: 5592017: 402016: 3292015: 525Source: JACDEC Database Services 2026 'Private pilots are mostly alone in the cockpit. They need to assess a situation on their experience and their subjective risk assessments and are to a higher degree compelled to stick to their flight as planned.'In some cases, this can lead to private jets travelling to more remote airfields in worse conditions, increasing the risk of something going wrong.Investigators have not yet determined the cause of last week's Learjet crash; however, the US National Transportation Safety Board said weather conditions would be a major focus of the investigation.Air traffic control recordings captured someone in the cockpit saying that they were experiencing 'moderate turbulence' and that the crew was 'managing the ice'.The speaker can then be heard saying that the plane was 'picking up precipitation', before announcing that they were descending at a rate of 10,000ft (3,048m) per minute.The New York Post has also reported that co-pilot Nathalia Gadelha Filgueiras texted her boyfriend about 10 minutes before the crash, telling him: 'I've got turbulence, I've got ice.'Murray Terwey, pilot training and flight safety expert from Edith Cowan University, told the Daily Mail that human error still accounts for about 80 per cent of all accidents.He says: 'Private flights have lower levels of regulatory oversight and are operated by crews with less experience and support. They therefore have a much higher accident rate than commercial aircraft.' Private jets are often under more pressure to stick to their schedules and flight plans despite bad weather, putting them at greater risk. Pictured: A still showing the moment the Learjet crashes into a multi-lane highwayHowever, experts still argue that incidents like this create a vastly inflated risk perception of danger.Dr Simon Bennett, director of the Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester, told the Daily Mail: 'It would be far safer if people spent their entire lives at 40,000 feet rather than navigating around on the ground.'Statistically, you are far less likely to be killed six miles in the air than you are in London, Manchester, or Newcastle.'Despite this, aviation creates what Dr Bennett calls a 'dread risk', which comes from having to give up control of your destiny to 'persons you have never met and likely will never meet'.This perception of risk is made much greater when images like those from the Learjet crash go viral on social media.'To be frank, I found that image quite disturbing because it captures the very second that the pilot and first officer died,' says Dr Bennett.'Whatever state of mind you are in before you watch the video, you can understand why someone would be alarmed.'However, there is one growing source of risk that Dr Bennett believes should be taken more seriously. While high-profile incidents such as last year's Air India disaster create the impression that flying is dangerous, the statistics show that there has never been a safer time to travel by air As a coordinated campaign of bomb threats grounded flights across Europe, experts warn of the pressing risk posed by nation-states engaging in 'grey zone' tactics to cause chaos. Pictured: An Aer Lingus aircraft that was forced to land at Evreux-Fauville Air Base by a bomb threat This week, European airports have been rocked by a series of bomb threats that have caused serious disruption.At least 21 aircraft across Europe have been targeted by threats this week in what the UK has called a 'malicious hoax'.Flights travelling to Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Poland and Romania have all been affected, while an Aer Lingus flight had to divert to a French airbase.Meanwhile, fighter jets have been scrambled to escort flights in Italian and Austrian Airspace.Investigators have struggled to pin down the origin of these threats but some have pointed the finger at Russia and its ongoing campaign of hybrid or 'grey zone' warfare.A threat was sent to airport authorities in Rome claiming to be from the 'Fighters of the Male State', which could refer to the Russian extremist group Muzhskoi Legion or 'Male Legion', but hard evidence is thin.Dr Bennett, who also researches counterinsurgency and psychological warfare tactics, believes this hoax campaign is 'too organised' for the calibre of proxy agents typically used by the Kremlin.'These people are usually inept criminals,' he remarks.However, this incident does highlight the potential threat to commercial air travel that a determined nation-state could create.He says: 'If the Kremlin decided to focus much more on Western commercial aviation and to do so competently, then it potentially could have a serious impact.'