Ad description
A regional press ad in the Guernsey Press for a commercial airline featured an image of two pilots in a cockpit. The ad was headlined "There's safety in numbers." Bullet points listed: "Two Pilots and Cabin Crew on all flights; Larger, more spacious 46 seat ATR aircraft; Up to ten flights a day and a spare aircraft standing by; Hosted complimentary lounges; Most generous frequent flyer scheme". Text continued "Try our new premium Blue Shuttle service inter island, because you deserve better. Fly better. Fly blue".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "There's safety in numbers ... Two Pilots and Cabin Crew on all flights" misleadingly implied the advertisers' service was safer than that of other airlines as a result of crew numbers, and would cause undue concern about the safety of single-pilot aircraft.
Response
Blue Islands Ltd did not believe the ad was misleading or likely to cause fear or distress. They said it was a commonly known fact that twin crew operation of pilots was safer than single operation in the aviation industry and the primary role of the second pilot was to assume control in the event of incapacity of the first pilot (captain/commander). They provided a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 'Follow-up Action on Occurrence' report from 2006, which they stated highlighted that the presence of a second pilot provided significant safety measures particularly regarding special disorientation. They stated that the incapacity of the first pilot commonly included medical conditions and spatial disorientation and that the Federal Aviation Administration stated that "Statistics show that between 5-10% of all general aviation accidents can be attributed to spatial disorientation, 90% of which are fatal". They stated that "There's safety in numbers" was a well-known colloquial saying and no shocking imagery had been used merely to attract attention.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the documentation provided by the advertisers described a particular incident in 2006 where an air ambulance crashed into the sea near Cambeltown, Scotland and the report had noted, amongst other points of potential explanation for the accident, that the pilot might have been subject to an undetermined influence such as disorientation, distraction or a subtle incapacitation, which could have affected his ability to safely control the aircraft's flight path. We also noted that the recommended action stated "Considering the unique circumstances of air ambulance flights, the CAA, in conjunction with the Joint Aviation Authorities should review the circumstances in which a second pilot is required for public transport fights operating air ambulance services". Although we noted that the report referred to the particularities of a specific incident and the potential requirements for air ambulance services, and not commercial flights, and understood that the cause of the incident was not confirmed as being down to pilot numbers, we recognised that the report indicated that a second pilot could provide additional support in the case of incapacitation. We nonetheless understood that there were commercial aircrafts operating in mainland UK and Guernsey which remained licensed for single pilot operations.
We noted that the ad did not expressly comment on the number of pilots that other airlines used for their flights, but set out the number of pilots used by Blue Islands. We considered that most consumers would understand that the ad was setting out the particular features of Blue Island's own service and would further consider that the ad was making a general reference about the relative risks of flying with one pilot compared to two, but was not commenting on the specific safely records of other airlines depending on the number of pilots they used.
Because we did not consider that consumers would infer from the ad that the advertisers were making a specific comment about the relative safety records of their competitors or other airlines as a result of crew numbers, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead or cause undue concern about the safety of single-pilot aircraft.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons) and 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
