Yeah but that's not how statistics work. 20 concords isn't a large enough sample size to pull statistically signifigant conclusions from. Furthermore, the cra

Yeah but that's not how statistics work. 20 concords isn't a large enough sample size to pull statistically signifigant conclusions from. Furthermore, the crash you reference was not a result of a design flaw or the "suoersonic-ness" of Concorde but a combination of human error (they took off too heavy for the conditions) and an accidental strike of an object on the runway left by the previous (Boeing) plane. It's no doubt that several of the accidents you reference in your stats are design flaws, it only takes one to make it worse than the concords perfect record (excluding the one crash because it was a combination of human error and failure of another plane). So in reality, adjusting for non-design related failures, the concord has a better safety record than any other commercial airliner.