5 ms·
I think there needs to be a more selective filter if this data is supposed to mean anything. The evaluated incidents include terrorist bombings, the deliberate
by TillE 3y ago
I think there needs to be a more selective filter if this data is supposed to mean anything. The evaluated incidents include terrorist bombings, the deliberate Germanwings crash, etc.
- voisin 3y agoWould those incidents be frequent enough to make anything but a de minimus impact?
- waiwai933 3y agoProbably, given how rare any fatality in commercial aviation is.
- twbarr 3y agoOne of the three 777 accidents is being shot down by a Russian SAM.
- zerocrates 3y agoAnother is the infamous MH370.
- Someone1234 3y agoThe entire dataset is microscopic. I'd say it could make a substantial impact.
- bjelkeman-again 3y agoA really small datasets shouldn’t be used for statistics. But is it small, considering there are millions of flights registered?
- Someone1234 3y agoMillions of flights, but less than ten crashes for most, and it was pointing out that even some of those are incorrectly categorized. When you're dividing A by B to get ratio C, you cannot ignore that A is bad data because B is good, it still makes for a C that is useless. All this dataset provides is that with small enough samples it is too noisy to draw reliable conclusions.
- lolinder 3y agoYou need a larger dataset if you're dealing with very small probabilities. If you measured millions of events and only saw 1 anomalous event, you have enough data to say that the probability of such an anomaly is extremely rare, but you don't have enough data to compare it to other very rare events. More concretely: if you flip an unfair coin 1 million times and get a single heads, you know that the odds of getting that heads are extremely low, but you can't yet say what the odds are. It's possible that the odds are one in a million, but it's also possible that you got very lucky or very unlucky relative to the actual odds. You have to have a lot of data in both buckets before you can distinguish.
- rootusrootus 3y agoIf I'm doing the math right, there were only 3 fatalities on a 777 if you don't count MH370 or the Ukraine/Russian shoot-down. That would change the FLE from 2.01 to 0.01.
- henryfjordan 3y agoI understand not wanting to count a shoot-down but why not count MH370? For all we know there was a safety issue with that aircraft that caused the crash.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoWe basically know that it was suicide at this point.
- rootusrootus 3y agoAs I recall, there's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence at this point to suggest pilot suicide as the most likely cause.
- excitom 3y agoAfter almost a decade of investigation the preponderance of evidence points to murder/suicide by the pilot. A safety issue is highly unlikely.
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoThis is a very USA/western-centric perspective. No SE Asia reporting is stating this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pcurve 3y agoDepending on plane, it could. For example, 777 has had very few incidents, but its figure is impacted by MH370 and MH17. 747's number is also skewed (by about 10%) due to 3 incidents involving bombing and missile shootdown. By and large though, most plane crashes are due to human error, mostly by pilot. Terrorism, as well as maintenance or engineering defects are pretty rare.
- petesergeant 3y agoYou said: > The evaluated incidents include terrorist bombings From the site: > Excluded would be events where the only fatalities were to crew members, hijackers, saboteurs The numbers in the "Events" column are not the same numbers as are on the linked Events page, if that makes sense.
- 0xffff2 3y agoThose statements aren't at odds are they? Terrorist events that results in death of at least one passenger are included, despite terrorist activity (presumably) having nothing to do with specific model of airplane.
- notahacker 3y agoIt includes fatal accidents caused by hijackers or saboteurs, provided they manage to kill passengers and not just themselves
- TechBro8615 3y agoI wondered about that, because isn't the hijacker technically a passenger too? I wonder if their deaths are excluded from the data.
- notahacker 3y agoThink it's difficult to make much of the data even with a filter. A lot of other incidents are due mainly to pilot error, bad weather conditions or inadequate maintenance, but the aircraft don't altogether escape blame for those types of incident. Actual incidents known to be down entirely to bad aircraft design are exceptionally rare amongst late generation aircraft (but some of the more mysterious crashes might be). The ATR figures are inflated by their flight cycles info being years out of date (and based on knowledge of what ATR supplied to commercial databases, likely incomplete), but you'd also expect them to be higher than some of the other aircraft types purely because of how they're used (flown into smaller airstrips in hilly regions). At the other end of the scale, the 747-400 performs excellently with only two passenger crashes, but it's also had four fatal freighter crashes not counted. I bet the calculated "rate" includes freighter flight cycles though But above all, airliner fatal crashes are exceptionally rare, and some of the near misses and non-fatal incidents are more indicative of design flaws
- NikkiA 3y agoMy first reaction on seeing the fokker stats was 'well, yeah, it's heavily used in the Alps and Himalayas, of course it's had a lot of incidents' Ironically, the 727s numbers are probably skewed in the opposite way to the 747 - there were loads of passenger incidents with the 727, but it's been somewhat of a workhorse for freight in the developing world over the last 40 years.