Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com  
User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

A recent thread, with someone trying to use it as some kind of authoritative reference (sic!), made me visit again AirDisaster.com (I have not bothered with it since a looong time ago, probably 2001 or so). Well, I went straight to the page with the statistics for airplane model: http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/ and loo and behold ... the number of flights data has not changed since then!

Yes Virginia, the data is still the one current for mid year 1999! So the A320s for instance are credited with just 6,0M flights, when at the end 2004 they were well over 21M ... What a useless joke! Well, not really, because jokes are not supposed to be harmful, while this is actually higly misleading. The fact that they claimed that "Statistics valid through December 31, 2004" does not help either.

Just for the fun of it I recalculated the actual rates using the flights data from Airsafe.com, which are supposed to be correct (*) as of end year 2004 and here is the result:


Model_____Rate______Model____True Rate
Concorde__12,50_____Concorde___11,11
MD-11_____5,71_____Embr. 110___3,73
Embr. 110__3,73_____F-28_______ 3,32
F-28______2,35_____MD-11______ 2,76
DC-10_____1,97_____DC-10______ 1,77
A310______1,85_____747________ 1,48
747_______1,62_____A310_______ 1,33
A300______1,13_____L-1011______0,96
L-1011_____0,91_____A300_______0,93
BAe 146____0,89_____DC-9_______0,71
DC-9______0,76_____Embr.120____0,68
Embr. 120__0,71_____727________ 0,62
A320 family 0,67_____BAe 146_____ 0,52
F-70/F-100_0,67_____F-70/F-100___0,45
727_______0,66_____737 [not NG]_ 0,45
737 [not NG] 0,62____757_________0,27
757_______0,56_____Saab 340____ 0,27
767_______0,46_____MD-80______ 0,27
MD-80_____0,45_____767________ 0,26
Saab 340___0,33_____A320 family__0,19


Quite a difference  Smile

BTW, the very idea of giving rates of _whatever_ with 2 digit accuracy, based on an _handful of occurrences_ is a statistical joke. So strictly speaking pointing this additional absurdity out just amount to flogging a deadhorse...

(*)
I say 'supposed' because the data for same of the props is the same current for mid year 1999, anyway for the big jets look plausible.


Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3660 times:

The scariest part is that somebody, in their own free time, went through and calculated all those "statistics".

"The Devil can quote statistics (or scripture) to suit his own purpose". Maybe not him/her, but same concept  devil 



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineGrimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 456 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting MarcoT (Thread starter):
A recent thread, with someone trying to use it as some kind of authoritative reference (sic!), made me visit again AirDisaster.com (I have not bothered with it since a looong time ago, probably 2001 or so). Well, I went straight to the page with the statistics for airplane model: http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/ and loo and behold ... the number of flights data has not changed since then!

I think that was me who made that reference to that website, Most Dangerous Airline? (by BALandorLivery Jan 23 2006 in Aviation Polls & Prefs) Reply 19

Sorry if I pissed you off in any way by refering to that website, it was the first one that came into my mind while reading that thread.

Grimey


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting Grimey (Reply 4):


No it was not you, and it is not important who it was anyway. My incipit was really just an incipit, meant to explain why I stumbled into this matter, not a surrogate for flaming someone without naming him. If I wanted to do so I would have named the thread  Smile

It is just that I thought (and still think) that is an interesting consideration to share.

Naturally, I'm really sorry if you felt in any way attacked.



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineGrimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 456 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3597 times:

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 5):
Naturally, I'm really sorry if you felt in any way attacked.

Don't worry, I'll get over it some day.

Grimey


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 3):
Huh? Having a bad day or what?

I just made a comment about the quality (or lack thereof) of the informations available on a widely known aviation site dedicated to air crashes and safety issues in general; a site that moreover is every so often used -even here- as a source of 'valuable' data.

In which way precisely is this inappropriate to the Civil Aviation forum?

I gather that next time someone will lament here the absolute incompetence of regarding in aviation matter you would suggest taking it there ?

Complaining about AD.com over here is not going to fix anything. If you have an issue with that site, take it up with them, not bitch about it over here. Here's the address:

chris@airdisaster.com


User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3429 times:

Hey MarcoT,

You just post what you want if it interests you and follows decorum. Your post is a whole lot better than some of the rubbish I have heard here (and i am not refering to anyone on this thread). I agree with you, statistical data that is presented authoritatively which is inaccurate, is worse than useless.

GU



I have no memory of this place.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Booking JetBlue Flights At Kayak.com posted Sun Jul 30 2006 16:56:44 by JetBluefan1
Missing Accidents In Airdisaster.com posted Tue Jul 11 2006 20:28:18 by 777way
Seat Selection Now Available At Aerlingus.com posted Thu Jun 29 2006 21:21:25 by LS737
How Do I Book International Flights At Iberia.com? posted Mon Dec 5 2005 19:15:40 by IslandHopperCO
BA Citiexpress Service Levels Much Worse Than BA posted Wed Jul 13 2005 10:00:22 by Orion737
Passenger Statistics At Lambert posted Tue Jun 21 2005 02:51:38 by Stl1326
Alitalias 2004 Losses Worse Than Expected posted Thu May 26 2005 21:57:19 by AirWales
Seat Maps At Orbitz.com posted Mon Jan 17 2005 00:03:32 by Berlinflyer
Airdisaster.com - LH Cargo 727 Crash? posted Fri Jan 7 2005 01:52:39 by FlyinTLow
Things Worse Than We Thought? posted Sat Oct 16 2004 22:42:59 by DLKAPA