MarcoT
Topic Author
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:19 am

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
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:24 am

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!
 
grimey
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:48 am

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:40 am

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
 
MarcoT
Topic Author
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:57 am

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
 
grimey
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:48 am

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:00 am

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
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:19 am

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
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Worse Than Useless Statistics At AirDisaster.com

Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:49 am

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.