ATC, #57.
I have a similar vague recollection of increasing numbers, however this should not be confused with the graphic relating the number of accidents with the projected increase in flights. Thus whilst the overrun accident rate might remain low, an increasing number accidents due to increased operations with the same accident rate could be perceived as an overall increase, thus the FSF objective was to reduce the number of overruns.
The above was based on a public view of safety, the risk of fatalities when flying. The current low fatality rate might give the public a false sense of security - to be dashed by one wide body accident with multiple fatalities, or maintained with a change in media attention to the fear of flying - engine failure, vibration, turbulence etc; beware the media as a threat to flight safety.
The most important aspect is that the industry should not hold the same views, drift into complacency. The risks are still there, although more often in different forms, but they have to be managed.
Airbus’ statistical review provides more a practical view than others. This show that there are differences in the technological age of aircraft, world regions, and perhaps operational environment, but these should not be used to argue safety success elsewhere; consider how close the industry has been to ‘fatal’ margins - 777, A340 landing accidents hull loss. Also see the general thread on 737 overruns.
http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/co...16-14Jun17.pdf