Originally Posted by
futurama
Um, the chart title in big bold type spells "Accident Rates by Airplane Type". Most of the items you list above (except midair collisions) are not considered accidents by ICAO definition, and therefore excluded. For statistical purposes, midair collisions are commonly included as separate events.
Boeing has been publishing variants of this data since 1959 (and as I mentioned, in the present form for at least 20 years). I wasn't aware that Instagram pre-dated the moon landing.
It did not, exactly my point.The whole thing is barnumesque (mid 1800's) irrespective of audience.
It implies there is causal connection between aircraft models (not types, and still dubiously applied) and hull loss accidents.
If you do the little work and sort the graph by rate and not EIS, the message buy modern, buy Boeing screams out. Both understandable conclusions. Without these being possible, the chart would had not existed.
Surely there must be robust methodology and properly validated inputs behind. But the message is void and I cannot see what is the expertise field inside aviaiton industry where such comparison makes any meaningful sense. Sales? Definitely. Ops? Nada.
Let's see the updated one with T7 and Max events. For the latter, there is already two tragic data points too many. Though it might well be discontinued claiming
possible errors in interpretation due to different operating theatres, human error being the key reason of mishaps anyway and similar.