Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Did you read Angel Flight’s response to the ATSB’s analysis, printed in The Australian last week? Be worth your while, if you’re interested in facts.
As pasted earlier in this thread? I did. Have you read the full report?
Angel Flight complained that only the passenger carrying legs were included in the statistics, however the report is basically investigating the risk to Angel Flight passengers so that is 100% valid - there is no risk to passengers on legs where they are not present. The hypothesis is "That Angel Flights carrying passengers have a higher risk of a fatal accident than other private flights" so Angel Flight legs with passengers is the correct group to test.
They said they engaged their own statistician who found the numbers were not significant. However they don't tell you the number or tests they used, or their threshold for significance. We have dueling statisticians, but only the ATSB presented their data and methodologies. There's nothing there in the Angel flight information that you can use to evaluate it (and people are accusing the ATSB of hiding data - by putting it into a report people can't be bothered reading presumably).
They also complain about the use of occurrence data. I haven't looked deeply into that because the fatal accidents concern me more. My main impression from the occurrence data was that the pilots involved seemed to be operating in unfamiliar environments, which you might expect to raise stress and make poor decisions more likely. If Angel Flight want to focus on the fatal accidents only that's fine with me.