I would contend that effectively 100% of accidents involve human factors, after all it is humans who design, build, maintain, manage, regulate and operate aircraft. I would also suggest that 100% of SAFETY is human created.
Back to the question
The moving average accident rate continues to decline, therefore more flights for the same number of accidents (or less accidents and the same number of flights) therefore the industry is getting safer (horrid word)
Therefore if you believe your 75% figure then that is 75 % of a declining number and thus HF related accidents are reducing and thus the suggestion that CRM training is ineffective may be false.
Citing my source....
Though it pains me to use single source data I'm too busy right now to drag more out so.... IATA numbers
IATA
The 2009 global accident rate (measured in hull losses per million flights of Western-built jet aircraft) was 0.71. That is equal to one accident for every 1.4 million flights. This is a significant improvement of the 0.81 rate recorded in 2008 (one accident for 1.2 million flights). The 2009 rate was the second lowest in aviation history, just above the 2006 rate of 0.65. Compared to 10 years ago, the accident rate has been cut 36% from the rate recorded in 2000.
Interestingly as IATA claim 30 % of accidents were related to pilot handling, again I can't vouch for their methodology, but perhaps CRM can be thanked for us stopping punching each other but we've now just plain forgotten how to waggle the stick like thing.
Even more interestingly , IATA define a "hull loss" as
The aircraft has sustained major structural damage exceeding USD 1 million or 10% of
the aircraft's hull reserve value, whichever is lower, or has been declared a hull loss.
Now I've seen some fairly small dents that can exceed 1 mil USD or 10% of hull value but wouldn't have considered them a "hull loss"
Sorry I've drifted off thread and after only half of the first reply... what was the question again?
