Cliff,
Perhaps you read something in my post where I questioned your numbers and you therefore feel compelled to repeat your assertions with the use of CAPS LOCKS for good measure?
I did not question your numbers (although a statistic without a source probably should be questioned) - what I did was to look behind the numbers, and attempt to answer the original poster's original question, which that poster appeared to appreciate.
If you want to play with numbers, you could easily say that from 2000 to 2008 the MD-11 was the safest large airliner, with zero hull losses during that time frame. Or you could say that based on the last 12 months, the A330 is a deathtrap. Or say, as the media did when they leapt to the (false) conclusion that the Colgan 3407 crash was due to icing "that's the 3rd regional turboprop to crash in the US due to icing in the past 14 years" where it would also have been the 1st since the late 1990s if ice was indeed the culprit. Look how many 737s have been wrecked in the last few years for various reasons, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely. Or see how ugly the record of the A320 was in its first year before crews learned how to operate it properly, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely.
I hope you get my point, which is that statistics have context which should be considered. Same goes for the MD-11. Yes there have been hull losses, but that does not mean that the MD-11 is NOW (oops, caps lock) 7 times more likely to crash than any other airliner. Context again - the first 5 losses were in the span of about 26 months 1997-1999, and many things were modified, changed or learned from since then. Past is not necessarily prologue, and indeed the whole point to air crash investigation is to make sure of this.
Okay, I'll concede your point that the hull loss rate is 7x higher (which I never disputed, although I'm curious as to your source). What I do not concede that this is the whole story, "question answered," and that based on the past the MD-11 is in the future "7x more likely to crash.' Statements like that don't reflect well on you, and may not help you much if you are serious about getting hired by, say, EVA....
Fly safe and best of luck,
Q