Chris
DozyWannabe, #466
Besides that, those figures don't take into account the longevity of
each airframe, and the fact that a lot of accidents in new types will
occur in the first 5 years of service. Once an aircraft has plugged the
line for a while, its "quirks" are known by the piloting communities and
they cease to be as much of an issue. It would only be fair to either
compare the first decade of service of each, or discount the first 5
years as a statistical anomaly and take the stats from there. Either way
it skews the stats in favour of aircraft that have been around for
longer.
I don't quite see the connection there. It's almost as though you are
implying that you shouldn't fly in any new a/c until it's at least 5
years old, to get all the bugs shaken out, which seems like a spurious
argument.
While you may need to wait a few years before upgrading to any new
version of windows, (I'm still using W2k on one development machine, but
for other reasons), a/c are not quite the same thing. Of course,
statistics can show anything you like, but the answer to that is to take
samples from > 1 data source, especially where a given data source is
suspected to be biased or unreliable.
I doubt if there is meaningfull difference in the figures anyway, as accident
rates, in terms of flight hours are down in the noise...