On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:23:57 -0800, Liberal Here wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:48Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:37:52 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
Of 60 ranked airlines, here are the ten with the worst safety records,
including the number of hull losses since 1983, and how many
fatalities they caused: #10 SkyWest Airlines: 3 hull losses; 22 dead
#9 South African Airways: 1 hull loss; 159 dead #8 Thai Airways
International: 5 hull losses; 309 dead #7 Turkish Airlines: 6 hull
losses, 188 dead #6 Saudia: 4 hull losses; 310 dead
#5 Korean Air: 9 hull losses; 687 dead #4 GOL Transportes Aéreos: 1
hull loss; 154 dead #3 Air India: 3 hull losses; 329 dead #2 TAM
Airlines: 6 hull losses; 336 dead #1 China Airlines: 8 hull losses;
755 dead

Â* Â*Hmmm ... this would be more informative if it were ranked by
Â* Â*deaths in proportion to total fleet size or miles flown. China
Â* Â*lost a lot of hulls, but Korean Air seems to have killed a lot of
Â* Â*people in proportion to its size. Saudia may be even more
Â* Â*dangerous than S.K., a rather small fleet but yet 310 dead.

Miles flown is a false metric. Per takeoffs is the proper gauge.

Takeoffs and landings are the most dangerous
parts of a flight, although stuff DOES happen
en-route sometimes. That Air France plane that
nosedived into the drink off Brazil a few years
ago is a good example - and if those Dreamliner
fires keep happening we may see more disasters
en-route.

Anyway, this is why statistics often doesn't
really tell you much. Korean Air had a lot of
deaths ... but likely they flew lots of
trans-pacific routes and thus racked-up vast
numbers of miles. Saudia ... as best I know
it's more "regional" (if you include europe
as geographically proximate). Less air miles,
but more take-offs.