Reduce your Odds of Dying in a Plane Crash
 

Dont know who made this or where its from but it makes you think

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5742/planecrash960.gif

Some interesting stats there, but I wasn't aware that Qantas has had any fatal accidents - according to this they have had 11!

Also keep in mind that statistics can be used to show what you want - for example (from Wikipedia) there is a strong correlation between US highway fatality rates and the number of tonnes of fresh lemons imported to the US from Mexico - Wiki Link

I must say though, I do like the fact that we have a greater chance of dying from a nuclear accident than flying... :D

They've never lost a jet - prior to the jet age however....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

According to the Wiki list which has been misquoted QF has had 11 accidents, however the list does not specify as the image does that the accidents were indeed fatal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_disasters

I'm pretty sure they also lost a connie on takeoff from somewhere in Africa too didn't they?

I think it's a bit unfair of this guy to include pre-jet incidents, when none of those aircraft fly any more. But I guess if he didn't include all flights it would add the complication of where exactly to draw the line. Also, he presents the proportion of fatal incidents to the number of aircraft for the aircraft type category, but doesn't do this with regards to airlines...

Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic, but being an engineer and having studied statistics, it's my nature to be exact...

The first graph doesn't adjust for the amount of flights flown (so by this, flying anywhere else in the world is safer than the USA :rolleyes:)).

Also counting pre jet age incidents etc, rather useless I think. How can you minimise risk?

Fly on a well known carrier, and fly to well known destinations where engineers and spare parts are plentiful.

Where does the 11 fatal accidents figure come from?
 

So far none of the links have led me to evidence that Qantas has had 11 fatal accidents, as depicted in the original post. The diagram should be withdrawn or corrected.

It is also fallacious to include the wartime military flights that were hardly reflective of regular scheduled airline services.

To the extent to which the original report purports to give contemporary information and to reflect current risk levels (which I glean from the inclusion of blogging as a low risk activity) the cutoff should be more recent, say 50 years to be pretty generous.

If this chart were the work of a high school student completed as part of a mathematics/statistics assesment, it might be worth a B+. But the aviation industry would likely deem that it falls far short in relevance and overall accuracy. Having said that, I don't like my chances of surviving a heat stroke induced fall whilst blogging during a nuclear attack.

How about the DC-9 profile being an F28 and the A300 and A320 profiles being 737s?