Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:21 From: Tuomo Takkula <email@example.com> Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
"John Vincent Lombardi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > Although I can't argue with the numbers, you are incorrectly mixing > aircraft of different generations together to support your claims. Using > your figures, the A320 does have a significantly higher hull loss rate > than its contemporary, the 737-300/400/500. > > The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation > transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that > the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should > be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull > losses per departure. Slowly, slowly. You repeatedly used the term "significant" to make a point, whereas the data you make your claim on contains only four samples. To argue about significance in this context is not at all justified. If you insist on doing comparisons on unsatisfactory data, then one might perhaps have a look at the incident/mile ratio comparing matching years of operation for the 737 and the 320 line, but even that does not have any statistical evidence. The bottom line is, that one probably has to wait 20 years until any "significant" comparison can be made. My 2 Öre Best regards Tuomo Takkula -- There are three kinds of mathematicians around. The first kind is able to count and second isn't.