That... doesn't make any sense.

If the odds were only 1% , how did 14 people die ?

You’re not including the lives in your risk assessment .

There were 135 events and 14 people died .

If you were asked to join mission 136 would you say yes or no?

Which risk profile fits: 1% fatality or 10%?

By that logic, the fatality rate in NYC skyscrapers on 9/11 was something like 1500%, since there were <200 skyscrapers and ~2,700 people died.

It doesn't make any sense. Your numerator and denominator need to use the same units. The rate of fatal accidents was 2/135. The rate of crew fatalities was 14/355. The rate for crew-flight fatalities (separately counting multiple flights by the same person) was 14/852.

If you were evaluating your risk for another flight, the number of crew aboard doesn't affect the risk and it's pretty reasonable to assume that an accident results in either a 0% or 100% fatality rate, so the relevant figure would be the fatal accident rate of 2/135. If your flight follows that profile then that's your probability of dying in an accident.

You still haven't explained how so many died and why the program ended.

I didn't and don't intend to. I was just addressing your incorrect figures.

How can your model be correct when it doesn’t explain the world ?

Probabilities don't explain why they are what they are. If you flip a coin a bunch of times and find that it lands on heads 52% of the time, that doesn't tell you anything about what's going on with that coin to bias it. It's not supposed to. That's a different field altogether.

Wat