Re: JFK Jr.'s mean ol wife

[I'm just a zero]

"-*-*-*-" > wrote in message
...
> "I'm just a zero" > wrote:
>
> >I don't know *anyone* who has an instrument or night rating that hasn't
had
> >at least one close call due to their own stupidity. Don't think you
should
> >slate a guy simply 'cause he lucked out.
>
> JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> negligence killed him as well as his passengers.
>
> >Roger. <who only fly's VFR these days, and is happier for it>
>
> Learn to punctuate and you'll be even happier.

I'm adopting the modus operandi of the group :-)


Roger.

[I'm just a zero]

"-*-*-*-" > wrote in message
...

> >I'm adopting the modus operandi of the group :-)

> LameExcuse-speak for 'I ****ed up but I'll blame somebody else.'


You read me like a book.



Roger. <deeply ashamed>

[Jeff Franks]

> JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> negligence killed him as well as his passengers.

I wasn't aware that night flight required a rating...if we're gonna be
literal in here lets go all the way.

>
> >Roger. <who only fly's VFR these days, and is happier for it>
>
> Learn to punctuate and you'll be even happier.

er...there's a difference between punctuation and spelling.

[I'm just a zero]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...

> > JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> > took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> > negligence killed him as well as his passengers.

> I wasn't aware that night flight required a rating...if we're gonna be
> literal in here lets go all the way.

Jesus, I make a comment and it's dissected by idiots.

In Europe, a night qualification course is normally offered as an add on to
the European JAR PPL, plus, you must have completed a night takeoff /
landing within the previous 90 days if you intend to carry a passenger.

YES I KNOW the accident occurred in Yankeeland. But why dump on a guy who
paid the full price for his mistake?



> > >Roger. <who only fly's VFR these days, and is happier for it>

> > Learn to punctuate and you'll be even happier.

> er...there's a difference between punctuation and spelling.


I think his point was that my writing is becoming sloppy. An observation
that's hard to dispute.


Roger.

[Ron Natalie]

"animal boi" > wrote in message ...

> Instrument flight requires a rating. JFK was in training but not yet
> rated to fly in instrument conditions, such as a night flight over
> water in which distinguishing the horizon would be difficult. Result:
> Dead JFK and passengers.

Unadvisable to fly in such conditions without one, but techncially NOT
required.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(-*-*-*-) wrote:

> "I'm just a zero" > wrote:
>
> >I don't know *anyone* who has an instrument or night rating that hasn't had
> >at least one close call due to their own stupidity. Don't think you should
> >slate a guy simply 'cause he lucked out.
>
> JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> negligence killed him as well as his passengers.
>
> >Roger. <who only fly's VFR these days, and is happier for it>
>
> Learn to punctuate and you'll be even happier.


First of all: there is NO such thing as a "night rating" in the US!

Secondly: criminal?

It could happen to ANY of us, under the right circumstances.

JFK Jr's accident follows a classic pattern:

1. Pilot is under a lot of stress.
a) His "George" magazine was failing.
b) He was behind schedule because his pax were late.
c) He was recovering from a leg injury.
d) The visibility wasn't up to par.
f) Night had fallen over the last part of the trip.
e) He was probably tired, after a long day.

2. He flies, not realizing the effect that the stress has placed on his
piloting skills/judgement.

Just read the ASRS reports to see how these conditions can creep up on
an otherwise proficient pilot and take heed!

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[MC]

Jeff Franks wrote:
>
> > JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> > took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> > negligence killed him as well as his passengers.
>
> I wasn't aware that night flight required a rating...if we're gonna be
> literal in here lets go all the way.

Australia requires a rating to do night VFR.

[Asbestos Dust]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:33:29 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"animal boi" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Instrument flight requires a rating. JFK was in training but not
>> yet rated to fly in instrument conditions, such as a night flight
>> over water in which distinguishing the horizon would be difficult.
>> Result: Dead JFK and passengers.
>
>Unadvisable to fly in such conditions without one, but techncially
>NOT required.
>

Ah, well, that makes it all better then. Dead Kennedys either way
which is not exactly a major tragedy, so who am I to argue?

- AD -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQCVAwUBPwI2bjk6v6WK2C5VAQGr9wP6AgQChRAOPzcmDR0DQr nGD8GhcEQw7lOW
lOxT8tY7wGj9EbIMYa5RXyXalXXojLY1UK80W7/juz2KRP4L4HXThRsOfAhPJrkS
cZPorXf1yuTufnafNMQp8e4AD9ESf/+EB+xOYRrRGjhRXUnLnF52gltssQNpW9vA
HCK8xRrYUo8=
=efSy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Patric Barry]

> Australia requires a rating to do night VFR.

I have Australian and US certificates (well, license in Australia) and the
Australian system is bureaucratic and simply discourages pilots from
advancing and obtaining higher qualifications by adding layers of
unnecessary cost.

In the US a pilot is trained to do night landings and takeoffs, and needs to
be proficient in night flying before obtaining a certificate - this is a
better system by far than the Australian model which is a leftover of some
inane British system.

[Jeff Franks]

>
> Jesus, I make a comment and it's dissected by idiots.
>
> In Europe, a night qualification course is normally offered as an add on
to
> the European JAR PPL, plus, you must have completed a night takeoff /
> landing within the previous 90 days if you intend to carry a passenger.
>
> YES I KNOW the accident occurred in Yankeeland. But why dump on a guy
who
> paid the full price for his mistake?

Call off the dogs!!! lol.. I'm on YOUR side. My point actually had nothing
to do with your comment and more to do with the constant over-correcting
that goes on in the aviation NG's. (which leads to disclaimers like the
following) Of course, being precise *IS* important and we should all try to
do better. It seems all you have to do is make a comment that Air Force One
is a 747 and you'll get 37 posts ranging from "Actually Air Force One is any
U.S. Air Force aircraft that the President of the United States is on" to
"Air Force One is a 747-400 s/n 1372683 in run A3Z". Who gives a flip!?!?
Everyone knew what I meant. An outsider looking in would think we're all
scared to death someone else might be smarter than us.



> I think his point was that my writing is becoming sloppy. An observation
> that's hard to dispute.

No dispute, just my vain attempt at smart-assdom.

[Brad Z]

Agreed.

Many pilots, in an attempt to perpetuate the "most dangerous part of flying
is the drive to the airport" myth, feel compelled to condemn unsuccessful
aviators as dolts or statistical outliers for the purpose of assuaging their
potential passengers' fear of flying. While we can remove or control many
of the factors of risk in general aviation, GA statistics are a reflection
of the fact that for miles traveled, or trips taken, GA flying is
considerably deadlier than driving.

Rather than dispelling pilots who crash as fools (which admittedly many are,
read the NTSB reports), let's learn from their mistakes, place ourselves in
their scenarios, and ask ourselves what we'd do in similar circumstances.



"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
> > Just read the ASRS reports to see how these conditions can creep up on
> > an otherwise proficient pilot and take heed!
>
> Amen.
> From a pilot's perspective, one of the most distressing things about that
> accident was all the condemnation of JFK from the pilot community, as if
all
> these god-like aviators are immune from such an event. That adolescent
> illusion of invulnerability gets people killed.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
> > Just read the ASRS reports to see how these conditions can creep up on
> > an otherwise proficient pilot and take heed!
>
> Amen.
> From a pilot's perspective, one of the most distressing things about that
> accident was all the condemnation of JFK from the pilot community, as if all
> these god-like aviators are immune from such an event. That adolescent
> illusion of invulnerability gets people killed.

AMEN! I also read in some of the AOPA & EAA publications that JFK Jr.
was a pretty good guy and was a potential GA advocate among the liberal
side, who tend to be anti-GA.

His loss was a loss for all of us.

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[Ron Natalie]

"MC" > wrote in message ...

> > I wasn't aware that night flight required a rating...if we're gonna be
> > literal in here lets go all the way.
>
> Australia requires a rating to do night VFR.

Last I checked Martha's Vineyard was not part of Australia.

[[email protected]]

: Many pilots, in an attempt to perpetuate the "most dangerous part of flying
: is the drive to the airport" myth, feel compelled to condemn unsuccessful
: aviators as dolts or statistical outliers for the purpose of assuaging their
: potential passengers' fear of flying.

Quite true.

:While we can remove or control many
: of the factors of risk in general aviation, GA statistics are a reflection
: of the fact that for miles traveled, or trips taken, GA flying is
: considerably deadlier than driving.

The difference is that in driving, the drunk on the other side of
the road is most likely to kill you. When flying, you get to kill
yourself.

: Rather than dispelling pilots who crash as fools (which admittedly many are,
: read the NTSB reports), let's learn from their mistakes, place ourselves in
: their scenarios, and ask ourselves what we'd do in similar circumstances.

Most of the deadly accidents can be attributed to some form of
poor pilot decision, judgement, competence. It's pretty rare that a wing
falls off, or even that an engine quits outright. Much more often it's
VFR in IMC, fuel starvation, or overloading that gets people killed. It's
unfortunate that arrogance and hubris are typical pilot personality
traits, as these really have no business in aviation.


FWIW
-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Brad Z]

> : Rather than dispelling pilots who crash as fools (which admittedly many
are,
> : read the NTSB reports), let's learn from their mistakes, place ourselves
in
> : their scenarios, and ask ourselves what we'd do in similar
circumstances.
>
> Most of the deadly accidents can be attributed to some form of
> poor pilot decision, judgement, competence. It's pretty rare that a wing
> falls off, or even that an engine quits outright. Much more often it's
> VFR in IMC, fuel starvation, or overloading that gets people killed. It's
> unfortunate that arrogance and hubris are typical pilot personality
> traits, as these really have no business in aviation.

True, unfortunately those people are rarely the folks introspectively asking
themselves what they would do in a difficult situation beforehand. The
unfortunate thing about safety seminars are that the people who need them
most will never attend.

Speaking of pilot personality traits, someone on some thread mentioned that
certain personality traits that make people succeed in business are the same
traits that in some cases, kill them in the air. CEOs didn't get to where
they are now by avoiding risks. While good CEO's take calculated risks,
many successful people, with the money to buy more plane than they can
handle, are likely to overestimate their ability, underestimate the risks at
hand, and overestimate the reward of satisfying their passengers and getting
to their destination at a particular time. I'm not insinuating that JFK Jr
fell into this category, but there are plenty of high profile fatalities
were this was a contributing factor.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jeff Franks wrote:

> An outsider looking in would think we're all
> scared to death someone else might be smarter than us.

....than *we*.

- Andrew, who simply could not resist

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.misc Snowbird > wrote:
: wrote in message >...

:> Most of the deadly accidents can be attributed to some form of
:> poor pilot decision, judgement, competence. It's pretty rare that a wing
:> falls off, or even that an engine quits outright. Much more often it's
:> VFR in IMC, fuel starvation, or overloading that gets people killed. It's
:> unfortunate that arrogance and hubris are typical pilot personality
:> traits, as these really have no business in aviation.

: I guess I'm a little unclear on your meaning, here, Cory.

: Are you saying that arrogance and hubris lead pilots into poor
: decisions such as VFR into IMC, fuel starvation, overloading,
: or misestimating the performance of the aircraft?

: It happens. There are certainly plenty of accidents which seem
: to fall into the "what was he THINKING?" category.

: On the other hand, I see another kind of arrogance, which is
: the sort which says "VFR into IMC, fuel starvation, etc etc
: are mistakes which stupid, arrogant pilots make. I'm not a
: stupid, arrogant pilot so I'll never make such a mistake."

: Having watched an accident chain unfolding next to me, and
: having had a few flights where we landed and looked at
: each other and knew that if a few things fell out differently,
: we would have been in trouble -- I try now to ask "what was
: he thinking?" in a different tone of voice. One of enquiry
: not condemnation.

I'm pretty much saying the former. Once one thinks the latter,
they've already become "arrogant and/or stupid." While certainly all
pilots are not made equal, the temptation to think of oneself as "better
than that," is the fundamental issue. Of course, there is the slippery
slope of errors that usually leads to an incident, but pilots with hubris
are more susceptible to that chain.

I'm probably unclear again, but the bottom line is that it's not
good to be overconfident.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Kevin Darling]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message >...
> From a pilot's perspective, one of the most distressing things about that
> accident was all the condemnation of JFK from the pilot community, as if all
> these god-like aviators are immune from such an event. That adolescent
> illusion of invulnerability gets people killed.

Yes. If you search the NTSB database, you can see that even
professional air taxi pilots and crews and their passengers have died
in that same area, in almost exactly the same way, on a moonless or
hazy night.

It is a common hazard along the islands here. You usually won't see
pilots from this part of the country giving JFK Jr grief. But we
should all learn from his mistake.

It's also sad that some otherwise smart and kind people feel the need
to take some kind of childish political stand on this particular
wreck.

Kevin

[Dan Luke]

"Ace Pilot" wrote:
> The lack of good judgment in this
> accident is what drew the condemnation of the aviation community, in
> my opinion.

Uh, that was my point: there was a chorus of pilots howling about what a
stupid decision JFK made, as if they would NEVER do such a thing. One
frequently sees that type of rationalization in these newsgroups. Most
pilots believe that their judgement is vastly superior to that of the
average pilot. Apparently the mathematical absurdity of this idea escapes
them. This enables them to believe that they are safer flying than driving.
That self delusion is what ultimately leads to most "pilot error" accidents,
IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> The difference is that in driving, the drunk on the other side of
> the road is most likely to kill you. When flying, you get to kill
> yourself.

So what? You're still much more liable to get killed flying.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Marten Kemp]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "Ace Pilot" wrote:
> > The lack of good judgment in this
> > accident is what drew the condemnation of the aviation community, in
> > my opinion.
>
> Uh, that was my point: there was a chorus of pilots howling about what a
> stupid decision JFK made, as if they would NEVER do such a thing. One
> frequently sees that type of rationalization in these newsgroups. Most
> pilots believe that their judgement is vastly superior to that of the
> average pilot. Apparently the mathematical absurdity of this idea escapes
> them. This enables them to believe that they are safer flying than driving.
> That self delusion is what ultimately leads to most "pilot error" accidents,
> IMO.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

The "chorus of pilots howling" is a good thing, because it reinforces
how bad the judgment JFK exhibited was and that, in turn, reduces the
likelihood that they'll do the same thing. I made an error in judgment
once - thinking "I can do that" after Flight Watch told me "VFR not
recommended." About a third of a second later the little check pilot
in the back of my head started screaming at me. I had *just passed*
a nice runway so I turned back and landed. This was triggered in part
by a briefing by the CAP about finding the confetti shreds of an
airplane that flew into a thunderstorm (I originally typed "flew through,"
but he didn't make it, did he?)

And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.

-- Marten Kemp, PP-ASEL&S

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:jJDMa.20321$fG.10154@sccrnsc01...
>
> > Actually, the chance per unit time of a fatal collision with other
traffic
> > is roughly similar whether you're flying GA or driving. But with
flying,
> > you get *additional* risks that are so massive by comparison that
> > they dwarf the risk from collision. That doesn't make the collision
> > risk any smaller, though.
>
> Yep, but the relative percentages are much different. 13% of the fatal
auto
> crashes are multi-vehicle as compared to only about 1 % for fatal midairs.

Right, that was my point. With GA flying, the risk of fatal traffic
collision--although comparable to the risk of fatal traffic collision while
driving--is dwarfed by the other fatal risks. Therefore, the percentage of
GA fatalities attributable to collisions is miniscule--not because fatal
collisions are less likely than when driving, but rather because *other* GA
dangers are so much *more* likely than any risks faced while driving.

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
> And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
> probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.

You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
something you might want to think about a little more?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[RobertR237]

In article >, Marten Kemp
> writes:

>> You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
>> higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
>> something you might want to think about a little more?
>> --
>> Dan
>> C172RG at BFM
>
>Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
>Citations, websites, etc?
>
>-- Marten Kemp
>
>

The annual numbers I saw once were something along the order of:

500-600 deaths from aviation
5000-6000 deaths of pedestrians
50000+ deaths from auto accidents

When those numbers are translated to deaths per mile traveled, which was a WAG
to begin with it showed that aviation was several times more likely to result
in a death per mile than was driving. This was all based on WAG's of the GA
miles flown per year and the driving miles per year.

What was not included in the figures was a comparison of serious injuries. I
suspect that if you included the serious debilitating injuries the numbers
would look much better for the aviation side.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Marten Kemp]

CurlyNJudd wrote:
>
> "Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> > >
> > > "Marten Kemp" wrote:
> > > > And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
> > > > probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.
> > >
> > > You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
> 700%
> > > higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
> > > something you might want to think about a little more?
> > > --
> > > Dan
> > > C172RG at BFM
> >
> > Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> > Citations, websites, etc?
>
> He must mean that there are 7x more accidents while flying airplanes, than
> while driving them. I know, for example, that when I see a Skylane or a
> Bonanza on the road, I give it a wide berth.

Hitting the gear lever could also have some, ah, unfortunate consequences.
It's something of which someone with "C172RG" in his .sig should be aware.

-- Marten Kemp

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:33:00 -0500, "Highfllyer" > wrote:

>He got in trouble because he was flying using tried and proven VFR
>techniques on a legally VFR night when VFR techniques would not work. That
>can happen ANYTIME at night, even on a clear night. It is all a matter of
>visual reference.

It can happen in the daytime also. It's happened to me turning downwind to
base over water with limited (although legal VFR) visibility and no visual
references in my field of view.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ace Pilot]

Dan,

I agree that the attitude of "I'm a great pilot so nothing bad can
happen to me" is likely to lead to trouble. Bad things can and do
happen while flying, but preflight planning, proper training and good
judgment are needed to deal with them. But are you going even further
and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
decision as stupid as the one JFK made? If I honestly believed that I
was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
sound judgment.

I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
ability is better than the average pilot.

Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
in an airplane and taking that risk? [That comes across as rather
critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
view risks.]

Ace

"Dan Luke" wrote:
> "Ace Pilot" wrote:
> > The lack of good judgment in this
> > accident is what drew the condemnation of the aviation community, in
> > my opinion.
>
> Uh, that was my point: there was a chorus of pilots howling about what a
> stupid decision JFK made, as if they would NEVER do such a thing. One
> frequently sees that type of rationalization in these newsgroups. Most
> pilots believe that their judgement is vastly superior to that of the
> average pilot. Apparently the mathematical absurdity of this idea escapes
> them. This enables them to believe that they are safer flying than driving.
> That self delusion is what ultimately leads to most "pilot error" accidents,
> IMO.

[Ron Natalie]

"Marten Kemp" > wrote in message ...

> Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> Citations, websites, etc?
>
Sure, go to NHTSA.GOV for the highway fatality rate and
the AOPA/ASF site for the GA rates. 700% is a conservative
number. It's more like 10x (depending on whether you are talking
about per mile or per hour).

[I'm just a zero]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...

> Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
> resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
> in an airplane and taking that risk?

As the root cause of this crossposted thread, may I butt in?

The answer to the first part of your question is 'of course.' Failure to
acknowledge this simple fact would place myself and others in far greater
danger than my acceptance of my potential to cause merry mayhem in the air
and (eventually) on the ground. Hopefully, genuine fear of ever realising
this nightmare will prevent me from reaching the front pages of your local
newspaper or tv screen.

Once you get used to it, flying is no different from any of life's
challenging activities. As you grow in experience, you grow in confidence.
And, as you grow in confidence... It's no surprise that the danger points
for flying and other similar activities are the 100 hr mark (when you
*think* you're experienced) and the 1000 hr point (when you *are*
experienced).

How do I justify the risks? That's easy. It won't happen to me. If it
does, I'll get away with it :-)


Roger.

[Ken Hornstein]

In article >,
Marten Kemp > wrote:
>Dan Luke wrote:
>> You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
>> higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
>> something you might want to think about a little more?
>> --
>> Dan
>> C172RG at BFM
>
>Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
>Citations, websites, etc?

The statistics aren't easy to compare. But ...

From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's report,
"2001 Annunal Assessment Of Motor Vehicle Crashes", which can be found
at the following URL:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/Assess01.pdf

If you look at page 30, you can see a summary (based on year) of the
fatalities per 100 million vehicular miles travelled (VMT). For the
year 2001, passenger cars have 1.28 fatalities per 100M VMT, and
motorcycles have 33.38 fatalities per 100M VMT.

Now, the wrinkle here is that while automotive statistics are reported
in miles travelled, general aviation statistics are reported in hours
flown. For our 2001 aviation statistics, you can view them in the
Nall Report, a copy of which you can find at the following URL:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf

Page 1 shows for 2001, there were 298 fatal accidents and 535 fatalities
for 26.2 million hours flown. The highway data is based on fatalities,
not fatal accidents, so let's use the latter figure, which gives us
2.042 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown.

So, how do we compare the two sets of data? One very simplistic way is
to pretend that everyone drives at 55 MPH, which would make automotive
statistics 1.28 fatalities per 1.82 million hours driven, or .703
fatalities per million hours driven. If you assume a slower driving
speed, the fatality rate per hour goes down, and if you assume a faster
one, it goes up. If you stick with 55 MPH, then you end up with a 29x
more times of being involved in a fatal accident with flying versus
driving.

If you compare motorcycles to aviation, 55 MPH gives you 18.3 fatalities
per million hours driven, and 1.83 fatalities per 100,000 hours drive,
which is relatively close to the statistics for aviation fatalities.

This is, of course, a very simplistic view of the accident data, and
there are lots of questions about how total hours are estimated, the
data is collected, etc etc. And I would advise anyone who was curious
about this to examine the reports themselves and draw their own
conclusions. (And it would be prudent to bring up the old Mark Twain
quote about liars, damned liars, and statisticians). But this can give
you an idea where the often-quoted statistics about GA being more
dangerous than driving, and approximately as dangerous as riding a
motorcycle, come from.

Personally, I believe that GA is definately more dangerous than
driving, but that the majority of the risk factors in GA are under the
control of the pilot. Thus, a knowledgable pilot who makes good
decisions is probably safer than the average person in a car, since in
a car (and especially in a motorcycle) you're more at the mercy of
other people. But even though every pilot receives a ton more training
than the average driver, flying is still in general more dangerous than
driving, which tells me it's important to never forget the importance
of good judgement.

--Ken

[Ron Natalie]

"CurlyNJudd" > wrote in message ...
>
> I am not awake enough this morning to dissect and comment on your stats, but
> your latter comments are extremely relevant. A good pilot is safer than a
> bad driver, and I have to think that there are more genuinely bad
> drivers/1000 than there are bad pilots/1000.

The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good driver/pilot.

[Dan Luke]

"Marten Kemp"
> > You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
700%
> > higher for personal flying than for driving?

> Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> Citations, websites, etc?

You mean you DIDN'T know that? Have you ever heard of the Nall Report?
I thought most pilots of any experience knew the relative fatal accident
rates of driving and flying. Check out the sites Ron Natalie posted.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"John Aldrich" wrote:
> > The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good
driver/pilot.
>
> I think hours flown to accidents/incidents is as good an indicator as
> any.
>
> 2000+hours, no accidents, no incidents.

Perhaps you are a far above average pilot, but that anecdote does nothing to
prove that you are safer flying than driving. My Uncle Wilson smoked cigars
every day of his adult life - and inhaled. He lived to be 93 years old. Does
that prove smoking is safe?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Ace Pilot) wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I agree that the attitude of "I'm a great pilot so nothing bad can
> happen to me" is likely to lead to trouble. Bad things can and do
> happen while flying, but preflight planning, proper training and good
> judgment are needed to deal with them. But are you going even further
> and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
> decision as stupid as the one JFK made? If I honestly believed that I
> was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
> making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
> like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
> sound judgment.
>
> I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
> they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
> better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
> in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
> rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
> make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
> ability is better than the average pilot.
>
> Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
> resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
> in an airplane and taking that risk? [That comes across as rather
> critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
> really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
> could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
> view risks.]
>
> Ace
>

I think, under the right circomstances, ANY pilot can make some really
STUPID decisions, includinr our friend, " acepilot88."

All it takes, is a series of performance-inhibiting factors: stress,
physical impairment, diminished weather, fatigue, etc.

From wghat I have read about JFK Jr's flight, he had these conditions in
spades!

I regularly fly with ATPs and ex-military pilots, with tens of thousands
of hours -- they put their pants on the same way as I do -- both legs at
a time.

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[Dan Luke]

"Ace Pilot" wrote:
> But are you going even further
> and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
> decision as stupid as the one JFK made?

I certainly believe that about myself. I am constantly on guard against it.
(BTW, I don't believe JFK's decision was all that monumentally stupid. In my
short 700-hour flying career, I've made some that were just as
questionable - the difference is that I lucked out and he didn't.)

> If I honestly believed that I
> was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
> making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
> like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
> sound judgment.

That's where you're leaving the door open for the Devil: you think you're
immune to your own bad decisions.

> I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
> they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
> better than the average pilot.

That's a distinction without a difference.

> Average pilots do not kill themselves
> in plane crashes,

Huh?

> i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
> rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
> make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
> ability is better than the average pilot.

Whatever; the illusion of superiority persists.

> Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
> resulting in a catastrophic outcome?

Of course I do. Better pilots than I do it all the time. Remember that 700%
higher fatal rate?

> If so, how do you justify getting
> in an airplane and taking that risk?

'Most everything in life is a risk/benefit choice.

[That comes across as rather
> critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
> really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
> could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
> view risks.]

No offense taken. This is usenet, after all! :^)

What I see in other pilots is simple refusal to recognize the *real* risks
in what we do. If they did face it I believe many would stop flying, so
instead they soothe themselves with this "drive to the airport" nonsense.
This warm, fuzzy cloud of rationalization they fly in leads to just the kind
of situation JFK got into. That they can continue to believe such a thing is
a wonderment, but people will believe what they want to, facts be damned.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kevin Darling]

(Ace Pilot) wrote in message >...
> I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
> they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
> better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
> in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average.

Well, umm. I mean, really ABOVE average pilots (think airshow and
airline) also kill themselves in plane crashes... some very dumb. It
can and does happen to the best, which might be what you're saying?

> I think the rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that
> one would not make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones
> decision-making ability is better than the average pilot.

By all accounts, JFK usually hired a CFI on these trips as a safety
pilot. That day, everything went classically wrong: the CFI wasn't
available, the actual weather was worse than reported, his wife
delayed her arrival at the airport by several hours, and they had a
wedding to go to, which meant by that time, travel by air was needed.
(Perhaps he should've hired another pilot.)

But we don't know what actually went wrong. He was getting IFR
training, and I've flown to the islands at night myself, and know that
certainly he should've had no problem keeping upright using his
instruments. But that doesn't count other distractions. Personally,
I figured that one of his passengers decided to crawl up into the
copilot seat for the approach. Perhaps he leaned over to help with
the seatbelt. Perhaps she tilted the yoke. Perhaps his bad foot
meant he leaned on the rudder. Who knows?

The point is, it doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad pilot, or one
outside his depth (frankly, it doesn't seem that way despite what so
many others say). It just means a chain of events lead to an
accident. When such a chain comes out okay by sheer luck, a pilot
writes one of those "I learned about flying from that" articles. When
luck fails, we get a (usually common) type of accident.

Kev

[Dan Luke]

"Highfllyer" wrote:
> I have been both flying and driving for fifty years.
>
> In fifty years I have never scratched a passenger.
>
> In fifty years of driving I have been nearly killed twice, and I did lose
a
> passenger.

How many flying hours vs. driving hours do you have? How many flying trips
vs. driving trips have you made?

Richard Collins illustrated the reality of this best: he pointed out that,
in his long life, he knew far more people who had been killed in plane
crashes than ones who had been killed in car crashes. This is true even
though the exposure to flying is far smaller than the exposure to driving
for the population. Try this: how many celebtities can you name who have
been killed in plane crashes versus ones who have been killed in car
crashes? What is the relative exposure of celebrities to each form of
travel?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
> Hitting the gear lever could also have some, ah, unfortunate consequences.

Really? Gosh!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jonathan Birge]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
> JFK was flying on a night when the weather was legally VFR.
>
> If he HAD realized that it could be ACTUALLY IFR, while still being easily
> VFR LEGALLY and as reported by the aviation weather people he might not
have
> messed up.

Reading this, I started to wonder why the FAA doesn't define IFR in terms of
horizon reference, and then it occurred to me that the basis for the IFR/VFR
distinction is mainly aircraft separation. I bet it was only after the fact
that IFR/IMC began to seem synonymous, but my guess is that they were
originally intended to be completely orthogonal concepts. IFR rules were
intended to keep aircraft separated. If you look at all the definitions for
legal VFR flights (i.e. cloud separation and visibility) you'll see that
they are geared towards visual separation of aircraft, with little (or no?)
consideration to flying by visual reference. In time, I think people began
to see them the VFR rules as neccesary and sufficient criteria for VFR
flight.

So, here's a thesis to discuss: was the FAA's original intent with IFR/VFR
distinction simply aimed at aircraft separation and not focused on the issue
of aircraft control by instruments? If you think about it, the fundamental
reason for ATC is to separate aircraft. If there are circumstances where one
could see another airplane to avoid it, but one cannot see the ground (e.g.
New Mexico at night) then the FAA's position seems to be go ahead and fly on
instruments without talking to us.

[Jonathan Birge]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> It could happen to ANY of us, under the right circumstances.

There are very few accidents for which I don't feel that way, but I have to
say JFK's was one of them. When I read about some guy doing barrel rolls 10
feet over the runway (Jeffco, Colorado a few years ago right as I was
taxiing to take off) I don't really think there's much I can learn from it
that I don't already know. Similarly, when a guy takes a single engine
airplane VFR over miles and miles of ocean at night I can't really say it
could've happened to any of us. I don't think I'd attempt to make his flight
during the DAY let alone at night. If you're going to go to Martha's
Vineyard in a single engine, you do it where you're going to be over water
for three miles, not ten or twenty (whatever his farthest shore distance was
going to work out to be).

The man didn't deserve to die, especially not in such a terrible way, but
what he did was really careless and more an example for Kennedys to learn
from (they tend to think they are invincible) than the rest of us to learn
from. It wasn't a flight where things slowly got out of hand. They got out
of hand the second he decided to fly direct instead of staying along land.

My personal wild guess is that he was acutely depressed and probably not
worrying about his safety the way most of us would. I don't actually think
he's actually as stupid as the accident would suggest. I just think he no
longer cared so much and wasn't thinking very rationally or clearly.

-Jonathan

[Jonathan Birge]

"Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > "Marten Kemp" wrote:
> > > And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
> > > probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.
> >
> > You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
700%
> > higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
> > something you might want to think about a little more?
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
>
> Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> Citations, websites, etc?

I've heard that lot's of places. Richard Collins mentioned a similar figure
last month in his column. Perhaps more pertitent, however, is that you're
making less conservative statements about flying safety without
substantiating them. You made a ridiculous statement about flying safety,
pulled right from your ass, without substantiating it and then dive on this
guy for quoting something actually based on fact without citing a reference.
At least he's trying to keep people like you safe. I'm not sure what you're
trying to do with your rose colored bull****. If you can't manage to fly an
airplane without deluding yourself about the safety record, you shouldn't
fly.

[Jonathan Birge]

"John Aldrich" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Ron
> Natalie > wrote:
>
> > "CurlyNJudd" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I am not awake enough this morning to dissect and comment on your
stats, but
> > > your latter comments are extremely relevant. A good pilot is safer
than a
> > > bad driver, and I have to think that there are more genuinely bad
> > > drivers/1000 than there are bad pilots/1000.
> >
> > The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good
driver/pilot.
>
> I think hours flown to accidents/incidents is as good an indicator as
> any.
>
> 2000+hours, no accidents, no incidents.

Congratulations. That proves nothing, not even that you're a good pilot.
You've just got an N=1 statistical study going on that allows you to make
the assertion that, with very little certaintly, flying an airplane involves
less than 1 fatality per 2000 hours. Wait until you get about 50,000 hours
before bragging that you're an above average pilot based on your own
experience.

[I'm just a zero]

"Jonathan Birge" > wrote in message
...

> If you can't manage to fly an
> airplane without deluding yourself about the safety record, you shouldn't
> fly.

That makes sense to me.


Roger.

[Jonathan Birge]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
> In my experience flying is vastly safer than driving. Sorry.
>
> By the way, statistics are absolutely meaningless when applied to
> individuals.

Two things: (1) Statistics can still be useful even though individual
variation makes them less than perfect predictors of risk. Plus, people
might as well assume they're no better than an average pilot, because half
the people will be right. (2) You may be a really ****ty driver. :-)

[Marten Kemp]

Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Marten Kemp > wrote:
> >Dan Luke wrote:
> >> You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
> >> higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
> >> something you might want to think about a little more?
> >> --
> >> Dan
> >> C172RG at BFM
> >
> >Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> >Citations, websites, etc?
>
> The statistics aren't easy to compare. But ...
>
> From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's report,
> "2001 Annunal Assessment Of Motor Vehicle Crashes", which can be found
> at the following URL:
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/Assess01.pdf
>
> If you look at page 30, you can see a summary (based on year) of the
> fatalities per 100 million vehicular miles travelled (VMT). For the
> year 2001, passenger cars have 1.28 fatalities per 100M VMT, and
> motorcycles have 33.38 fatalities per 100M VMT.
>
> Now, the wrinkle here is that while automotive statistics are reported
> in miles travelled, general aviation statistics are reported in hours
> flown. For our 2001 aviation statistics, you can view them in the
> Nall Report, a copy of which you can find at the following URL:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf
>
> Page 1 shows for 2001, there were 298 fatal accidents and 535 fatalities
> for 26.2 million hours flown. The highway data is based on fatalities,
> not fatal accidents, so let's use the latter figure, which gives us
> 2.042 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown.
>
> So, how do we compare the two sets of data? One very simplistic way is
> to pretend that everyone drives at 55 MPH, which would make automotive
> statistics 1.28 fatalities per 1.82 million hours driven, or .703
> fatalities per million hours driven. If you assume a slower driving
> speed, the fatality rate per hour goes down, and if you assume a faster
> one, it goes up. If you stick with 55 MPH, then you end up with a 29x
> more times of being involved in a fatal accident with flying versus
> driving.
>
> If you compare motorcycles to aviation, 55 MPH gives you 18.3 fatalities
> per million hours driven, and 1.83 fatalities per 100,000 hours drive,
> which is relatively close to the statistics for aviation fatalities.
>
> This is, of course, a very simplistic view of the accident data, and
> there are lots of questions about how total hours are estimated, the
> data is collected, etc etc. And I would advise anyone who was curious
> about this to examine the reports themselves and draw their own
> conclusions. (And it would be prudent to bring up the old Mark Twain
> quote about liars, damned liars, and statisticians). But this can give
> you an idea where the often-quoted statistics about GA being more
> dangerous than driving, and approximately as dangerous as riding a
> motorcycle, come from.
>
> Personally, I believe that GA is definately more dangerous than
> driving, but that the majority of the risk factors in GA are under the
> control of the pilot. Thus, a knowledgable pilot who makes good
> decisions is probably safer than the average person in a car, since in
> a car (and especially in a motorcycle) you're more at the mercy of
> other people. But even though every pilot receives a ton more training
> than the average driver, flying is still in general more dangerous than
> driving, which tells me it's important to never forget the importance
> of good judgement.
>
> --Ken

Very well, thank you all. I seem to have been operating
under a mistaken impression. {That grinding noise you hear
is my internal assumptions database rearranging itself}

-- Marten Kemp

[Craig Prouse]

> Statistics can still be useful even though individual
> variation makes them less than perfect predictors of risk. Plus, people
> might as well assume they're no better than an average pilot, because half
> the people will be right.

Statistics are of course most useful when they are abused. One common
technique is to deliberately confuse the difference between the mean and the
median of a data set.

[Dan Luke]

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
> Very well, thank you all. I seem to have been operating
> under a mistaken impression. {That grinding noise you hear
> is my internal assumptions database rearranging itself}

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the rarest of all usenet events: a
newsgroup member actually changing his opinion about something.
Mark this one for the archives and order Mr. Kemp's commemorative plaque.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[skygodtj]

CurlyNJudd wrote:
>
> "Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> > >
> > > "Marten Kemp" wrote:
> > > > And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
> > > > probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.
> > >
> > > You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
> 700%
> > > higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
> > > something you might want to think about a little more?
> > > --
> > > Dan
> > > C172RG at BFM
> >
> > Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> > Citations, websites, etc?
>
> He must mean that there are 7x more accidents while flying airplanes, than
> while driving them. I know, for example, that when I see a Skylane or a
> Bonanza on the road, I give it a wide berth.

KEYBOARD!!!!

teege


--
-------------------------------------------------------
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[skygodtj]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "CurlyNJudd" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > I am not awake enough this morning to dissect and comment on your stats, but
> > your latter comments are extremely relevant. A good pilot is safer than a
> > bad driver, and I have to think that there are more genuinely bad
> > drivers/1000 than there are bad pilots/1000.
>
> The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good driver/pilot.

good pilot, I'm a good pilot, very good pilot, wapner on at 5, at 5, wapner...
wapner on at 5...

rainman
-------------------------------------------------------
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Jonathan Birge]

"Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> Ahem. I rather politely asked for substantiation for a statement that
> contradicted my understanding of the situation.
>
> That substantiation was supplied, and I now see that my understanding
> of the situation was in error.
>
> I find your statements uncalled for and offensive in the extreme, sir,
> but in deference to the sensibilities of the newsgroup I shan't
> subject them to the vituperation and opprobrium you so richly
> deserve.

Forsooth, don't hold back on my behalf, I pray you, good knight. But I
wasn't that rude and you weren't that polite. You were more incredulous and
patronizing than polite. ("Sir, can you substantiate that amazing
assertion?") Nobody calls anybody 'sir' anymore unless it's in a
self-righteous, patronizing way (kind of how you used it above with me). And
there's no point in using vituperation and opprobrium in the same sentence
since I very much doubt you really needed to make use of the subtle
differences in their meaning, you were probably just trying to use two big
words in a sentence.

At any rate, I agree I shot back with a bit much. So, let me have it if you
got it in you. You get these things out early and often and they don't back
up and cause heart attacks later in life.

Regards,
Jonathan

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "John Aldrich" wrote:
> > > The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a
good
> driver/pilot.
> >
> > I think hours flown to accidents/incidents is as good an indicator as
> > any.
> >
> > 2000+hours, no accidents, no incidents.
>
> Perhaps you are a far above average pilot, but that anecdote does nothing
to
> prove that you are safer flying than driving. My Uncle Wilson smoked
cigars
> every day of his adult life - and inhaled. He lived to be 93 years old.
Does
> that prove smoking is safe?

Cigars only have a 20% higher incidence of cancer than non-smokers, as
opposed to a 2000% higher risk for cigarettes. Adjusting your perception of
how safe flying is has already improved the statistics. Not nearly to the
percentage that FAA/EAA co-operation has, but there is nearly a 3 dB
improvement.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Jonathan Birge]

"Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I admit that I *was* being a bit condescending in my original
> question {said he, in a slightly abashed tone of voice}, but in my
> defense I *did* find the statement amazing. My internal assumptions
> database has subsequently been reloaded with the updated data.
>
> I also admit that "opprobrium" wasn't the right word; I really meant
> "obolquy" (though "calumny" comes close). I tend to use large words and
> be snottily patronizing because I've never been good at constructing
> wounding personal attacks while using the vernacular. (I also seem not
> to be able to type at the moment. The number of t7pos has been positively
> amazing. Time for more coffee.)

Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism so
honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish of
you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was pretty
rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter alone.

-Jonathan

[Jonathan Birge]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I can immagine the two women argueing the entire trip, as one of them made
> them late by going shopping. That can't be good for situational
awareness,
> or concentration.

Point taken. I'm not sure I could look at the gauges with two hot chicks
engaged in a sprawling cat fight in my airplane. Maybe a flung shoe switched
off the autopilot while John was trying to take pictures.

[Fred B]

After havng read hundreds of NTSB accident reports where experienced pilots
either simply had "bad luck" or did something "unwise" and people aboard
were killed, as far as crash statistics I think the average non-aviator is
thinking like this: "...Bob offered to fly me to Tahoe in his plane instead
of me driving.". What are the chance the plane will get to the tarmac at
Tahoe in one big undented piece versus me arriving safely if I just drive
it?"

So we're talking in terms of "transportation system mishaps per n
departures". I either go on the plane or I don't. It's ONE departure. I
don't care if there are 2 people aboard or 8. I don't care all that much if
the destination is 377 miles away or 912 miles. What I am concerned about is
"what is the chance that that aircraft will arrive at the destination
without killing anybody aboard?"

I would *suspect* that in that light, general aviation does not come out
looking too good. Does anyone know?
I would suspect the average motor car on the road does about 25-40
'departures' a week. I couldn't even hazard a guess for GA.

Reporting 'fatalities per million passenger miles' is like telling a telling
a new B-17 crew reporting to an 8th Air Force base in England in October
1943, "the lads have found we're losing one aircraft and crew for every
188,256 crew member miles we fly against Jerry."
The retort is sure to be, "swell, Sarge, but .... what percentage of crews
are making it through the 25 missions alive?"

Let's say that what they know is aircraft losses and total sorties flown. If
they lose 1 bomber in 143 sorties then a plane's survival rate for 25
missions is (1-(1/143)) ^ 25, or 83.9%. So their chances of survival are
about 13 out of 16.
If I am a LIFE magazine photographer and I'm just going on ONE mission, my
chance of survival is 142/143, or 99.3%. I'm pretty relaxed. (If it's
October 14th (Black Thursday) and the target is the ball bearing factories
at Schweinfurt...then my chances were 74.9%.)



"Ken Hornstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Marten Kemp > wrote:
> >Dan Luke wrote:
> >> You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
700%
> >> higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
> >> something you might want to think about a little more?
> >> --
> >> Dan
> >> C172RG at BFM
> >
> >Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
> >Citations, websites, etc?
>
> The statistics aren't easy to compare. But ...
>
> From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's report,
> "2001 Annunal Assessment Of Motor Vehicle Crashes", which can be found
> at the following URL:
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/Assess01.pdf
>
> If you look at page 30, you can see a summary (based on year) of the
> fatalities per 100 million vehicular miles travelled (VMT). For the
> year 2001, passenger cars have 1.28 fatalities per 100M VMT, and
> motorcycles have 33.38 fatalities per 100M VMT.
>
> Now, the wrinkle here is that while automotive statistics are reported
> in miles travelled, general aviation statistics are reported in hours
> flown. For our 2001 aviation statistics, you can view them in the
> Nall Report, a copy of which you can find at the following URL:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf
>
> Page 1 shows for 2001, there were 298 fatal accidents and 535 fatalities
> for 26.2 million hours flown. The highway data is based on fatalities,
> not fatal accidents, so let's use the latter figure, which gives us
> 2.042 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown.
>
> So, how do we compare the two sets of data? One very simplistic way is
> to pretend that everyone drives at 55 MPH, which would make automotive
> statistics 1.28 fatalities per 1.82 million hours driven, or .703
> fatalities per million hours driven. If you assume a slower driving
> speed, the fatality rate per hour goes down, and if you assume a faster
> one, it goes up. If you stick with 55 MPH, then you end up with a 29x
> more times of being involved in a fatal accident with flying versus
> driving.
>
> If you compare motorcycles to aviation, 55 MPH gives you 18.3 fatalities
> per million hours driven, and 1.83 fatalities per 100,000 hours drive,
> which is relatively close to the statistics for aviation fatalities.
>
> This is, of course, a very simplistic view of the accident data, and
> there are lots of questions about how total hours are estimated, the
> data is collected, etc etc. And I would advise anyone who was curious
> about this to examine the reports themselves and draw their own
> conclusions. (And it would be prudent to bring up the old Mark Twain
> quote about liars, damned liars, and statisticians). But this can give
> you an idea where the often-quoted statistics about GA being more
> dangerous than driving, and approximately as dangerous as riding a
> motorcycle, come from.
>
> Personally, I believe that GA is definately more dangerous than
> driving, but that the majority of the risk factors in GA are under the
> control of the pilot. Thus, a knowledgable pilot who makes good
> decisions is probably safer than the average person in a car, since in
> a car (and especially in a motorcycle) you're more at the mercy of
> other people. But even though every pilot receives a ton more training
> than the average driver, flying is still in general more dangerous than
> driving, which tells me it's important to never forget the importance
> of good judgement.
>
> --Ken

[Marten Kemp]

Jonathan Birge wrote:
>
> "Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, I admit that I *was* being a bit condescending in my original
> > question {said he, in a slightly abashed tone of voice}, but in my
> > defense I *did* find the statement amazing. My internal assumptions
> > database has subsequently been reloaded with the updated data.
> >
> > I also admit that "opprobrium" wasn't the right word; I really meant
> > "obolquy" (though "calumny" comes close). I tend to use large words and
> > be snottily patronizing because I've never been good at constructing
> > wounding personal attacks while using the vernacular. (I also seem not
> > to be able to type at the moment. The number of t7pos has been positively
> > amazing. Time for more coffee.)
>
> Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism so
> honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish of
> you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was pretty
> rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter alone.
>
> -Jonathan

Okay, Johnny-boy.

*Read my farking sig* the next time and at
least get my name right, you jerk.

Feel better now? {grin}

-- Marten Kemp (note the "E" in my first name?)

[Happy Dog]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > JFK Jr. wasn't yet rated and he didn't have a close call; he died and
> > > took two people with him. The only positive is that his own criminal
> > > negligence killed him as well as his passengers.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that night flight required a rating...if we're gonna be
> > literal in here lets go all the way.
> >
>
> JFK Jr. was almost rated. He certainly had a great deal more instrument
> time than the average PPL.

He had all the training required that he authorities think is necessary to
manoeuver a plane in IMC. If someone wants to make the argument that this
level of training is insufficient, then present evidence.
>
> JFK was flying on a night when the weather was legally VFR.
>
> If he HAD realized that it could be ACTUALLY IFR, while still being easily
> VFR LEGALLY and as reported by the aviation weather people he might not
have
> messed up.

He shouldn't have messed up that badly. How many more hours under the hood
would prevent this?
>
> He got in trouble because he was flying using tried and proven VFR
> techniques on a legally VFR night when VFR techniques would not work.
That
> can happen ANYTIME at night, even on a clear night. It is all a matter of
> visual reference.

Flying at night is instrument flying if you're actually going anywhere.
(This comment is not directed towards the poster to which I'm responding.)
And, with instrument flying skills, it's no big deal. But it is often real
IMC stuff.
moo

[Captain Wubba]

While I agree with the need to look at this kind of data in multiple
ways, I think the 'per departure' numbers may be very misleading.
First off, there are plenty of GA planes that make literally hundreds
of departures per week. I see training planes at my airport do a dozen
touch-and-goes an hour, and these planes often fly 30-40 hours a week
in the summer. Does that count as a 'departure'? If so, then that
would dramatically reduce the 'per departure' GA accident rate. If
not, then why count the automoble 'departure' that consists of a 1
mile drive to the video store? A more 'meaningful' comparison would be
to compare the fatalities in different groupings of activity. While
this is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, I think a reasonable question
would be "If I will be travelling more than 100 miles on this trip,
and going between two cities, what is the liklihood that I will arrive
safely in a GA plane vs. a car?" After all, airplanes and cars have
very different mission profiles on short trips. One can hardly compare
a 2 mile trip in a car to a 750 mile hard-IFR cross country. Neither
can one compare a T&G with an instructor aboard to a 250 mile car trip
in a driving blizzard. The comparison would be meaningless.

In this, I think GA will come out better than one might think. I
remember reading something from AAA a couple years ago basically
saying that long-distance driving (i.e. or more than two hours I
believe) was dramatically more dangerous than local driving. Which is
quite logical. I recently returned (driving) from a 150 mile trip, and
saw at least 10 crosses by the sides of the highway. I think that the
comparison between this kind of driving and GA flying a similar
distance will yield a reasonably close rate of fatality.

In the end, one thing we know for certain is that the vast majority of
aircraft fatalities are directly attributable to pilot error. I
randomly looked at 100 NTSB fatal-accident reports the other day (slow
day). 91% of these crashes were clearly pilot error. And, as the Nall
Report reiterates every year, something like 75% of all aircraft
accidents are related to just one of three causes (VFR into IMC,
low-level maneauvering [stall-spins], and fuel mismanagement. This
isn't complex stuff. This is trivially easy to prevent. All it takes
is training and discipline.

Personally, I think it is safer to fly GA with a 'professional'
quality pilot than it is to drive a similar distance (assuming a cross
country). If 90% of airplane fatalities can be attributed to pilots
acting stupid, then it stands to reason that if you only fly with
pilots who have the training and discipoline to *not* act the fool,
then you are much more likely to arrive safely than if you were flying
with the 'average' pilots. If GA has a reputation for being dangerous,
there is nobody to blame but ourselves. Honestly...is there *ever* an
excuse for running out of gas? Is there ever an excuse for
intentionally flying into clouds when you are not qualified or
prepared? But pilots do it all the time. And kill people.

I'd feel much safer in the back of a 182 travelling 200 miles, being
piloted by a pilot who never busts minima, who never lands with less
than hour of gas, and who never shows off than I would even driving my
own car that 200 miles. My odds of getting hit by a drunk driver, or
getting clipped by a truck that can't see me, or getting distracted
for that one second and not seeing the brake lights ahead of me seem
vastly higher in the car than in the plane.

Cheers

Cap

[Rich Ahrens]

Happy Dog wrote:
> Flying at night is instrument flying if you're actually going anywhere.
> (This comment is not directed towards the poster to which I'm responding.)
> And, with instrument flying skills, it's no big deal. But it is often real
> IMC stuff.

On overly broad generalization by a long shot. I don't know what part of
the world you live in, but out here in the great fly-over there are plenty
of visual references for night flying in many weather conditions. I'd
consider "going anywhere" to include trips across multiple states for
hundreds of miles, and I've done that in night VFR numerous times. Yeah,
instrument skills are a valuable fallback, but the flights were not
instrument flights by a long shot.

[Jonathan Birge]

"Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> > Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism
so
> > honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish
of
> > you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was
pretty
> > rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter
alone.
> >
> > -Jonathan
>
> Okay, Johnny-boy.
>
> *Read my farking sig* the next time and at
> least get my name right, you jerk.
>
> Feel better now? {grin}

Much, thank you! Sorry about screwing up your name. That was unintentional.

[Marten Kemp]

Jonathan Birge wrote:
>
> "Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism
> so
> > > honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish
> of
> > > you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was
> pretty
> > > rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter
> alone.
> > >
> > > -Jonathan
> >
> > Okay, Johnny-boy.
> >
> > *Read my farking sig* the next time and at
> > least get my name right, you jerk.
> >
> > Feel better now? {grin}
>
> Much, thank you! Sorry about screwing up your name. That was unintentional.

You're welcome. It happens a lot, actually.

-- Marten Kemp

[skygodtj]

Marten Kemp wrote:
>
> Jonathan Birge wrote:
> >
> > "Marten Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism
> > so
> > > > honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish
> > of
> > > > you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was
> > pretty
> > > > rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter
> > alone.
> > > >
> > > > -Jonathan
> > >
> > > Okay, Johnny-boy.
> > >
> > > *Read my farking sig* the next time and at
> > > least get my name right, you jerk.
> > >
> > > Feel better now? {grin}
> >
> > Much, thank you! Sorry about screwing up your name. That was unintentional.
>
> You're welcome. It happens a lot, actually.
>
> -- Marten Kemp

awwww... group hug.... theres a lotta love in this thread...

teege
-------------------------------------------------------
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Fred B]

Thanks, Cap. That was a good discussion.

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> While I agree with the need to look at this kind of data in multiple
> ways, I think the 'per departure' numbers may be very misleading.
> First off, there are plenty of GA planes that make literally hundreds
> of departures per week. I see training planes at my airport do a dozen
> touch-and-goes an hour, and these planes often fly 30-40 hours a week
> in the summer. Does that count as a 'departure'? If so, then that
> would dramatically reduce the 'per departure' GA accident rate. If
> not, then why count the automoble 'departure' that consists of a 1
> mile drive to the video store? A more 'meaningful' comparison would be
> to compare the fatalities in different groupings of activity. While
> this is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, I think a reasonable question
> would be "If I will be travelling more than 100 miles on this trip,
> and going between two cities, what is the liklihood that I will arrive
> safely in a GA plane vs. a car?" After all, airplanes and cars have
> very different mission profiles on short trips. One can hardly compare
> a 2 mile trip in a car to a 750 mile hard-IFR cross country. Neither
> can one compare a T&G with an instructor aboard to a 250 mile car trip
> in a driving blizzard. The comparison would be meaningless.
>
> In this, I think GA will come out better than one might think. I
> remember reading something from AAA a couple years ago basically
> saying that long-distance driving (i.e. or more than two hours I
> believe) was dramatically more dangerous than local driving. Which is
> quite logical. I recently returned (driving) from a 150 mile trip, and
> saw at least 10 crosses by the sides of the highway. I think that the
> comparison between this kind of driving and GA flying a similar
> distance will yield a reasonably close rate of fatality.
>
> In the end, one thing we know for certain is that the vast majority of
> aircraft fatalities are directly attributable to pilot error. I
> randomly looked at 100 NTSB fatal-accident reports the other day (slow
> day). 91% of these crashes were clearly pilot error. And, as the Nall
> Report reiterates every year, something like 75% of all aircraft
> accidents are related to just one of three causes (VFR into IMC,
> low-level maneauvering [stall-spins], and fuel mismanagement. This
> isn't complex stuff. This is trivially easy to prevent. All it takes
> is training and discipline.
>
> Personally, I think it is safer to fly GA with a 'professional'
> quality pilot than it is to drive a similar distance (assuming a cross
> country). If 90% of airplane fatalities can be attributed to pilots
> acting stupid, then it stands to reason that if you only fly with
> pilots who have the training and discipoline to *not* act the fool,
> then you are much more likely to arrive safely than if you were flying
> with the 'average' pilots. If GA has a reputation for being dangerous,
> there is nobody to blame but ourselves. Honestly...is there *ever* an
> excuse for running out of gas? Is there ever an excuse for
> intentionally flying into clouds when you are not qualified or
> prepared? But pilots do it all the time. And kill people.
>
> I'd feel much safer in the back of a 182 travelling 200 miles, being
> piloted by a pilot who never busts minima, who never lands with less
> than hour of gas, and who never shows off than I would even driving my
> own car that 200 miles. My odds of getting hit by a drunk driver, or
> getting clipped by a truck that can't see me, or getting distracted
> for that one second and not seeing the brake lights ahead of me seem
> vastly higher in the car than in the plane.
>
> Cheers
>
> Cap

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Fred B" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thanks, Cap. That was a good discussion.
>
Prehaps to get a better grasp of GA Safety it would be necessary to
evaluate/compare sub-catagories of GA incidents into professional, semi-
professional, & recreational pilot groups.

For purpose of discussion the "Professional Group" would include
instructors, others who fly for pay. The semi-professional group are those
that fly themselves as an adjunt to their professional activities on a
regular basis . The recreation group being those who fly for recreation
only.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
> > While I agree with the need to look at this kind of data in multiple
> > ways, I think the 'per departure' numbers may be very misleading.
> > First off, there are plenty of GA planes that make literally hundreds
> > of departures per week. I see training planes at my airport do a dozen
> > touch-and-goes an hour, and these planes often fly 30-40 hours a week
> > in the summer. Does that count as a 'departure'? If so, then that
> > would dramatically reduce the 'per departure' GA accident rate. If
> > not, then why count the automoble 'departure' that consists of a 1
> > mile drive to the video store? A more 'meaningful' comparison would be
> > to compare the fatalities in different groupings of activity. While
> > this is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, I think a reasonable question
> > would be "If I will be travelling more than 100 miles on this trip,
> > and going between two cities, what is the liklihood that I will arrive
> > safely in a GA plane vs. a car?" After all, airplanes and cars have
> > very different mission profiles on short trips. One can hardly compare
> > a 2 mile trip in a car to a 750 mile hard-IFR cross country. Neither
> > can one compare a T&G with an instructor aboard to a 250 mile car trip
> > in a driving blizzard. The comparison would be meaningless.
> >
> > In this, I think GA will come out better than one might think. I
> > remember reading something from AAA a couple years ago basically
> > saying that long-distance driving (i.e. or more than two hours I
> > believe) was dramatically more dangerous than local driving. Which is
> > quite logical. I recently returned (driving) from a 150 mile trip, and
> > saw at least 10 crosses by the sides of the highway. I think that the
> > comparison between this kind of driving and GA flying a similar
> > distance will yield a reasonably close rate of fatality.
> >
> > In the end, one thing we know for certain is that the vast majority of
> > aircraft fatalities are directly attributable to pilot error. I
> > randomly looked at 100 NTSB fatal-accident reports the other day (slow
> > day). 91% of these crashes were clearly pilot error. And, as the Nall
> > Report reiterates every year, something like 75% of all aircraft
> > accidents are related to just one of three causes (VFR into IMC,
> > low-level maneauvering [stall-spins], and fuel mismanagement. This
> > isn't complex stuff. This is trivially easy to prevent. All it takes
> > is training and discipline.
> >
> > Personally, I think it is safer to fly GA with a 'professional'
> > quality pilot than it is to drive a similar distance (assuming a cross
> > country). If 90% of airplane fatalities can be attributed to pilots
> > acting stupid, then it stands to reason that if you only fly with
> > pilots who have the training and discipoline to *not* act the fool,
> > then you are much more likely to arrive safely than if you were flying
> > with the 'average' pilots. If GA has a reputation for being dangerous,
> > there is nobody to blame but ourselves. Honestly...is there *ever* an
> > excuse for running out of gas? Is there ever an excuse for
> > intentionally flying into clouds when you are not qualified or
> > prepared? But pilots do it all the time. And kill people.
> >
> > I'd feel much safer in the back of a 182 travelling 200 miles, being
> > piloted by a pilot who never busts minima, who never lands with less
> > than hour of gas, and who never shows off than I would even driving my
> > own car that 200 miles. My odds of getting hit by a drunk driver, or
> > getting clipped by a truck that can't see me, or getting distracted
> > for that one second and not seeing the brake lights ahead of me seem
> > vastly higher in the car than in the plane.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Cap
>
>

[Kevin]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:33:00 -0500, "Highfllyer" > wrote:
>
>
>>He got in trouble because he was flying using tried and proven VFR
>>techniques on a legally VFR night when VFR techniques would not work. That
>>can happen ANYTIME at night, even on a clear night. It is all a matter of
>>visual reference.
>
>
> It can happen in the daytime also. It's happened to me turning downwind to
> base over water with limited (although legal VFR) visibility and no visual
> references in my field of view.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

He was a bad pilot. Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you can
fly it.

PP SEL