Re: Flying - third most dangerous occupation

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 at 16:36:22 in message
>, Corky Scott
> wrote:
>The bombers were only in combat for a few minutes out of the 12 to 14
>hours they were in the air, unlike in Europe where for a while anyway,
>they were under threat of attack the moment they crossed the French
>coast. I saw a chilling picture of an entire B-24 group head on to a
>B-17 group. This was during form-up, and both groups passed without a
>collision, but a number of bombers missed each other by mere feet.
>Someone had gotten their coordinates wrong... Collisions under these
>circumstances were considered non combat.

I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
over the target.
--
Francis E-Mail reply to >

[David CL Francis]

In article >, Gary L.
Drescher > writes
>"Roger Long" m> wrote in
>message ...
>> Well then, a quarter of us would have the NTSB write our obituary.
>> Something wrong with these statistics.
>
>The Nall Report is talking about the fatality rate per hour. Commercial
>pilots presumably fly more hours per year than recreational pilots, on
>average. So commercial pilots may have a higher fatality rate annually,
>despite their lower hourly rate.
>
It is amazing how many misleading statistics there are. One needs sight
of the raw data before coming to any conclusions.

I read that the chance of dying per hour while rock climbing is the same
as just being a man over 70. Does that mean that I should now take up
rock climbing?
--

David CL Francis E-Mail reply to >

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
David Megginson > wrote:

>"Gary L. Drescher" > writes:
>
>>> 1 in 8 per year? Bull... That number is non sustainable, and
>>> therefore bogus...
>>
>> But that's not the number cited. One in eight die in the course of a
>> 30-year career, not in a single year.
>
>I just ran a quick search at the NTSB site. From January 1 1991 to
>January 1 2001 there were a total of 183 fatal accidents in Alaska
>operating under
>
> Part 91: 121
> Part 121: 1 (air carrier)
> Part 129: 1 (foreign carrier)
> Part 133: 6 (heavy heli)
> Part 135: 52 (air taxi and commuter)
> Public Use: 2
>
>So that's an average of 5.2 fatal crashes/year for part 135 ops in
>Alaska -- without reading the individual reports, I don't know how
>many of those had more than one crew fatality, and how many had only
>non-crew fatalities. Is there any way to find out how many commercial
>pilots work in Alaska?

My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
pilot. Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

--
Ron

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
> pilot.

If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25% of
aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
database).

> Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
> percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
professional pilots
there(http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),

--Gary

[Gary L. Drescher]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> I read that the chance of dying per hour while rock climbing is the same
> as just being a man over 70.

That doesn't sound right. As of a few years ago, a 70-year-old man could
expect to live another 13 years
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr51_03t11.pdf), hence another
110,000 hours. But this study
(http://www.ew.govt.nz/ourenvironment/rivercatchment/peninsula/thamescoast/d
ocuments/ursk.pdf) cites an annual fatality rate of one in 125 rock climbers
(in the UK). So even if the climbers average as many as 1,000 climbing
hours per year (which seems unlikely), rock climbing still has more than 100
times the hourly fatality rate of just being a 70-year-old man.

--Gary

> Does that mean that I should now take up rock climbing?
> --
>
> David CL Francis E-Mail reply to >
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

David CL Francis wrote:
>
> I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
> over the target.

Not with the USAAF, though that figure may have been true at one time for RAF
Bomber Command. For the Cologne raid in early '42, the forecast was for two
collisions for roughly 1,000 aircraft. As it turned out, one occurred over
Europe and a second one over the UK on return. That's less than half of one
percent for that raid.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Big John]

David

From many conversations with people (both US and British) flying in
Europe in WWII (both bombers and fighters)

1. GB had no infrastructure to set up some kind of a ATC as we know it
for control of the fighters/bombers.

2. Any one, any time could take off and fly IFR over GB without any
type of a clearance.

3. On raids to Europe, aircraft took off and climbed on the same
heading if there were clouds, until they were on top and then circled
for rendezvous with other bombers or escort fighters.

As has been posted to this thread, mid air collision were very rare as
the powers that be had calculated.

Some of the talk about flights running through other flights head on,
These occurred while Squadrons were VFR under or on top and not IFR in
the clouds.

Long time ago in a far away place with a different set of rules from
what we fly by today.

Big John


On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:23:58 +0100, David CL Francis
> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 at 16:36:22 in message
>, Corky Scott
> wrote:
>>The bombers were only in combat for a few minutes out of the 12 to 14
>>hours they were in the air, unlike in Europe where for a while anyway,
>>they were under threat of attack the moment they crossed the French
>>coast. I saw a chilling picture of an entire B-24 group head on to a
>>B-17 group. This was during form-up, and both groups passed without a
>>collision, but a number of bombers missed each other by mere feet.
>>Someone had gotten their coordinates wrong... Collisions under these
>>circumstances were considered non combat.
>
> I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
>over the target.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:

>"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
>> My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
>> pilot.
>
>If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
>population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
>often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25% of
>aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
>dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
>fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
>database).

Only if you presume the level of competence to be the same. I'd suggest
that bush flying in Alaska weeds out the marginal ones.

>
>> Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
>> percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.
>
>According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
>professional pilots
>there(http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),

Would a "professional pilot" be one whose primary income is derived as a
pilot?

--
Ron

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:
>
> >"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a
licensed
> >> pilot.
> >
> >If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
> >population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
> >often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25%
of
> >aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
> >dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
> >fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
> >database).
>
> Only if you presume the level of competence to be the same. I'd suggest
> that bush flying in Alaska weeds out the marginal ones.

Yes, it weeds them out by killing them. That's why the fatality rate for
flying in Alaska is much higher than the US average--not several times
lower, as would be required to explain why only 4% of fatal crashes occur in
Alaska if 25% of US pilots were Alaskan (although 25% of US pilots being
Alaskan is already very implausible on the face of it).

In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan pilots
with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?

> >> Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
> >> percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.
> >
> >According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
> >professional pilots
> >there (http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),
>
> Would a "professional pilot" be one whose primary income is derived as a
> pilot?

For purposes of the labor statistics we were discussing earlier, I'd assume
the definition is along those lines.

--Gary

>
> --
> Ron

[Ron Parsons]

In article <3hxjb.572390$cF.246908@rwcrnsc53>,
"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:

>In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan pilots
>with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
>curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?

Not from browsing statistical databases, that's for sure.

It's just something I was told when in Alaska, talking with Alaskan
pilots and those who rely on their services.

They do tend to use airplanes there much the same way we use pickup
trucks here in Texas. Not all of our pickups are licensed and on the
farm, many of the drivers are years from license age.

--
Ron

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article <3hxjb.572390$cF.246908@rwcrnsc53>,
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:
>
> >In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan
pilots
> >with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
> >curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?
>
> Not from browsing statistical databases, that's for sure.
>
> It's just something I was told when in Alaska, talking with Alaskan
> pilots and those who rely on their services.
>
> They do tend to use airplanes there much the same way we use pickup
> trucks here in Texas. Not all of our pickups are licensed and on the
> farm, many of the drivers are years from license age.

Ok, but you did say originally that 1 in 4 Alaskans is a *licensed* pilot.
Still, in order for the illegal ones to bring the total up to 1 in 4 instead
of 1 in 57, it would have to be the case that 93% of Alaskan pilots are
underage or otherwise unlicensed. Moreover, despite that and despite flying
in unusually dangerous conditions, they'd have to have a fatality rate six
times *lower* than the US average. (Even if every licensed and unlicensed
Alaskan pilot flies *perfectly*--even if no Alaskan pilot ever makes a
single error of judgement or skill in his or her entire life--that *still*
wouldn't bring their fatality rate down to one sixth the US average, because
more than 1/6 of fatal aviation accidents are caused by factors other than
pilot error, according to the Nall Report.)

I think your Alaskan acquaintences may have been pulling your leg. :-)

--Gary

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:

>I think your Alaskan acquaintences may have been pulling your leg. :-)

That is of course possible just as it is possible that you may be
pulling my leg with your numbers.

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

--
Ron

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:
>
> >I think your Alaskan acquaintances may have been pulling your leg. :-)
>
> That is of course possible just as it is possible that you may be
> pulling my leg with your numbers.

That's why I provided the sources of my numbers, rather than expecting
anyone to accept my word. It takes just a couple of minutes to verify the
accuracy of what I said.

> As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
> insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
> actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps. But then your acquaintance's source of information differs by *one
or two orders of magnitude* from what can be calculated from the FAA
database's actual count of pilots, or the NTSB database's actual count of
fatal accidents, or the Alaskan state government's estimate of Alaska's
population. How reliable, then, do you think your acquaintance's
unspecified source can be? At some point, doesn't the evidence force you to
conclude either that your acquaintance must have been mistaken (perhaps he
was passing along an undocumented rumor someone had conveyed to him, just as
you are doing), or that there was a mistake in your understanding or
recollection of what he told you?

By the way, even with just 1 pilot for every 57 persons, Alaska has a per
capita pilot population 8 times higher than the US overall--pretty
impressive.

--Gary

>
> --
> Ron

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Parsons wrote:
>
> As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
> insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
> actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>Ron Parsons wrote:
>>
>> As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
>> insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
>> actuaries had a different source than you.
>
>Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.
>

That may well be true. A visit there is a step back in time to when we
were a more cooperative and less litigious society.

--
Ron

[Gary L. Drescher]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ron Parsons wrote:
> >
> > As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
> > insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
> > actuaries had a different source than you.
>
> Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.

How would that bear on the current question though? If the source of the
(mis)information were actuarial as Ron speculated, it could still take
account of all pilots--insurance actuaries don't just look at the data for
the insured. Moreover, if the 1-in-4 figure *didn't* count uninsured
pilots, then even *more* than 1 in 4 Alaskans would be a pilot! But the 1
in 4 figure is already exaggerated by a factor of 16.

--Gary

> George Patterson

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:
>
> If the source of the
> (mis)information were actuarial as Ron speculated, it could still take
> account of all pilots--insurance actuaries don't just look at the data for
> the insured.

Yes, they do. The only thing that matters to an insurance company is the amount
of claims per pilot. If you don't carry insurance, you are off their radar.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.