planes vs cycles

[PaulH]

I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
mile? Incidents or fatalities?

[Gary Drescher]

"PaulH" > wrote in message
m...
> I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
> accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
> the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
> mile? Incidents or fatalities?

GA accident and fatality statistics can be found in the ASF's Nall Report:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf .

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"PaulH" > wrote in message
m...
> I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
> accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
> the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
> mile? Incidents or fatalities?

Gary already provided a reference for aviation statistics. You can find
motorcycle statistics on the NHTSA web site, and probably some other
government sites (seems like I came across a "US Bureau of Statistics" web
site). I don't recall the URLs off the top of my head (though the NHTSA is
probably www.nhtsa.gov) but last time I went looking for this stuff, it was
very easy to find using Google.

I'll just add that it's important to keep in mind that it's very difficult
to make "apples to apples" comparisons. You need to decide whether you're
going to compare miles, time, or number of trips, and whether you're going
to do those comparisons using the vehicle count or the passenger count.

Invariably, someone will disagree with your choice, so you just have to pick
the one that you think is relevant to you. Also, "GA" encompasses a wide
range of operations, from corporate aviation (very safe) to water bombing
fires (not very safe). Even within the "four seater lightplane recreational
flying" category, different types have varying safety records, affected by
"typical mission", landing speed, crash survivability, and the like.

With all that variability, you also need to decide what "similar" means to
you. Some people will say that as long as the accident rates are about the
same order of magnitude, they are similar. Other people will say that they
are only similar if they are within 10% of each other.

Anyway, it's my opinion, having looked at the various accidents rates
myself, that motorcycles and light airplanes have similar fatality rates,
while automobiles are somewhat better. Generally speaking, the fatal
accident rate seems to have more to do with how easily one can survive a
crash in a particular kind of vehicle than it does with how often accidents
actually happen.

Finally, keep in mind that with motor vehicles, for every accident that
involves more than one vehicle, most of the time one of the operators of the
vehicles had no way to avoid the accident, it being caused by the operator
of the other vehicle. In aviation, airplane accidents almost always involve
just one occupied aircraft. In my opinion, this makes a given accident rate
effectively "less worrisome", since as the pilot I have more control over my
destiny. That doesn't necessarily make me *safer*, but it makes me
*happier*. :)

Pete

[Peter]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "PaulH" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
>>accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
>>the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
>>mile? Incidents or fatalities?

> I'll just add that it's important to keep in mind that it's very difficult
> to make "apples to apples" comparisons. You need to decide whether you're
> going to compare miles, time, or number of trips, and whether you're going
> to do those comparisons using the vehicle count or the passenger count.
>
Agreed. Here's one comparison based on number of fatalities per million
hours spent in a variety of activities (incl. GA and motorcycling):
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

[Andy Fogg]

Obviously distance travelled is a key issue and I do understand the need for
an 'apples and apples' comparison. However, in the UK we have been
averaging 18 GA accidents a year (which icludes higher risk types such as
autogyros and balloons) compared to a steady 3,500 deaths a year through
road traffic accidents. Only a serious statistician could make any
meaningfull comparisons from these different forms of transport but I do
think that things should be kept into perspective. i.e. if you are
concerned about accidental death where could your efforts save the most
lives GA or car?

Andy



"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "PaulH" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
> >>accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
> >>the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
> >>mile? Incidents or fatalities?
>
> > I'll just add that it's important to keep in mind that it's very
difficult
> > to make "apples to apples" comparisons. You need to decide whether
you're
> > going to compare miles, time, or number of trips, and whether you're
going
> > to do those comparisons using the vehicle count or the passenger count.
> >
> Agreed. Here's one comparison based on number of fatalities per million
> hours spent in a variety of activities (incl. GA and motorcycling):
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>

[Andy Fogg]

I of course refer to the average of 18 fatal accidents each year - there of
course many more non fatal ones!

"Andy Fogg" > wrote in message
...
> Obviously distance travelled is a key issue and I do understand the need
for
> an 'apples and apples' comparison. However, in the UK we have been
> averaging 18 GA accidents a year (which icludes higher risk types such as
> autogyros and balloons) compared to a steady 3,500 deaths a year through
> road traffic accidents. Only a serious statistician could make any
> meaningfull comparisons from these different forms of transport but I do
> think that things should be kept into perspective. i.e. if you are
> concerned about accidental death where could your efforts save the most
> lives GA or car?
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > > "PaulH" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > >
> > >>I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
> > >>accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
> > >>the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
> > >>mile? Incidents or fatalities?
> >
> > > I'll just add that it's important to keep in mind that it's very
> difficult
> > > to make "apples to apples" comparisons. You need to decide whether
> you're
> > > going to compare miles, time, or number of trips, and whether you're
> going
> > > to do those comparisons using the vehicle count or the passenger
count.
> > >
> > Agreed. Here's one comparison based on number of fatalities per million
> > hours spent in a variety of activities (incl. GA and motorcycling):
> > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
> >
>
>

[Gene Seibel]

Cycles make only short flights and the landings are usually quite nasty.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


(PaulH) wrote in message >...
> I've seen statements in various aviation chat rooms that the GA
> accident rate is similar to that of motorcycles, but have never seen
> the actual statistics. Is this GA overall? Accidents per hour or per
> mile? Incidents or fatalities?

[PaulH]

Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.

Anybody have motorcycle data?

[Kyler Laird]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

>I'll just add that it's important to keep in mind that it's very difficult
>to make "apples to apples" comparisons. You need to decide whether you're
>going to compare miles, time, or number of trips, and whether you're going
>to do those comparisons using the vehicle count or the passenger count.

Hmmm...where do I find statistics for injuries while operating
motorcycles at 200MPH with five passengers...

--kyler

[Greg]

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
> Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
> accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
> 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
>
> Anybody have motorcycle data?

Is the 125mph a pirooma number? Is that a fair estimate of GA aircraft
average speed?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg" > wrote in message
...
> "PaulH" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
> > accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
> > 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
> >
> > Anybody have motorcycle data?
>
> Is the 125mph a pirooma number? Is that a fair estimate of GA aircraft
> average speed?

Good point. Does that include corporate aviation?

GA would be Cubs at 75MPH up to turboprops (ignoring the corporate big iron)
at 300MPH.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andy Fogg" > wrote in message
...
> Obviously distance travelled is a key issue and I do understand the need
for
> an 'apples and apples' comparison. However, in the UK we have been
> averaging 18 GA accidents a year (which icludes higher risk types such as
> autogyros and balloons) compared to a steady 3,500 deaths a year through
> road traffic accidents.

Those are absolute rates. They are meaningless without considering the
exposure to the risk. Which, of course, is what this entire thread is
about, basically.

18 fatal GA accidents per year would be a very big problem if there were
only 18 GA flights each year.


> Only a serious statistician could make any
> meaningfull comparisons from these different forms of transport but I do
> think that things should be kept into perspective. i.e. if you are
> concerned about accidental death where could your efforts save the most
> lives GA or car?

It depends on who you are. If you are a person who will never fly in an
airplane, but who spends a lot of time on the highway, you will invest your
efforts in saving lives in cars. If you fly more than you drive, you
probably care more about GA fatal accidents.

The question isn't about where should safety measures be implemented. It's
about relative comparison of safety for various activities (motorcycling and
flying, in particular).

The analysis is, of course, very different if you're a person in charge of
public policy rule-making and budget-writing where you have to decide where
to invest your efforts. But that's an entirely different conversation than
the one we're having here.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm...where do I find statistics for injuries while operating
> motorcycles at 200MPH with five passengers...

Um, I dunno...the SSTGP (Superbike Side-car/Trailer Grand Prix) web site?

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:17 -0700, Peter >
wrote:

>http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

There sure must be a lot of sky-divers, to make "living" more
dangerous than say "snowmobiling."

I see that "passive living" is a whole lot safer, however--safer than
anything except a house fire.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

The usual method for comparing the safety of automobiles is *drivers*
killed per million miles driven. (The Toyota Avalon is the safest
automobile, BTW.) That eliminates the skewing you get with passengers,
for example when comparing Dodge Caravans with Mazda Miatas.

Strikes me this would also be the only fair way to compare a
motorcycle and a lightplane.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[James Robinson]

PaulH wrote:
>
> Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
> accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
> 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
>
> Anybody have motorcycle data?

Much information is available in this report:

http://www.bts.dot.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/index.html

As others have pointed out, you can compare risk using a number of
approaches. For example, if you consider GA and motorcycles to be
simply a mode of transportation, you would probably compare fatality
rates per passenger-mile. This yields the following:

General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles

Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
another.

You can also look at it by vehicle-miles.

General Aviation 0.122 / million aircraft-miles
Motorcycles 0.341 / million vehicle-miles

If you consider both to be forms of recreation, then time might be a
better basis, using vehicle hours, or passenger-hours. These numbers
are readily available for GA, (2.2 fatalities / 100,000 flight-hours or
0.75 / 100,000 passenger-hours) but one would have to either estimate an
average speed for a motorcycle, or dig through the data to calculate the
numbers.

For argument's sake, if you assume an average speed of 25 mph for a
motorcycle, then the rate would be 0.14 / 100,000 vehicle-hours, or 0.12
per 100,000 passenger-hours. This would make motorcycles 6 times safer
than GA as a form of recreation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Strikes me this would also be the only fair way to compare a
> motorcycle and a lightplane.

It is fair if all you care about is the risk to the pilot.

It is not fair if you care about whether passengers survive. Just because a
vehicle carries more passengers, that doesn't mean it's unfair to take that
into account when comparing safety.

For example, personally, I think it's very relevant that an airline jet
might be carrying 100-300 passengers (depending on type) when it crashes.
They crash a lot less often, but when they do, they kill a lot more people
at once. That's not a fact you can just ignore, IMHO. (Of course, even
with this characteristic is taken into account, airliners are still way
safer than little planes).

Pete

[Peter]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:17 -0700, Peter >
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>
>
> There sure must be a lot of sky-divers, to make "living" more
> dangerous than say "snowmobiling."

No, since the small number of skydiving accidents have very little
effect on the overall life expectancy of the population.

'Living' having a higher fatality rate than snowmobiling just means that
you'd need to have a group of people snowmobile for a cumulative total
of more than the average life expectancy (about 74 years or 650000
hours) before one of them would be statistically likely to have a fatal
accident.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> The usual method for comparing the safety of automobiles is *drivers*
> killed per million miles driven.

Which may be one reason it took years for passenger airbags to become common.

> Strikes me this would also be the only fair way to compare a
> motorcycle and a lightplane.

I disagree. A fatal accident is a fatal accident, even if the fatality is a
passenger. Personally, I would be more interested in the number of fatal accidents
per 1,000 hours, or similar stats. The general public would probably be most
interested in the number of fatalities (both passenger and crew) per 1,000 hours, or
perhaps the number of trips per fatality.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Ash Wyllie]

Tom Sixkiller opined

>"Greg" > wrote in message
...
>> "PaulH" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
>> > accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
>> > 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
>> >
>> > Anybody have motorcycle data?
>>
>> Is the 125mph a pirooma number? Is that a fair estimate of GA aircraft
>> average speed?

>Good point. Does that include corporate aviation?

>GA would be Cubs at 75MPH up to turboprops (ignoring the corporate big iron)
>at 300MPH.

GA also includes helicopters. Break them out, and GA would look a lot better.
The real question, to my mind, is what is the figure for SE piston aircraft?


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Teacherjh]

>>
Just because a
vehicle carries more passengers, that doesn't mean it's unfair to take that
into account when comparing safety.
<<

Depends how you are measuring "safety", what you are comparing it to, and to
what end.

If there's only two airliner flights in a year, each carrying 300 passengers,
one crashes, and they all die.... and there's only two motorcycle trips in that
same year, and one crashes, killing the rider, is the plane really 302 times
more dangerous than the motorcycle?

Are you 302 times more likely to die in a plane crash than by riding a
motorcycle?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Depends how you are measuring "safety", what you are comparing it to, and
to
> what end.
>
> If there's only two airliner flights in a year, each carrying 300
passengers,
> one crashes, and they all die.... and there's only two motorcycle trips in
that
> same year, and one crashes, killing the rider, is the plane really 302
times
> more dangerous than the motorcycle?

I never said anything about making relative comparisons. I'm just pointing
out that you can't say it's "not fair" to compare the two. Depending on
what information you're interested in, it might be completely fair.

As for your sample comparison, if you're looking for passenger-flight safety
numbers then yes, the airliner is 600 times "more dangerous" than the
motorcycle when measured in fatalities per trip (I don't know where you came
up with 302, since you failed to specify your units). Whether that's an
interesting comparison to someone is up to them to decide.

> Are you 302 times more likely to die in a plane crash than by riding a
> motorcycle?

Measured how? You haven't specified the units you're using, but assuming
you did the math right, then statistically speaking (using your obviously
statistically insignificant sample) the answer would be "yes". In your
example, the statistical difference would be explained as much by the
greater likelihood of actually riding in an airplane versus in a motorcycle,
and the units change once you make the assumption that the passenger is on
each, but with the parameters you've specified so far, airliners are
statistically more likely to kill a given person.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
As for your sample comparison, if you're looking for passenger-flight safety
numbers then yes, the airliner is 600 times "more dangerous" than the
motorcycle when measured in fatalities per trip (I don't know where you came
up with 302, since you failed to specify your units).
<<

There are two crew members on a jetliner. At least the hypothetical one I was
using. One jet crashes, killing all aboard (300 pax, 2 crew). This represents
half of all jet activity. One motorcycle crashes, killing all aboard (one
person). This represents half of all motorcycle activity (in my hypthetical
Oz).

So, if we "count" the fatalities, a jet is 302 times more dangerous. But if we
just count the fatals, they are equally dangerous.

If these statistics hold up for the next year (two flights, two motorcycle
rides), and I decide to fly rather than take the motorcycle, how much more
likely am I to die? Not 302 times more likely.

>> I never said anything about making relative comparisons.

That's what the thread's about.

As for "more likely to kill a given person" that depends on whether the person
is given before making the choice (to fly or ride), or after.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dave Stadt]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller opined
>
> >"Greg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "PaulH" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
> >> > accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
> >> > 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
> >> >
> >> > Anybody have motorcycle data?
> >>
> >> Is the 125mph a pirooma number? Is that a fair estimate of GA aircraft
> >> average speed?
>
> >Good point. Does that include corporate aviation?
>
> >GA would be Cubs at 75MPH up to turboprops (ignoring the corporate big
iron)
> >at 300MPH.
>
> GA also includes helicopters. Break them out, and GA would look a lot
better.
> The real question, to my mind, is what is the figure for SE piston
aircraft?
>
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu for President!
> Why vote for a lesser evil?


Exactly, GA accident statistics cover such a broad range of flight
activities the numbers mean absolutely nothing regarding the type of flying
I do.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> There are two crew members on a jetliner. At least the hypothetical one I
was
> using. One jet crashes, killing all aboard (300 pax, 2 crew).

I see...I misread your post, and thought you had both airplanes crashing,
not just one. Not getting enough sleep these days I guess. :)


> If these statistics hold up for the next year (two flights, two motorcycle
> rides), and I decide to fly rather than take the motorcycle, how much more
> likely am I to die? Not 302 times more likely.

No. But then, that's not the calculation you'd use for making that
comparison. You seem to intentionally be mixing your units in order to
prove some point. What point you're trying to make is lost on me, but you
need to stop mixing your units. You have to use the units that address the
comparison you want to make.

If you want to compare overall transportation safety, then a measure that
accounts for the number of passengers is useful. If you want to compare
individual passenger risk, then a per-trip analysis would be more useful.

As an example of someone that might care about the former more than the
latter, consider an insurance underwriter writing policies that cover
passenger losses.

> >> I never said anything about making relative comparisons.
>
> That's what the thread's about.

By "relative comparison", I mean "a quantified ratio of risk". The thread
started out asking simply whether one activity was more risky than another.
The question of HOW MUCH riskier one is than the other wasn't asked, nor
should anything I wrote be construed as addressing that question.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

>General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
>Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles
>
>Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
>another.

Another shibboleth ruined!

What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?

Of course, as posted earlier, it really should be *driver*-miles, not
passenger-miles, since automobiles likely carry more people on average
than GA aircraft.

And where does GA stop? Does it include biz jets? I think what most of
us would like to know is the hazard of *lightplanes" perhaps defined
as single-engine recips. I don't suppose there are enough P-51s around
to skew the numbers.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Dave]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> PaulH wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the link. The report shows for GA overall 1.33 fatal
> > accidents per 100,000 hours in 2002. If we use an average speed of
> > 125 mph, we have 1.33 fatal accidents for 12.5 million miles.
> >
> > Anybody have motorcycle data?
>
> Much information is available in this report:
>
>
I'm not sure how anyone came to making this comparison, but I've been riding
for 35 years and I can tell you that i doesn't take nuch cockpit time to
determine that flying exposes you to less danger than riding. Now, if 30,000
other people started flying 10 feet away while phoning, eating, reading,
sleeping, etc. things would clearly change. But for the basic premise, you
don't even need the stats.

[Teacherjh]

>>
You seem to intentionally be mixing your units in order to
prove some point. [...]

If you want to compare overall transportation safety, then a measure that
accounts for the number of passengers is useful. If you want to compare
individual passenger risk, then a per-trip analysis would be more useful.

As an example of someone that might care about [overall transportation safety
instead as opposed
to individual passenger risk] consider an insurance underwriter writing
policies that cover
passenger losses.
<<

My point is really the same as yours - that comparing apples to hand grenades
is tricky. As for an insurance underwriter, depending on the policy, there
will be more people paying for policies in airplanes than in motorcycles, so
the costs is spread out too. However, having the state spend money to address
road safety vs airway improvements would be an example of where the raw numbers
rather than the "relative risk" is more important.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> [...] As for an insurance underwriter, depending on the policy, there
> will be more people paying for policies in airplanes than in motorcycles,
so
> the costs is spread out too.

How do you figure that? Generally speaking, an insurance policy goes with
an airplane or motorcycle, not specifically the driver of that vehicle.
That is, you don't wind up with more policies for airplanes just because
there are more people riding in an airplane.

> However, having the state spend money to address
> road safety vs airway improvements would be an example of where the raw
numbers
> rather than the "relative risk" is more important.

Yes, that would be another example.

Pete

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?
>


This keeps popping up but in the end, any transportation system is only as
safe as it's operators make it. You can make aviation very safe or very
dangerous and the same goes for driving and cycling. However, on the roads
your safety is more dependant on others than in aviation.

A few days ago I was rear ended while driving my Accord at 35 on a local
main road. The lady who hit me was driving a large SUV at around 55 and
said she wasn't looking when she hit me. They are going over my car now but
it may very well be totalled (I was extremely lucky and was not injured).
In my experience driving seems obvoiusly more dangerous than aviation
especially when you figure in the experience and competence of the other
operators.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Generally speaking, an insurance policy goes with
an airplane or motorcycle, not specifically the driver of that vehicle.
That is, you don't wind up with more policies for airplanes just because
there are more people riding in an airplane.
<<

The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the cost
out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based on
number of seats).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
> >Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles
> >
> >Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
> >another.
>
> Another shibboleth ruined!
>
> What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?
>
> Of course, as posted earlier, it really should be *driver*-miles, not
> passenger-miles, since automobiles likely carry more people on average
> than GA aircraft.

Really? Most cars I see on the highway are empty, but our plane is usually
2 or 3 people (sometimes 5 or 6).

Could the airports install PlanePool lanes? Or maybe ATC could give priority
to planes with two or more people aboard.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
> insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the
cost
> out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based
on
> number of seats).

Since the owner/operator/pilot of the vehicle most often winds up being
liable for passenger damages, passenger insurance doesn't spread the risk
out nearly as much as you appaer to be claiming.

As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.
<<

Maybe we're saying the same thing different ways. I thought it would go
without saying that a crash that kills 300 is 300 times worse than a crash that
kills 1. My point was that it doesn't increase the likelihood by itself.

Now, if I were going to fly a jetliner, and one airline uses 30 seat airplanes,
and the other uses 250 seat airplanes, and they fly the same number of
passengers per year, and they each have one crash per year, I'd fly the smaller
planes. But this comes right out when you look at trips per year.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

> But for the basic premise, you
>don't even need the stats.

Well, the stats do help, because they often contradict basic premises.

For example, the driver of a Toyota Avalon (also Accord, Camry, even
Civic) is much less likely to die in a million miles than is the
driver of the biggest, baddest SUV or light truck on the road.

Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that you will save your life if you
switch from an Escalade to an Avalon. It is very clear, looking at the
range of automobiles and light trucks, that the more likely the thang
is to be driven by a young man, the more dangerous it is to its
driver. I have not seen many University of New Hampshire students in
Avalons.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Duck Dog]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:02:49 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>Really? Most cars I see on the highway are empty,

Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
live?

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:28:12 GMT, Duck Dog > wrote:

>Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
>live?

In the Washington suburbs, drivers are known to buy inflatable dolls
for the purpose of planting one in the passenger seat, so as to
qualify for the car-pool lane.

Now hybrid cars also qualify.

I can see the day when empty cars will indeed be on the road. I wonder
if an empty hybrid still qualifies for the car-pool lane?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[James Robinson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
> >Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles
> >
> >Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
> >another.
>
> Another shibboleth ruined!
>
> What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?

Automobiles 0.021 / million passenger-miles

Making the fatality rate 70% higher per passenger-mile for GA.

> Of course, as posted earlier, it really should be *driver*-miles, not
> passenger-miles, since automobiles likely carry more people on average
> than GA aircraft.

That is why I also quoted the numbers for vehicle-miles in my earlier
post -- One vehicle, one driver.

Beyond that, the average occupancy of automobiles is typically quoted as
about 1.6 people per vehicle. In General Aviation, as defined by the
FAA, occupancy is a bit over 3 per aircraft.

> And where does GA stop? Does it include biz jets?

Yes, which are considered quite safe.

> I think what most of us would like to know is the hazard of
> *lightplanes" perhaps defined as single-engine recips.

Single engine piston aircraft contribute 60% of all aircraft hours.
Turbojets contribute about 10%, with rotorcraft (7$), turboprops (7%),
and experimentals (5%) contributing most of the rest.

Single engine recips would likely contribute less than 60% of the
passenger-miles, considering the higher speed and greater capacity of
most turboprops and turbojets. Recips probably are involved in more
than their share of all fatal accidents. That suggests that a safety
comparison of small piston aircraft to automobiles on a passenger-mile
basis would be worse than shown above for all GA activity.

[Duck Dog]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:53:40 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:28:12 GMT, Duck Dog > wrote:
>
>>Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
>>live?
>
>In the Washington suburbs,

My condolences. I grew up there, and go back every now and then.
What a zoo.

>drivers are known to buy inflatable dolls
>for the purpose of planting one in the passenger seat, so as to
>qualify for the car-pool lane.

Is it still 2 drivers on 66 and 3 on 95?

>Now hybrid cars also qualify.
>
>I can see the day when empty cars will indeed be on the road. I wonder
>if an empty hybrid still qualifies for the car-pool lane?

Like I said, I would hope that it would at least have a driver.

>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
>The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
>Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:59:33 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>Recips probably are involved in more
>than their share of all fatal accidents. That suggests that a safety
>comparison of small piston aircraft to automobiles on a passenger-mile
>basis would be worse than shown above for all GA activity.

Okay, I am even more skeptical of the figures than before. While I
realize that bizjets are more dangerous than large airliners, still
they're hardly in the same league as a 172 or Bonanza.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org