Okay, so maybe flying *is* dangerous...

[Jay Honeck]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/index.htm

Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
second-most-dangerous job!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gene Seibel]

Occupation: Living
Death rate per 100,000: 100,000
Being a pilot doesn't change that one bit. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Marco Leon]

JOB??? So someone out there has been swiping my paychecks I should be
getting from all this flying...

Seriously, I wonder what the number would be if you take out Alaska. Also
would like to see part 135 vs. 121.

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/index.htm
>
> Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
> second-most-dangerous job!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[N93332]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Occupation: Living
> Death rate per 100,000: 100,000
> Being a pilot doesn't change that one bit. ;)

Life is a fatally sexually transmitted disease...

[Michael]

> Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
> second-most-dangerous job!

Most of that doesn't come from the airlines, though. Airline flying is
pretty safe. The dangerous flying is professional GA. And that's
still way safer than personal flying - which is more dangerous than
even cropdusting.

So yes, absolutely flying is dangerous - and personal flying
(non-instructional, non-business) is the most dangerous of all.

Check out the Nall Report - it's all there.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> So yes, absolutely flying is dangerous - and personal flying
> (non-instructional, non-business) is the most dangerous of all.
>
> Check out the Nall Report - it's all there.

Got a good link?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

> Got a good link?

Result of a 30 second google search:

http://www.gaservingamerica.com/library_pdfs/03nall.pdf

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Aug 2005 14:34:02 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote in
. com>::

>> Got a good link?
>
>Result of a 30 second google search:
>
>http://www.gaservingamerica.com/library_pdfs/03nall.pdf
>

Here's the most recent Nall Report (2004):
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf

[Roger]

On 26 Aug 2005 12:15:31 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/index.htm
>
>Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
>second-most-dangerous job!

That doesn't make sense as commercial aircraft travel is considered
about the safest form of travel. Of course they could be including
crop dusters. PPL would not, or should not be in that category.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> That doesn't make sense as commercial aircraft travel is considered
> about the safest form of travel. Of course they could be including
> crop dusters. PPL would not, or should not be in that category.

They said they're including all types of professional pilots. Crop dusters and
bush pilots included.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Martin Hotze]

On 26 Aug 2005 13:49:20 -0700, Michael wrote:

>So yes, absolutely flying is dangerous - and personal flying
>(non-instructional, non-business) is the most dangerous of all.

bah, the most dangerous place is the bed. Most people die in a bed.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[[email protected]]

And, most people die within 5 miles of home. So, I think everyone
should move!

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> And, most people die within 5 miles of home. So, I think everyone
> should move!

Also, if you must be hospitalized, make sure they don't give you Oxygen.
That stuff is a proven killer. Most people who pass away in the hospital
recieve it at some point, usually right before they expire.

[private]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> bah, the most dangerous place is the bed. Most people die in a bed.
>

I want to die in bed when I'm ninety,
Shot by a jealous husband.

[George Patterson]

private wrote:
>
> Shot by a jealous husband.

If I can still get him jealous, I'm not ready to go.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:UY8Qe.1266$Re1.166@trndny04...
> private wrote:
> >
> > Shot by a jealous husband.
>
> If I can still get him jealous, I'm not ready to go.
>

"Guns don't kill people; husbands that come home early kill people." --
Larry the Cable Guy

[Gary Drescher]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Seriously, I wonder what the number would be if you take out Alaska. Also
> would like to see part 135 vs. 121.

That question came up here a couple of years ago:

>It's easy to separate Alaska out using the NTSB database. In 2002,
>there were 15 fatal crashes in Alaska. Nationwide, there were 361 fatal
>crashes. So even if there'd been zero Alaskan fatalities, the nationwide
>number would be only 4% lower--the higher fatality rate in Alaska is hardly
>affecting the overall figure at all.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
>> second-most-dangerous job!
>
> Most of that doesn't come from the airlines, though. Airline flying is
> pretty safe.

Airline pilots do have a lower occupational fatality rate (by a factor of
three) than professional pilots in general. But the occupational fatality
rate for airline pilots is still seven times as high as the US average for
all occupations; the rate for airline pilots is slightly higher than the
rate for truck drivers.
Sources:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_481000.htm#(1)
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0003.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0201.pdf

--Gary

[Wade]

private wrote:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>bah, the most dangerous place is the bed. Most people die in a bed.
>>
>
>
> I want to die in bed when I'm ninety,
> Shot by a jealous husband.

I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather.
Not screaming, in terror, like his passengers.

[john smith]

Nice sig line Martin!

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't make sense as commercial aircraft travel is considered
> > about the safest form of travel. Of course they could be including
> > crop dusters. PPL would not, or should not be in that category.
>
> They said they're including all types of professional pilots. Crop dusters and
> bush pilots included.
>

It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being
killed.

These numbers would be more interesting if they broke out airline
flying by regional/commuter versus longer-haul ops. My brother-in-law
flies 767s for UPS on international routes, but started out on a Beech
1900 with Mesa. At Mesa he might have made 6 or more flights in one
day, versus UPS where he might do 12 in a month. IIRC risk on 121
airlines is proportional to the # of TO/landings.

-cwk.

[Jim]

On 30 Aug 2005 06:01:00 -0700, wrote:


>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being
>killed.

Curious.

If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?

If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2 chance
of either side coming up. If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do
the odds of either side coming up change?

[Jose]

> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?

Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
increase with each jump you make.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:28 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
>> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>
>Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
>increase with each jump you make.

The more times the coin turns up heads, the more likely the next toss
will be tails?

Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.

But you knew that. You just left out the smiley

Don

[[email protected]]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...

>>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being killed
>
> Curious.

Not really.

> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't
> the 1000th jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?

Yes, assuming the jumper survived the first 9999 jumps.

The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
successfully making 10000 safe jumps.

The difference is that the first jumper's probability of the
first 9999 jumps are all 100% successfully, having been
made in the past.

> If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2
> chance of either side coming up.

Yes, but there isn't a 1-in-2 chance of flipping ten heads (say)
in a row. Except, of course, if one is improbable enough to
flip nine heads in a row, then the tenth head is 1-in-2.

> If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do the odds of
> either side coming up change?

One is not just loooking at the last flip, one is looking at
the accumulation of *all* the flips. For instance, it's no
good surviving the 10000th jump, if you didn't survive
the 7359th. :-) :-( :-S

"Don Tuite" wrote:

> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.

Does the parachute know whether 10,000 jumpers made one
jump each, or whether one jumper made 10,000 jumps?

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. - William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

[Jim]

On 30 Aug 2005 08:45:23 -0700, wrote:

>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>>>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>>>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being killed
>>
>> Curious.
>
>Not really.
>

Maybe I should have written "Curious to me."?


>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't
>> the 1000th jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>
>Yes, assuming the jumper survived the first 9999 jumps.
>

Yes.

>The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>

Well, I just don't see this. I'll have to think on it some more.
I've been inclined to see each event as independent of and
not influenced by any preceding events.

>The difference is that the first jumper's probability of the
>first 9999 jumps are all 100% successfully, having been
>made in the past.
>
>> If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2
>> chance of either side coming up.
>
>Yes, but there isn't a 1-in-2 chance of flipping ten heads (say)
>in a row. Except, of course, if one is improbable enough to
>flip nine heads in a row, then the tenth head is 1-in-2.
>

I'm missing this one too. I may not have a very good grasp
of probability theory.

>> If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do the odds of
>> either side coming up change?
>
>One is not just loooking at the last flip, one is looking at
>the accumulation of *all* the flips. For instance, it's no
>good surviving the 10000th jump, if you didn't survive
>the 7359th. :-) :-( :-S
>
>"Don Tuite" wrote:
>
>> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>
>Does the parachute know whether 10,000 jumpers made one
>jump each, or whether one jumper made 10,000 jumps?

[Doug]

Ah yes, but flying a small, tandem, amphibious aircraft hangared at my
particular airport, flown by a 50 something pilot with Commercial, IFR
and CFI ratings, is actually quite safe, statistically. In fact, I
don't believe there has EVER been a fatality in one of those!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>>>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>>>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being killed
>>
>> Curious.
>
> Not really.
>
>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't
>> the 1000th jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>
> Yes, assuming the jumper survived the first 9999 jumps.
>
> The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
> jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
> than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
> successfully making 10000 safe jumps.



No, if the abolute odds of not surviving A jump are 1:10,000. The odds of
death are 1:10,000 on jump #1,#2,...#10000...#20000. The dice don't have a
memory. Which is exatly what you say below so I think you just mis-spoke
above.



>
> The difference is that the first jumper's probability of the
> first 9999 jumps are all 100% successfully, having been
> made in the past.
>
>> If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2
>> chance of either side coming up.
>
> Yes, but there isn't a 1-in-2 chance of flipping ten heads (say)
> in a row. Except, of course, if one is improbable enough to
> flip nine heads in a row, then the tenth head is 1-in-2.
>
>> If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do the odds of
>> either side coming up change?
>
> One is not just loooking at the last flip, one is looking at
> the accumulation of *all* the flips. For instance, it's no
> good surviving the 10000th jump, if you didn't survive
> the 7359th. :-) :-( :-S
>
> "Don Tuite" wrote:
>
>> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>
> Does the parachute know whether 10,000 jumpers made one
> jump each, or whether one jumper made 10,000 jumps?
>
> --
> Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
> dot ca
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
> and smite thee. - William Kershner
> Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ah yes, but flying a small, tandem, amphibious aircraft hangared at my
> particular airport, flown by a 50 something pilot with Commercial, IFR
> and CFI ratings, is actually quite safe, statistically. In fact, I
> don't believe there has EVER been a fatality in one of those!
>

But Doug, you're not statistically relevant until you die in a crash and
burn. Then, because since relatively few people do crash and burn you will
have an effect on the statistics.

Think about it.

[[email protected]]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...

>>The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>>jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>>than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>>successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>
> I've been inclined to see each event as independent
> of and not influenced by any preceding events.

Well, in a case like this, it's not true. While each jump
taken in isolation has the same probability, the odds
of a successful 10,000th jump certainly *are* dependent
on having 9,999 successful jumps before hand.

If any of those previous 9,999 jumps are unsuccessful,
then the probability of a successful 10,000 jump is 0%.

Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. - William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

[Jim]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:22:45 -0700, Jim > wrote:

>On 30 Aug 2005 08:45:23 -0700, wrote:
>
>>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>>>>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>>>>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being killed
>>>
>>> Curious.
>>
>>Not really.
>>
>
>Maybe I should have written "Curious to me."?
>
>
>>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't
>>> the 1000th jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>>
>>Yes, assuming the jumper survived the first 9999 jumps.
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>>The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>>jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>>than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>>successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>>
>
>Well, I just don't see this. I'll have to think on it some more.
>I've been inclined to see each event as independent of and
>not influenced by any preceding events.
>
>>The difference is that the first jumper's probability of the
>>first 9999 jumps are all 100% successfully, having been
>>made in the past.
>>
>>> If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2
>>> chance of either side coming up.
>>
>>Yes, but there isn't a 1-in-2 chance of flipping ten heads (say)
>>in a row. Except, of course, if one is improbable enough to
>>flip nine heads in a row, then the tenth head is 1-in-2.
>>
>
>I'm missing this one too. I may not have a very good grasp
>of probability theory.
>
>>> If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do the odds of
>>> either side coming up change?
>>
>>One is not just loooking at the last flip, one is looking at
>>the accumulation of *all* the flips. For instance, it's no
>>good surviving the 10000th jump, if you didn't survive
>>the 7359th. :-) :-( :-S
>>
>>"Don Tuite" wrote:
>>
>>> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>>
>>Does the parachute know whether 10,000 jumpers made one
>>jump each, or whether one jumper made 10,000 jumps?

Well, maybe I see the difference between the probability of the
outcome of an individual event and the probability of the SEQUENCE of
outcomes of a SEQUENCE of the event. Does the following make
sense?

If one has a chance of surviving an event of 9-in-10 (to simplify a
little), and the outcome of one such event has no bearing on the
outcome of a following identical event, then each such event is
independent of others that precede it and each such individual event
carries a survival chance of 9-in-10. The odds for each independent
occurrence do not change.

But, the probability of a given outcome occurring in each of a
SEQUENCE of events, taken as a SEQUENCE, changes with each
repetition of the event.

Since we are stipulating that the events are independent of each
other, the probability of a given sequence of outcomes is calculated
as the product of the probabilities of each individual outcome.

If I haven't completely mangled this then, the probability of
surviving through TWO sequential occurrences of an event, each
occurrence of which carries a 9-in-10 probability, is:

.9 * .9 = .81

If one were to survive through these two trials and try a third
the odds of surviving all three would be:

.9 * .9 * .9 = .729

Doesn't look good for an event with a 1-in-10 chance of dying!

Have I got this sorted out?

[Jose]

>>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
>>> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>>Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
>>increase with each jump you make.
> The more times the coin turns up heads, the more likely the next toss
> will be tails?
>
> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>
> But you knew that. You just left out the smiley

No, I meant it as I stated. The "population" in question is the
population of coin tosses (or jumps).

Suppose you have an exploding coin. It explodes (with great violence)
when it falls heads, and doesn't when it falls tails. If you flip that
coin once, you stand a fifty fifty chance of being dead from it.

If you keep flipping the coin all day, you stand a much greater chance
of being dead at the end of the day, even though if you survive, you
stand only a fifty fifty chance of being killed by the NEXT coin toss.

But I think you knew this too. With a statisitics discussion (like
this) it's hard to know whether the misunderstanding is =in= the basic
math, or in precisely what is being said =about= the (understood) basic
math.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

>>The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>>jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>>than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>>successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>>
>
>
> Well, I just don't see this.

Think of it this way - the =reason= the probability "adds up" (so to
speak) is that the more jumps you make, the greater the chance that you
have already died from a jump in the past. (to imagine this as a
non-silly example, suppose you did make 10,000 jumps, either
self-propelled (while alive) or tossed out of the plane on a static line
(if already dead). They toss you out (dead) as many times as necessary
to bring the total jumps to 10,000 (because the pilot is paid by the
jump and he needs the money)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:ed0Re.6670$7f5.4709@okepread01...

>> The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>> jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>> than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>> successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>
> No, if the abolute odds of not surviving A jump are 1:10,000.
> The odds of death are 1:10,000 on jump #1,#2,...#10000...
> #20000. The dice don't have a memory.

Yes, but a jumper *does* have a memory.
A jumper cannot have a second jump *unless* the first jump was
successful, correct?

Above, I was comparing two jumpers, one who had 9999
jumps under his belt, and another who had 0 jumps under his
belt.

For the new jumper, his odds are 1:10,000 (if that is accurate)
for his first jump.

For the experienced jumper, his odds of surviving his *first*
jump are 100%, since he already survived his first jump. It
is no longer in the realm of "probability", it is now in the realm
of certainty, since it is in the unchangeable past.

To give another example that might make things more clear,
suppose we have two people:

1) One person is going to take a revolver, put one bullet in
the gun, and play "Russian Roulette" 1000 times.

2) A second person has already played (and survived) a
game of Russian Roulette 999 times, and only has to
play it for one more time.

The second person has a 5/6 chance of survival.

Do you honestly give the first person 5/6 chance of survival?
I would give him (without calculating precisely) somwhere
around 0.005 % chance of survival.

There is a difference.

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. - William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

[Jose]

> If I haven't completely mangled this then, the probability of
> surviving through TWO sequential occurrences of an event, each
> occurrence of which carries a 9-in-10 probability, is:
>
> .9 * .9 = .81
>
> If one were to survive through these two trials and try a third
> the odds of surviving all three would be:
>
> .9 * .9 * .9 = .729
>
> Doesn't look good for an event with a 1-in-10 chance of dying!
>
> Have I got this sorted out?

Yep.

And you even got the part about multplying survival rates rather than
death rates (a sometimes subtle point - the sequence depends on multple
survivals, not multple deaths)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:ed0Re.6670$7f5.4709@okepread01...
>
>>> The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>>> jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>>> than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>>> successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>>
>> No, if the abolute odds of not surviving A jump are 1:10,000.
>> The odds of death are 1:10,000 on jump #1,#2,...#10000...
>> #20000. The dice don't have a memory.
>
> Yes, but a jumper *does* have a memory.
> A jumper cannot have a second jump *unless* the first jump was
> successful, correct?
>
> Above, I was comparing two jumpers, one who had 9999
> jumps under his belt, and another who had 0 jumps under his
> belt.
>
> For the new jumper, his odds are 1:10,000 (if that is accurate)
> for his first jump.
>
> For the experienced jumper, his odds of surviving his *first*
> jump are 100%, since he already survived his first jump. It
> is no longer in the realm of "probability", it is now in the realm
> of certainty, since it is in the unchangeable past.
>
> To give another example that might make things more clear,
> suppose we have two people:
>
> 1) One person is going to take a revolver, put one bullet in
> the gun, and play "Russian Roulette" 1000 times.
>
> 2) A second person has already played (and survived) a
> game of Russian Roulette 999 times, and only has to
> play it for one more time.
>
> The second person has a 5/6 chance of survival.
>
> Do you honestly give the first person 5/6 chance of survival?
> I would give him (without calculating precisely) somwhere
> around 0.005 % chance of survival.
>
> There is a difference.
>


The odds for an something to happen on any given roll,trigger pull or jump
don't change

[[email protected]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Kx1Re.6675$7f5.2476@okepread01...

>> The second person has a 5/6 chance of survival.
>>
>> Do you honestly give the first person 5/6 chance of survival?
>> I would give him (without calculating precisely) somwhere
>> around 0.005 % chance of survival.
>>
>> There is a difference.
>
> The odds for an something to happen on any given roll,
> trigger pull or jump don't change

Yes, I'm aware of that.

But we're not discussing an isolated instance.
We are discussion a *sequence* of related incidents.
Please see other replies in this thread.

Btw, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly believe
that someone who starts from "zero state", and plays Russian
Roulette with a 6-shooter, 1000 times, has a 5/6 chance of
survival? If you do, you don't understand probability theory.

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. - William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

[Michael]

> Airline pilots do have a lower occupational fatality rate (by a factor of
> three) than professional pilots in general.

And even that includes a lot of stuff we don't really think of as
airlines. Basically, the number you're quoting is everything with a
Part 121 Certificate, right down to the guys running Cessna 402's back
and forth to Nantucket and Beech 1900's and Twin Otters between Houston
Hobby and Houston Intercontinental. It also includes all the commuters
- not just the respectable operators like ConEx and Horizon running
RJ's, but also the prop jobs like Great Mistakes (common CFI slang for
Great Lakes).

When you look at what we think of as 'real' airlines - Northwest,
Continental, United, American, Delta, and the other major carriers -
the numbers are even better.

> But the occupational fatality
> rate for airline pilots is still seven times as high as the US average for
> all occupations

That's true but misleading. It's not substantially higher than other
occupations that involve heavy equipment, transportation, etc.

> the rate for airline pilots is slightly higher than the
> rate for truck drivers.

But only slightly. It is also in line with other occupations that
involve leaving the office and doing stuff - construction and factory
workers, for example, or even farmers. It's just that these farming,
manufacturing, and transportation jobs are on the decline. Most
americans work in an office or retail environment - and that's very
safe. Safe as houses.

Michael

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:Kx1Re.6675$7f5.2476@okepread01...
>
>>> The second person has a 5/6 chance of survival.
>>>
>>> Do you honestly give the first person 5/6 chance of survival?
>>> I would give him (without calculating precisely) somwhere
>>> around 0.005 % chance of survival.
>>>
>>> There is a difference.
>>
>> The odds for an something to happen on any given roll,
>> trigger pull or jump don't change
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that.
>
> But we're not discussing an isolated instance.
> We are discussion a *sequence* of related incidents.
> Please see other replies in this thread.
>
> Btw, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly believe
> that someone who starts from "zero state", and plays Russian
> Roulette with a 6-shooter, 1000 times, has a 5/6 chance of
> survival? If you do, you don't understand probability theory.
>


Of course not. I also don't expect to get a Royal Flush when the guy accross
the table has 4-of-a-kind and a whole lot of chips but if I play poker long
enough I might.
>

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Roger wrote:

>>Scroll down to the bottom -- "aircraft pilot" is listed as the
>>second-most-dangerous job!
>
>
> That doesn't make sense as commercial aircraft travel is considered
> about the safest form of travel. Of course they could be including
> crop dusters. PPL would not, or should not be in that category.

Air travel is safer than other means of travel when considered <by
distance traveled>. So it's safer to travel a given distance by
commercial flying than by car. But, to my knowledge, already when
considering the risk by time in vehicle, commercial flying is more
dangerous than driving. Airline pilots cover such tremendous distances,
that even with a lower risk by mile they end up with a very significant
risk in total.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Doug]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Ah yes, but flying a small, tandem, amphibious aircraft hangared at my
> > particular airport, flown by a 50 something pilot with Commercial, IFR
> > and CFI ratings, is actually quite safe, statistically. In fact, I
> > don't believe there has EVER been a fatality in one of those!
> >
>
> But Doug, you're not statistically relevant until you die in a crash and
> burn. Then, because since relatively few people do crash and burn you will
> have an effect on the statistics.
>
> Think about it.

Yes, but what are the chances of that?

[George Patterson]

Michael wrote:
>
> Safe as houses.

Judging from the photos of Biloxi, that's not necessarily very safe.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Jim wrote:
>
> Have I got this sorted out?

Yep. I knew this but couldn't figure out how to put it clearly. You did it very
well.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:
> Ah yes, but flying a small, tandem, amphibious aircraft hangared at my
> particular airport, flown by a 50 something pilot with Commercial, IFR
> and CFI ratings, is actually quite safe, statistically. In fact, I
> don't believe there has EVER been a fatality in one of those!

Using that logic, any flight made by George Patterson is perfectly safe. He's
never bent an airplane.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[george]

George Patterson wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Ah yes, but flying a small, tandem, amphibious aircraft hangared at my
> > particular airport, flown by a 50 something pilot with Commercial, IFR
> > and CFI ratings, is actually quite safe, statistically. In fact, I
> > don't believe there has EVER been a fatality in one of those!
>
> Using that logic, any flight made by George Patterson is perfectly safe. He's
> never bent an airplane.
>

I just had a quick resume of all the people I know who died in vehicle
accidents, marine accidents and flying accidents.
Vehicle deaths are way way out front.

[Rob]

george wrote:
> I just had a quick resume of all the people I know who died in vehicle
> accidents, marine accidents and flying accidents.
> Vehicle deaths are way way out front.

how do those numbers relate if you divide them by the total number of
people you know who drive vehicles, operate marine vessels, and fly
airplanes?

-R

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:29:59 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
>>>> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>>>Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
>>>increase with each jump you make.
>> The more times the coin turns up heads, the more likely the next toss
>> will be tails?
>>
>> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>>
>> But you knew that. You just left out the smiley
>
>No, I meant it as I stated. The "population" in question is the
>population of coin tosses (or jumps).
>
>Suppose you have an exploding coin. It explodes (with great violence)
>when it falls heads, and doesn't when it falls tails. If you flip that
>coin once, you stand a fifty fifty chance of being dead from it.
>
>If you keep flipping the coin all day, you stand a much greater chance
>of being dead at the end of the day, even though if you survive, you
>stand only a fifty fifty chance of being killed by the NEXT coin toss.
>
>But I think you knew this too. With a statisitics discussion (like
>this) it's hard to know whether the misunderstanding is =in= the basic
>math, or in precisely what is being said =about= the (understood) basic
>math.

Well, I *do* like the exploding coin.

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Don Tuite wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:28 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
>>>jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>>
>>Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
>>increase with each jump you make.
>
>
> The more times the coin turns up heads, the more likely the next toss
> will be tails?

No, but the odds of getting at least one tail after 100 flips is greater
than getting a tail on just one flip. Remember, it only takes one bad
jump to kill you and the odds of getting one bad jump is greater if you
make 100 jumps than if you make one.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>>news:ed0Re.6670$7f5.4709@okepread01...
>>
>>
>>>>The probability of a person having successfully made 9999
>>>>jumps surviving his 10000th jump is very different (and less)
>>>>than the probability of a person who has made no jumps,
>>>>successfully making 10000 safe jumps.
>>>
>>>No, if the abolute odds of not surviving A jump are 1:10,000.
>>>The odds of death are 1:10,000 on jump #1,#2,...#10000...
>>>#20000. The dice don't have a memory.
>>
>>Yes, but a jumper *does* have a memory.
>>A jumper cannot have a second jump *unless* the first jump was
>>successful, correct?
>>
>>Above, I was comparing two jumpers, one who had 9999
>>jumps under his belt, and another who had 0 jumps under his
>>belt.
>>
>>For the new jumper, his odds are 1:10,000 (if that is accurate)
>>for his first jump.
>>
>>For the experienced jumper, his odds of surviving his *first*
>>jump are 100%, since he already survived his first jump. It
>>is no longer in the realm of "probability", it is now in the realm
>>of certainty, since it is in the unchangeable past.
>>
>>To give another example that might make things more clear,
>>suppose we have two people:
>>
>>1) One person is going to take a revolver, put one bullet in
>> the gun, and play "Russian Roulette" 1000 times.
>>
>>2) A second person has already played (and survived) a
>> game of Russian Roulette 999 times, and only has to
>> play it for one more time.
>>
>>The second person has a 5/6 chance of survival.
>>
>>Do you honestly give the first person 5/6 chance of survival?
>>I would give him (without calculating precisely) somwhere
>>around 0.005 % chance of survival.
>>
>>There is a difference.
>>
>
>
>
> The odds for an something to happen on any given roll,trigger pull or jump
> don't change
>
>

True, but that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is surviving a SERIES
of future events, not just the next one.

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Aug 2005 06:01:00 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>It isn't dangerous to go skydiving (1-in-10000 chance of dying) once.
>>But "being a regular skydiver" where one jumps 100 or perhaps 1000
>>times in a lifetime gives you a much less trivial chance of being
>>killed.
>
> Curious.
>
> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>
> If one flips a fair coin, over the long run there is a 1-in-2 chance
> of either side coming up. If one flips a fair coin 1 million times do
> the odds of either side coming up change?

No. Gambler's Fallacy.

moo

[george]

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

[Aluckyguess]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:28 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>> If each jump carries a 1-in-10000 chance of dying, wouldn't the 1000th
>>> jump also carry a 1-in-10000 chance of dying?
>>
>>Yes. But the odds of being dead before reaching the 10,000th jump
>>increase with each jump you make.
>
> The more times the coin turns up heads, the more likely the next toss
> will be tails?
No its still 50/50
>
> Actuary's numbers relate to populations, not individuals.
>
> But you knew that. You just left out the smiley
>
> Don