GA _is_ safer than some modes of transport. Was: Tragedy

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
> forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
> point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

> Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_figure_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>> Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
>> forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
>> point.
>
> Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
> or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.
>
> According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
> motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:
>
> In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
> per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
> were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
> average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
> works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.
>
> In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
> were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
> motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
> million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.
>
> In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
> GA by several common measures.
>
> What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
> numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
> are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:
>
> Table 5:
> Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
> ------------------------------------------
> Bicyclists 5.27
> General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15
>
> Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
> ------------------------------------------
> Pedestrians 15.36
> General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22
>
>> Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.
>
> If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
> qualms about taking a general aviation flight.
>
>
> [1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
> http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_figure_01_145.html
>
> [2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm

If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB

[John T]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message

>
> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
> goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
> low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
> and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with "VFR
into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support stupidity as the
cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is iffy.

As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily chalk
up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Dave Stadt]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Skylune" > wrote:
> >> Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
> >> forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
> >> point.
> >
> > Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
> > or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.
> >
> > According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
> > motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:
> >
> > In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
> > per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
> > were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
> > average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
> > works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.
> >
> > In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
> > were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
> > motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
> > million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.
> >
> > In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous
than
> > GA by several common measures.
> >
> > What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the
normalized
> > numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
> > are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:
> >
> > Table 5:
> > Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Bicyclists 5.27
> > General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15
> >
> > Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres

> > ------------------------------------------
> > Pedestrians 15.36
> > General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22
> >
> >> Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.
> >
> > If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
> > qualms about taking a general aviation flight.
> >
> >
> > [1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
> >
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_figure_01_145.html
> >
> > [2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
> > http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm
>
> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
> down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low
altitude
> maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
> notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.
>
> KB

Other modes of transportation have as much if not more "stupid" factor. If
you back it out for one mode you need to be consistent and back it out for
others. All of which is impossible so just stick with the raw numbers for
any kind of meaningful comparison.

[Paul Stuart]

Jim

Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to see
a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.


Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote:
> > Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
> > forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
> > point.
>
> Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
> or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.
>
> According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
> motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:
>
> In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
> per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
> were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
> average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
> works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.
>
> In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
> were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
> motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
> million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.
>
> In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
> GA by several common measures.
>
> What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
> numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
> are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:
>
> Table 5:
> Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
> ------------------------------------------
> Bicyclists 5.27
> General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15
>
> Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
> ------------------------------------------
> Pedestrians 15.36
> General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22
>
> > Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.
>
> If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
> qualms about taking a general aviation flight.
>
>
> [1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
> http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_figure_01_145.html
>
> [2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>Jim
>
>Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
>other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to see
>a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
>pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
>that way.

Snowmobiles are very dangerous too. The big problem, common to GA and to
motorcycles, comes with the word "transportation". When it's horses,
snowmobiles, etc, people ride for leisure, and do not have to get anywhere.
When motorcyclists and private pilots (and bicycle riders too) decide to
conjugate pleasure with necessity, and use their vehicle to get where they're
going, they impose "get there" pressures that increase risk. They ride or fly
in conditions that would normally have kept them grounded. Continued VFR into
IMC, though not "inevitable", becomes much more probable when a pilot is a
thousand miles from home, and has to be back for work, or get the plane back,
or whatever. If you'er going to fly to get places, then sooner or later the
weather will catch up with you. If you are not IR rated, sharp and proficient
the day that happens, you have taken an ill-considered risk.


>And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
>enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
>kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

Ah, but there's method to his madness.
He's there to irk private pilots, and knows enough about the subject to do so.
It must be fun for him, sitting back and watching knees jerk!

G Faris

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
> down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
> maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
> notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.


I'd have to disagree with you on your last statement, Kyle. I've done many
stupid things in airplanes over the years and gotten away with them. God grants
a special dispensation for newbies and morons. I'd like to think I was just new
at it, but I still catch myself doing dumb things from time to time. The major
difference now is that I'm better able to deal with the consequences.

Frankly, every pilot with less than 200 hours is an accident waiting to happen.
However, that special dispensation I mentioned allows the vast majority of them
to transition without incident.

I will say that if you think you don't make mistakes then you're incapable of
learning ("you" being used in the general sense).

Flying is actually very forgiving of stupidity. It's when things start piling
up that accidents happen. You can only deal with so much at one time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Stefan]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
> numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
> are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
mile is sheer nonsense. Compare it by the hour and it looks a lot
differently. You can bias the results at your will by defining what you
compare. (I'm working enough with statistics to know how to treat the
results.)

Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

Stefan

[BDS]

"Paul Stuart" > wrote

> And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
> enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
> kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

He's only here to push buttons and further his own agenda. You can bet that
some of the postings from this group will be used in town meetings as
evidence of how dangerous that airport that is near his house is so he can
gain ground to shut it down. All this just because he thinks his rights
supercede the rights of anyone else. The only way to get rid of this moron
is to stop validating his posts by responding to them.

[Gary Drescher]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
> mile is sheer nonsense.

I disagree. I see your underlying point: that no one chooses between walking
and flying as a means of getting to a particular destination. But people
often do have a choice between walking and driving, or between driving and
flying, so it makes sense to compare the per-mile fatality rates for those
pairs. And if you're going to do that, then it's not unreasonable to also
consider how all three compare on the same scale.

--Gary

[John Theune]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Skylune" > wrote:
>>
>>>Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
>>>forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
>>>point.
>>
>>Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
>>or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.
>>
>>According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
>>motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:
>>
>>In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
>>per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
>>were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
>>average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
>>works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.
>>
>>In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
>>were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
>>motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
>>million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.
>>
>>In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
>>GA by several common measures.
>>
>>What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
>>numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
>>are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:
>>
>>Table 5:
>> Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
>> ------------------------------------------
>>Bicyclists 5.27
>>General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15
>>
>> Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
>> ------------------------------------------
>>Pedestrians 15.36
>>General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22
>>
>>
>>> Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.
>>
>>If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
>>qualms about taking a general aviation flight.
>>
>>
>>[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
>>http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_figure_01_145.html
>>
>>[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
>>http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm
>
>
> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
> down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
> maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
> notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.
>
> KB
>
>
But if you remove the those classes of accidents from flying then you
need to make the same changes to the other modes of travel and I think
you find that just removing the achohol related accidents from driving
brings the numbers down more then they will for flying poorly since the
% of achohol related airplane accidents is much lower then for cars/bikes

[ET]

"John T" > wrote in
m:

> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
>> goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
>> low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
>> and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.
>
> While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with
> "VFR into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support
> stupidity as the cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is
> iffy.
>
> As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
> penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
> overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
> themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily
> chalk up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".


I would't mind seeing adjusted statistics eliminating night flight from
the equation as well. I don't put night flight in the "stupid"
catagory, but it certainly has risks that "day VFR" fights do not.



--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ET]

"Paul Stuart" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Jim
>
> Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
> other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to
> see a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
> pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
> that way.
>
> And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
> enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
> kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.
>
>

HA!

ANYONE who reffers to themselves in the third person should go directly
to the kill file....


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Skylune]

Idiot. Your nonsense is "easily refuted."
In fact, the graph you attached from BTS compares apples and oranges. I
suggest a Stat 101 course from your local community college. Studies that
adjust usage rates using the same denominator (i.e. passenger miles, hours
travelled, etc.) all conclude that GA is the most dangerous form of
transportation. Here is one example:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Also, you may want to check the BLS studies of most dangerous occupations,
which can also serve as a proxy. Aircraft associated professions have the
highest mortality rates in the US, behind only lumbering.

Or, the common sense test. You suggest that Bicyclists and pedestrians
are at greater risk by "some measures." That may be true. "Some
measures" indeed.

[Skylune]

Unreal. So obviously and patently dishonest to use "vehicle miles (or
KM)." The AOPA could use someone with your statistical abilities.

[Skylune]

More on "some measures."

From the AOPA's 2004 Nall report:
1 out of 413 pilots involved in an accident in 2003.
1 out of 2009 active pilots involved in a fatal accident.

Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents would
be in the MILLIONS.

Still not convinced because of "some measures" that suggest GA flying is
safer than walking, here's an excerpt from your very own Phillip
Greenspun.

"How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours
of general aviation. It is fairly safe to assume that when a plane crashes
and someone dies, everyone on board dies. By contrast, the death rate for
automobile driving is roughly 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles.
Car crashes don't always kill everyone in the car so let's use this
statistic as provided, which is for an individual traveling in a car
rather than for the entire car. So considering that the average airplane
accomplishes a groundspeed of at least 100 miles per hour, those million
hours of flight push the occupants of the plane over more than 100 million
miles of terrain. Comparing 16 fatal accidents to the 1.7 rate for driving,
we find that flying is no more than 10 times as dangerous per mile of
travel. And since most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, a modern
fast light airplane traveling a longish distance might be comparable in
safety to a car.

We can also look at safety per hour. This makes sense for recreational
pilots who have the alternative of spending a few hours flying around or
spending those hours taking a scenic drive. If the average speed of car
travel is 50 miles per hour, those 1.7 deaths occur in 2 million hours of
driving. This makes general aviation, with 16 deaths per 1 million hours,
roughly 20 times as dangerous per hour than driving."

Unfortunately, he didn't compare GA flying to walking around.

[Skylune]

Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for statistical
comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest form of
transportation. Right Jim?

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
> USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents
> would
> be in the MILLIONS.

No, you're exaggerating by an order of magnitude. Do the arithmetic.

--Gary

[Michael]

> When motorcyclists and private pilots (and bicycle riders too) decide to
> conjugate pleasure with necessity, and use their vehicle to get where they're
> going, they impose "get there" pressures that increase risk. They ride or fly
> in conditions that would normally have kept them grounded.

Which is why business flying (not the kind with a professional crew,
but the kind where someone flies himself to a meeting or some such) is
so much more dangerous than private, recreational flying.

There's only one problem with this statement - the statistics (google
Nall Report) show exactly the opposite is true.

Michael

[Skylune]

OK. I concede that one. It wouldn't be in the millions. But I would
venture, without looking into it, that far less than 1 of 2009 drivers is
involved in a fatal accident each year.

[Jay Beckman]

"BDS" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Stuart" > wrote
>
>> And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
>> enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
>> kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.
>
> He's only here to push buttons and further his own agenda. You can bet
> that
> some of the postings from this group will be used in town meetings as
> evidence of how dangerous that airport that is near his house is so he can
> gain ground to shut it down. All this just because he thinks his rights
> supercede the rights of anyone else. The only way to get rid of this
> moron
> is to stop validating his posts by responding to them.

To buy into this, you first have to believe that he/she is actually an adult
property owner...

Me, I'm not so sure...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Andrew Gideon]

Stefan wrote:

> Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
> mile is sheer nonsense.

Why? The idea is to compare accidents to the value accrued from the travel.
Ignoring "fun" (as it's tough to quantity whether we're speaking of flying,
biking, etc.), why isn't "distance" a good metric for value?

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> "How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours
> of general aviation.

Where did that number come from?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Kyle Boatright wrote:


> If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
> down by 1/2.

same for motorcycling...

Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
> maneuvering.

too fast, no helmet & protective clothing, "watch this" etc.

Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
> notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

I own a motorcycle and I have taken numerous flights with GA-aircraft as
a passenger. Both offer great pleasure and involve a risk that can be
influenced but not eliminated.

regards,
Friedrich

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:aJx5f.444290$x96.189556@attbi_s72...
>> "How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours
>> of general aviation.
>
> Where did that number come from?

According to the Nall Report, the actual number is 11 or 12 fatal accidents
per million hours of GA flights (averaging just under two deaths per fatal
accident).

--Gary

[Mike Granby]

In round numbers, there are about 200 million licensed drivers in the
USA, so a rate of 1-in-2000 would result in about 100,000 individuals
being involved in a fatal accident each year. There are actually about
40,000 fatal automobile accidents per year in the USA, with something
like 42,000 people killed. If you include licensed drivers who are
involved in these crashes but who are not killed (say, those driving
the other vehicle, or those who are passengers) and if you correct for
non-active drivers (whatever that means!) you won't be as far from the
100,000 figure as you would at first think. Now, this isn't a very
indicative metric, as hours flown or miles traveled are far more useful
than elapsed time, but it shows that you should be a little careful
before you make assumptions about these things...

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> [2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm

Sorry folks - this above link worked last night for me, but now I get a 404
error. Fortunately the following two links work:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/pdfs/cross_modal.pdf

or here:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx

[Jim Logajan]

"Paul Stuart" > wrote:
> Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
> other "recreational" type modes of transport.

You're welcome.

> I'd be interested to
> see a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
> pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
> that way.

I'd like to see numbers on recreational boating included. According to the
ATSB, "The ATSB intends to update and augment this paper (eg to include
marine and the results of comments on this paper) as future data becomes
available." ( http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx )

So maybe some day they'll include more transport modes.

> And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
> enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
> kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

My intent of posting was to bring what I thought was fascinating
information to newsgroup readers - debating Skylune was accidental. When
Skylune posted his assertion, I was actually expecting to find out he was
correct - the notion that GA is more dangerous than automobile and
commercial airline travel is well known. But I had a hunch that
recreational boating might be almost as dangerous as GA, so I went
searching for that. Haven't found any stats on boating, but did stumble
across the motorcycling angle and went looking for that and eventually
found the cross modal studies.

[Jose]

"stupid" is made up of all the things that you would -=never=- do, but
that other people do. It is decided by other people, after the accident
caused by what =you= did.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Stefan > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the
>> normalized numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and
>> pedestrians are are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:
>
> Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
> mile is sheer nonsense.

Maybe - can you explain why it is nonsense?

> Compare it by the hour and it looks a lot differently.

Okay - compare Table 4, column 2 (fatalities/100 million passenger
kilometres) with Table 4, column 5 (fatalities/million passenger hours)
in http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx

In column 2, the rate is ~2.5 times greater for pedestrians while in
column 5, the rate is ~2 times greater for GA. Looks different, as you
say.

But: the inversion that occurs when comparing the two metrics, and the
less than one order of magnitude difference, suggests that the difference
in risks between GA and walking may be inconsequential. Why? Because no
inversion of risk exists between GA and _any other of the other transport
modes_ when going from column 2 to column 5. GA is either always more
dangerous to a greater or lessor degree, or always less dangerous (in the
case of motorcycling).

> You can bias the results at your will by defining what
> you compare. (I'm working enough with statistics to know how to treat
> the results.)

Sure, you can change the magnitudes, but you can't always change the
comparative ordering. I also think it is a stretch to say you can bias at
will. For example, just how would you go about biasing the fatality rates
for "High Capacity RPT" in the ATSB study? They are all zero!

> Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
> pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Idiot.

Ad hominem.

> Your nonsense is "easily refuted."

My counter-arguments to your refutations follow:

> In fact, the graph you attached from BTS compares apples and oranges.

I converted from hours flown to miles flown by assuming a certain average
airspeed. This provides a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate. As it
happens, the ATSB estimate for Australian GA (17.5 fatalities/100 million
kilometers -> 28 fatalities/100 million miles) is very close to my
converted value for U.S. GA (20 fatalities/100 million miles).

The remarkably close correspondence indicates an apples-to-apples
comparison.

> I suggest a Stat 101 course from your local community college.

More ad hominem.

> Studies that adjust usage rates using the same denominator (i.e.
> passenger miles, hours travelled, etc.) all conclude that GA is the
> most dangerous form of transportation.

The ATSB begs to differ:

"These comparisons, summarised in table 1, find:
....
c. Motorcycling is the least safe form of transport."

(From: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx )

> Here is one example:
> http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The reference you cite does not include motorcycling, recreational
boating, or bicycling, among other modes of transport. So it does not
contradict the references I cited, which did show motorcycling to have a
higher fatality rate than fixed wing general aviation.

> Also, you may want to check the BLS studies of most dangerous
> occupations, which can also serve as a proxy. Aircraft associated
> professions have the highest mortality rates in the US, behind only
> lumbering.

You may also want to check historical BLS studies, since some of them
don't support your "proxy" method. In 1997 water transportation
occupations had more fatalities per worker than aircraft pilots:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/Jan/wk1/art01.htm

> Or, the common sense test. You suggest that Bicyclists and
> pedestrians are at greater risk by "some measures." That may be true.

Quite. You wrote: "Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all forms
of transportation."

Now you know it isn't.

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for
> statistical comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest
> form of transportation. Right Jim?

Well, let's see, first we have to find the miles traveled. I found this
site with some totals:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/sts92_longhaul_sidebar2.html

They say:

"Fleet Total: 354,775,865 miles (567,641,384 kilometers)."

Space fatalities (and many other space stats) found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/spacestats.html

14 fatalities.

So the rate for the Space Shuttle fleet works out to:

~3.9 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.

By comparison, according to http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ the U.S. rate
for motor vehicle accidents is:

~1.7 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.

CONCLUSION 1: On a per mile basis, auto travel is safer than space shuttle
travel. So it isn't the safest form of transportation even by that generous
measure.

CONCLUSION 2: You don't actually research anything yourself, thus getting
yourself into trouble by making assertions you haven't checked. You could
have found the space shuttle stats yourself with some trivially obvious
search keywords.

[Ash Wyllie]

Skylune opined

>Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for statistical
>comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest form of
>transportation. Right Jim?

When making comparisions, there are 3 metrics. Per hour, per mile, and per
trip. The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile, iffy per hour and
terrible per trip.

What metric you use depends on why you are using a particular vehicle.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Morgans]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> Ah, but there's method to his madness.
> He's (skylune) there to irk private pilots, and knows enough about the
subject to do so.
> It must be fun for him, sitting back and watching knees jerk!

Exactly! I have quit playing his game, and no longer read any of his posts.
If everyone did that, he would go away.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Stefan wrote:
>
> > Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
> > mile is sheer nonsense.
>
> Why? The idea is to compare accidents to the value accrued from the
travel.
> Ignoring "fun" (as it's tough to quantity whether we're speaking of
flying,
> biking, etc.), why isn't "distance" a good metric for value?

In that case, we should all get the fastest plane we can, because that way
we can cover more miles per hour, and be safer.

Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile

Oh, I don't know. The trips were only about three thousand miles apiece.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Where did that number come from?
>
> According to the Nall Report, the actual number is 11 or 12 fatal
> accidents per million hours of GA flights (averaging just under two deaths
> per fatal accident).

Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?

If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
(above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>> According to the Nall Report, the actual number is 11 or 12 fatal
>> accidents per million hours of GA flights (averaging just under two deaths
>> per fatal accident).
>
>
> Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?
>
> If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
> (above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

Without scouring the Nall Report for details, and using round numbers of
10 fatal accidents per million hours, that's one per 100,000 hours.
That comes to 4/100 of a fatal accident per 4000 hours. The numbers are
small enough so that a linear approximation will come close enough -
it's a 4% chance of being involved in a fatal accident.

General Aviation covers a broad range of activities, some inherently
more risky than others, and some carrying more passengers than others.
It is more likely that a hundred-passenger plane that crashes would
generate a fatailty than that a two passenger plane does, just because
more passengers have the opportunity to die. However it's probably not
unreasonable to use the overall figures and figure 4% chance of being
involved in a fatal. But I suspect that 2 passengers is fairly average
for a general aviation flight, and not too far off from your flying.
Based on that, I'd say that if you are involved in a fatal accident,
you'd have a good chance of not being one that survives.

> Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
> flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?

No. You might be able to factor them out, but you would no longer have
a reasonable calculation. People rarely crash due to intentional fuel
starvation, or intentional VFR in IMC. It just creeps up on them
unexpectedly, as does nightfall. This is why they are called "accidents".

You could reasonably exclude IFR flying, but you should not exclude IMC.
It is unreasonable to exclude night flight, even if you never intend
to fly at night. If you never fly at night, it just means that when
nightfall =does= sneak up on you, you will be unprepared for it. And in
4000 hours, one day nightfall =will= sneak up on you. And it will be
the day you were in a hurry to make it before dark, the fuel pumps
rejected your credit card, and you still had mostly full tanks and a
good shot at making it. And you would have made it too, if the wing
wasn't just a little bit tilted when you dipped the tank. There were
some clouds in the way but you climbed over them... at Vx - full power,
full rich, and they were higher than you thought. Oh, a new moon.

Dang - where'd the lights go all of a sudden?

Don't say you won't be there. 4000 hours is a lot of hours. You =will=
make mistakes.

Four percent if the source numbers are accurate. No fudging.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[tony roberts]

> Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?
>
> If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
> (above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

1 in 25


>
> Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
> flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?

Greatly improved.
But - against that, hoteliers are high risk!

In England, hoteliers pay a LOT more for car insurance
(in the same class as bartenders and waiters) because they have a lot
more accidents.
Does this translate across to pilots? I don't know.
It isn't just about alcohol consumption - it is also about working long
stressful hours and then driving (flying?) tired.
So there is the factor that I don't really know how to factor in.

As a matter of interest - do hoteliers in the USA pay higher aircraft
liability insurance?
Do they even have to declare their profession?

Tony (who used to be a hotelier - in England)

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Ash Wyllie]

Jose opined

>> The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile

>Oh, I don't know. The trips were only about three thousand miles apiece.

Many were were about 5 miles. I guess that makes the shuttle worse than
private GA.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Stefan]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Sure, you can change the magnitudes, but you can't always change the
> comparative ordering. I also think it is a stretch to say you can bias at
> will.

It's not only the way to look at the results which matters. The crucial
(and most difficult) point is to ask the right questions and choose the
right methods to get meaningful data in the first place.

Example: You want to compare the danger between car and GA. Ok. So you
must ask yourself:

- Compare by mile per vehicule, mile per passenger, respective hours or
even by the number of license holders?
- How do you define danger? Only fatalities? Or the injuries, too? And
if yes, which injuries? All accidents?
- How do you treat third party injuries vs. pax injuries vs.
pilot/driver injuries?
- Do you just count the bodies? Or count the vehicules with at least one
body/injury? Bot approaches may make sense.

And so on. See my point? Each approach will yield completely different
results. And it doesn't stop there: You must differ

- local flying vs. cross country
- recreational flying vs. professional GA
- self flying vs. transport by a hired pilot
- light singles vs. business jets
- day VFR vs. IFR
- you should take account of the reasons for the accidents, too

and the same for the ground vehicules to be compared, of course.

Sounds complex? Well, it *is* complex. And each approach will yield a
different result. But without this differentiation, such comparisons are
completely meaningless.

>> Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
>> pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

> No argument.

Imagine a young student pilot who, from day one, is always told that the
most dangerous part of aviation is driving to the airport. Which
attitude will he develop? The truth is: Aviation is damned dangerous and
if you're not absolutely serious about it, it will bite you.

Stefan

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Stefan > wrote:
>> Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
>> pilots that aviation is not dangerous.
>
> No argument.

Ok, I'll argue that one. :) Pilots who underestimate the risk of GA
(especially compared to the risk of automobiles) are indeed being
unrealistic. But, at least in my anecdotal experience, such pilots are still
as meticulous as others about the various safety procedures we're all
trained to carry out. I see no evidence that they take greater risks than
the rest of us.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-18FE4D.23023319102005@shawnews...
>> Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?
>>
>> If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
>> (above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?
>
> 1 in 25
>
>> Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
>> flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?
>
> Greatly improved.

I don't think so. Fuel starvation and weather account for only a small
percentage of GA fatalities. Night flying has about half again the fatality
rate of day flying, but less GA flying is done at night than during the day,
so the overall GA fatality rate (used for the above calculation) already
partly discounts the night-flying rate. So even if we were to ignore Jose's
reasonable caveat against excluding the types of accident we don't intend to
have, the odds of a fatality would not be lowered greatly.

Also, if you're going to fine-tune the figures, you have to consider that
personal flying has twice the fatality rate of GA overall. So that would
boost the odds to 8%, or perhaps 6 or 7% if we consider the mitigating
factors too.

On the other hand, that's only if you have 4000 flight hours *remaining*.
Your hours already flown do not count toward the risk (assuming you're still
alive when you read this).

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> In England, hoteliers pay a LOT more for car insurance

???

Now *that* is bizarre!

> As a matter of interest - do hoteliers in the USA pay higher aircraft
> liability insurance?

Nope.

> Do they even have to declare their profession?

Nope.

I've worked in many far more stressful jobs than my current one. In fact,
running a boutique hotel (that's the new "buzz phrase" for what we are -- I
like it!) is like falling off a log compared to working for and with daily
newspapers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Granby]

> 1 in 25

Only if those 4000 hours are all ahead of him. If he already has 2000,
those are in the past, and can no longer kill them, so his odds go to 1
in 50. This is without getting into Killing Zone issues, which is a
whole other controversy...

[Skylune]

So, if i toss a coin five times, and each time it comes up heads, on the
sixth toss my odds will much better than 50% that the toss will come up
tails. OK.

Here's an article that I was searching for, written by a pilot. I assume
he must be a Troll Pilot, as he discusses the myths about GA as a
convenient transportation alternative as well as what he calls "The Big
Lie."

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/184109-1.html

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>> 1 in 25
>>
>> Only if those 4000 hours are all ahead of him. If he already has 2000,
>> those are in the past, and can no longer kill them, so his odds go to 1
>> in 50.
>
> So, if i toss a coin five times, and each time it comes up heads, on the
> sixth toss my odds will much better than 50% that the toss will come up
> tails. OK.

No, Mike had it exactly right (which would be more evident if you'd quoted
him in your reply; I've restored the quote for you).

Your coin fallacy in no way follows from what Mike said. He's addressing the
odds of an improbable event happening at least once in a long string of
trials; that probability is indeed (to a first-order approximation)
proportionate to the number of trials remaining (hence, if you halve the
number of trials, you halve the probability, just as Mike said). Your coin
fallacy talks instead about the odds on a *single* subsequent trial, which
of course is independent of the number of preceding trials.

--Gary

[Skylune]

In any randomized event, preceding events do not effect future
probabilities. If the risks of crashing a plane are 1 out of 10,000
flights, you are not risk free on the 10,001st flight.

The honest way to measure safety across various modes of transporation is
not to use the miles travelled metric, as this is hopelessly skewed. It
should be per trip.

What I think you all should be advocating in adjusting the statistics is
to remove acrobatic flying, which has a higher accident rate than GA and
makes GA look more dangerous than it actually is.

http://www.maplewoodlodge.com/stunts/danger.htm

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...



>
> What I think you all should be advocating in adjusting the statistics is
> to remove acrobatic flying, which has a higher accident rate than GA and
> makes GA look more dangerous than it actually is.

Oh crap I think my computer is going to explode. Skylune is right about
something. Must be a mistake on his part.

It's not like they count NASCAR accidents in the auto accident stats.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> In any randomized event, preceding events do not effect future
> probabilities. If the risks of crashing a plane are 1 out of 10,000
> flights, you are not risk free on the 10,001st flight.

Of course. And that's completely consistent with what Mike and I said.
You're misunderstanding a very fundamental aspect of probability.

--Gary

[Skylune]

The underlying cause of most accidents (land sea or air):

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1182.htm

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:xOS5f.45725$b65.39287@okepread01...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
>> What I think you all should be advocating in adjusting the statistics is
>> to remove acrobatic flying, which has a higher accident rate than GA and
>> makes GA look more dangerous than it actually is.
>
> Oh crap I think my computer is going to explode. Skylune is right about
> something. Must be a mistake on his part.
>
> It's not like they count NASCAR accidents in the auto accident stats.

He's not right. A negligible fraction of GA flying is aerobatic, so even if
aerobatic flying has a higher accident rate, it has virtually no impact on
the overall GA rate. (Same for the impact of NASCAR accidents on overall
auto stats.)

--Gary

[Skylune]

"Only if those 4000 hours are all ahead of him. If he already has 2000,
those are in the past, and can no longer kill them, so his odds go to 1
in 50. This is without getting into Killing Zone issues, which is a
whole other controversy..." is what Mike said.

Well, I guess I must have misconstrued what he is saying from reading this
single post. All these subthreads, and so little time....

[Skylune]

Happy to help. Of course if you really stripped GA safety down into
subcategories, I suspect recreational pilots would have the second worst
safety stats, behind the stunt pilots.

BTW, I never said GA is "dangerous." Dangerous is too subjective. Just
that GA is riskier than driving, flying commerical, driving, and yes, even
walking. I fly in my buddy's 172 (I have to operate the GPS though..).
Only on very clear days with minimal winds -- then I trust him. He will
fly in conditions that are pretty marginal for a VFR pilot, and he has
gotten "disoriented" over the Long Island Sound when I was in his plane
once. I just hope he doesn't become another statistic.

He doesn't seem to believe that EVERYTHING is about managing risk.

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

> Happy to help. Of course if you really stripped GA safety down into
> subcategories, I suspect recreational pilots would have the second worst
> safety stats, behind the stunt pilots.
>
> BTW, I never said GA is "dangerous." Dangerous is too subjective. Just
> that GA is riskier than driving, flying commerical, driving, and yes, even
> walking. I fly in my buddy's 172 (I have to operate the GPS though..).
> Only on very clear days with minimal winds -- then I trust him. He will
> fly in conditions that are pretty marginal for a VFR pilot, and he has
> gotten "disoriented" over the Long Island Sound when I was in his plane
> once. I just hope he doesn't become another statistic.
>
> He doesn't seem to believe that EVERYTHING is about managing risk.

And what does managing risk mean?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> The underlying cause of most accidents (land sea or air):
>
> http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1182.htm

Sweet!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom]

"I have to operate the GPS though ..."

Please explain how you do that Skylune, with your head inserted all the way
up your rectum? Do you have the GPS in there with your head? And are your
hands and arms in there too?

Tom

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Happy to help. Of course if you really stripped GA safety down into
> subcategories, I suspect recreational pilots would have the second worst
> safety stats, behind the stunt pilots.
>
> BTW, I never said GA is "dangerous." Dangerous is too subjective. Just
> that GA is riskier than driving, flying commerical, driving, and yes, even
> walking. I fly in my buddy's 172 (I have to operate the GPS though..).
> Only on very clear days with minimal winds -- then I trust him. He will
> fly in conditions that are pretty marginal for a VFR pilot, and he has
> gotten "disoriented" over the Long Island Sound when I was in his plane
> once. I just hope he doesn't become another statistic.
>
> He doesn't seem to believe that EVERYTHING is about managing risk.
>
>
>
>