Accidents - correlation and causation?

[Dylan Smith]

Seen in Avweb's AvFlash:

[begin quote]
CRASH STATISTICS, FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
According to the AP's research, pilots older than 50 were involved in
55.8 percent of accidents over a five-year period even though they
constitute only 36.8 percent of certificated pilots. And, apparently,
the
older a pilot gets, the greater the risk. Pilots between the ages of 50
and 59 had 26.4 percent of accidents, marginally higher than their
percentage of the pilot population, which is about 22.1 percent, but
those 60 and older had 23.6 percent of accidents even though they make
up
only 14.7 percent of certificated pilots. The research also determined
that those under 50 consistently had proportionately fewer accidents
throughout the five-year sample period. More...
[end quote]

The main article goes on to say that pretty much anything other than age
was not factored into the report.

I'm just wondering - yet another questionable analysis? (I have no axe
to grind, it's still a couple of decades until I'm considered 'an older
pilot')

In particular:
- In the set of pilots between 20 and 50, perhaps a larger proportion of
those pilots are professional pilots flying for the airlines, where
the accident rates are lower and 2-pilot crews are the norm.
- In the set of pilots aged 50 and over, perhaps many more flight hours
are being flown by this group in GA aircraft because (a) they have the
time and (b) they are more likely to have the money - since their time
and money are less likely to be soaked up by child-rearing.
- as AvWeb pointed out, perhaps older GA pilots (generally having more
money) are flying faster machinery that is more likely to result in a
fatality when the angle of arrival is too steep.

I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
to GA pilots only before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
> to GA pilots only before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
> such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

Agreed -- but the general public won't see it that way. All they'll retain
is "old pilots crash", and move on to the NCAA tourney headlines...

I find it appalling that the average age of pilots is now 47 -- my age!
Man, if that's not an indication of the relative health (or, rather, the
lack thereof) of General Aviation, I'm not sure what is. We need to get a
few hundred thousand 20-something-year-olds in the fold to ensure that GA
(as we know it) is around in another 20 years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
> to GA pilots only

bingo!

>before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
> such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

Before anyone can draw a VALID conclusion.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> - In the set of pilots aged 50 and over, perhaps many more flight hours
> are being flown by this group in GA aircraft because (a) they have the
> time and (b) they are more likely to have the money - since their time
> and money are less likely to be soaked up by child-rearing.

I think that pretty much explains it.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:WFyTf.39506$oL.27969@attbi_s71...
<<snip>>>
> I find it appalling that the average age of pilots is now 47 -- my age!
> Man, if that's not an indication of the relative health (or, rather, the
> lack thereof) of General Aviation, I'm not sure what is. We need to get
> a few hundred thousand 20-something-year-olds in the fold to ensure that
> GA (as we know it) is around in another 20 years.
> --
> Jay Honeck

You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
Aviation. If you think flying is expensive now, wait until all those "old
farts" retire and FBO's, airframe manufacturers, etc. have to spread their
costs out over even fewer units. A $15,000 engine rebuild will seem like a
real bargain then.

Unfortunately, the FBO's I see are being used as corporate pilot training
centers, where the CFI's are all 25 and are motivated to build hours so they
can get a job with a commuter airline. In addtion to the lack of continuity
with the instructors (most don't last 6 months before they move to something
bigger and better), the FBO's seem to have a very short term horizon.
Instead of working to minimize the cost of getting a pilot's license so they
will have more customers over the long term, our local FBO's charge steep
prices for PPSEL training and C-152 rentals. In the end, the 22 year old
who is interested in flying makes a visit to the FBO, "does the math", and
realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial reach. S/he never comes back.

It seems that the GA "industry" would realize that the key to the industry's
long term health is creating enough pilots so the industry is sustainable
over the long term.

Your local GA field is going to be a far different place in 20 years unless
something changes.

KB

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:32:57 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>::


>You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
>Aviation.
[...]
>In the end, the 22 year old who is interested in flying makes a visit to
>the FBO, "does the math", and realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial
>reach. S/he never comes back.
>

That's because wealth is usually acquired later in life.

Today the ultralight and powered parachute equipment provides the
aviation minded youth the means of flight without benefit of
examination nor unrealistic cost. Later, when s/he can better afford
the expense, the option is always open for flight instruction and FAA
certificate.

So, if you're truly interested in swelling the ranks of airmen,
consider soliciting recruits with advertising targeted to them in
publications that serve the ultralight segment of aviation.

[...]
>
>Your local GA field is going to be a far different place in 20 years unless
>something changes.
>

If SATS is eventually implemented nationwide, the municipal airports
will become an integral part of airline transportation feeding
passengers into international hubs, instead of exclusively serving
training and recreational flying.

[Jose]

> If SATS is eventually implemented nationwide, the municipal airports
> will become an integral part of airline transportation feeding
> passengers into international hubs, instead of exclusively serving
> training and recreational flying.

That won't happen without a re-thinking of "airline security". That
re-thinking could go either way, but given the path of money, I wouldn't
bet on our way.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Denny]

The majority of airplane owners on my field are 50 and older... I
suspect the statistics that were quoted at the start of this thread
could be revisited...
Let me predict that airplane owners over age 50 have a lower rate of
accidents than airplane owners under 50...
That airplane renters over 50 have a higher rate of accident than
airplane renters under 50...
That the slight difference in rate versus total percentage of pilots is
actually meaningless, just statistical white noise... (Uuhhh, is it
politically correct to use the term, "white" noise?)

Well, anyway, each pilot is an accident waiting to happen in his own
way, not a statistical average... We have a brand new Private rating
on our field as of Saturday the 18th... He is young, aggressive, a
high earning professional (yuppie), he immediately bought an airplane
which will be delivered in a week or so.. He is talking about getting
his instrument rating right at the minimum hours allowed... If he
survives his next 3 years he will make a fine pilot - that's if he
survives... Anyway, it's time for my Geritol and the nurse wants me to
take my nap... see ya later..

denny - btw, it is snowing as I toddle off for my nap..

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> denny - btw, it is snowing as I toddle off for my nap..

Same here. Welcome to spring!

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

[Montblack]

("Denny" wrote)
> denny - btw, it is snowing as I toddle off for my nap..


We got our 15 to 25 inches last week - Mon and Thur. Our backyard total was
17 inches.

Right now it's 25 degrees ...(F) ...NOT ...(C)!!!

I think the (high) sun is winning and the snow is actually melting
....slowly.


Montblacktop-driveway-is-dry
(EVERYTHING else is still white here in the Twin Cities)

[Kyle Boatright]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:32:57 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
>>Aviation.
> [...]
>>In the end, the 22 year old who is interested in flying makes a visit to
>>the FBO, "does the math", and realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial
>>reach. S/he never comes back.
>>
>
> That's because wealth is usually acquired later in life.
>
> Today the ultralight and powered parachute equipment provides the
> aviation minded youth the means of flight without benefit of
> examination nor unrealistic cost. Later, when s/he can better afford
> the expense, the option is always open for flight instruction and FAA
> certificate.

<<<snip>>>

My experience is that the ultralight crowd (no experience with the powered
'chute crowd) is that it looks a whole lot like the rest of the GA crowd.
Average age of 50 or more, white, and male. From my vantage point, it
appears that one type person who flys U/L's (or illegal U/L's) is someone
who wants to continue flying but can't afford (or doesn't want to pay for)
an aircraft that burns 8 gph of $4/gallon fuel. The other group I see
flying UL's and Sport Pilot aircraft are guys who are on the back side of
the health curve and either know or fear that they wouldn't pass an aviation
physical.

I simply don't see young people (<30) at the airport, unless they are young
CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.

KB

[Sylvain]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> I simply don't see young people (<30) at the airport, unless they are
> young CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.

well, the money issue has already been discussed, but there is
another issue that might drive said young crowd away from GA, even
the wealthy kids, and that I don't think you can really fix: GA is
not for the 'instant gratification' crowd; the learning process is
long and takes a certain amount of dedication that today's youger
ones are not ready to undertake, even those who could easily
afford it (I live in the Silicon Valley, there are plenty of
rich 20 something -- you see them sometimes poping up at the local
airport, ask a few questions, may be take a ride, but rarely coming
back); there are so many other avenues (sport cars/bikes,
'extreme' sports, the kind you see on mtv, etc.) that makes
it possible for them to get instant gratification and show off with
a limited amount of personal investment/learning (as compared to what's
required for GA), that it is difficult for GA to compete...

--Sylvain

[Kyle Boatright]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> I simply don't see young people (<30) at the airport, unless they are
>> young CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.
>
> well, the money issue has already been discussed, but there is
> another issue that might drive said young crowd away from GA, even
> the wealthy kids, and that I don't think you can really fix: GA is
> not for the 'instant gratification' crowd; the learning process is
> long and takes a certain amount of dedication that today's youger
> ones are not ready to undertake, even those who could easily
> afford it (I live in the Silicon Valley, there are plenty of
> rich 20 something -- you see them sometimes poping up at the local
> airport, ask a few questions, may be take a ride, but rarely coming
> back); there are so many other avenues (sport cars/bikes,
> 'extreme' sports, the kind you see on mtv, etc.) that makes
> it possible for them to get instant gratification and show off with
> a limited amount of personal investment/learning (as compared to what's
> required for GA), that it is difficult for GA to compete...
>
> --Sylvain

Instant gratification may be part of it, but from Lindy's flight until the
end of the Apollo program, I'd say flying was seen as a true adventure with
some glamour thrown in. I believe that brought in a lot of paying
customers. In today's world, the primary attention flying gets in the media
is when someone crashes or in telling the tale of how horrible commercial
air travel has become. The glamour factor is zero.

KB

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> We got our 15 to 25 inches last week - Mon and Thur. Our backyard total
was
> 17 inches.
>
> Right now it's 25 degrees ...(F) ...NOT ...(C)!!!
>
> I think the (high) sun is winning and the snow is actually melting
> ...slowly.

This has been the lightest winter I have seen in the 19 years I have been in
NC. We had a couple days in Dec that had some ice/snow, and a couple weeks
of relatively cold weather, then we got a trace of snow yesterday. The rest
has been mild, very mild, but windy.

We will surely have a lot of bugs, this summer, me thinks.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Stadt]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>> I simply don't see young people (<30) at the airport, unless they are
>>> young CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.
>>
>> well, the money issue has already been discussed, but there is
>> another issue that might drive said young crowd away from GA, even
>> the wealthy kids, and that I don't think you can really fix: GA is
>> not for the 'instant gratification' crowd; the learning process is
>> long and takes a certain amount of dedication that today's youger
>> ones are not ready to undertake, even those who could easily
>> afford it (I live in the Silicon Valley, there are plenty of
>> rich 20 something -- you see them sometimes poping up at the local
>> airport, ask a few questions, may be take a ride, but rarely coming
>> back); there are so many other avenues (sport cars/bikes,
>> 'extreme' sports, the kind you see on mtv, etc.) that makes
>> it possible for them to get instant gratification and show off with
>> a limited amount of personal investment/learning (as compared to what's
>> required for GA), that it is difficult for GA to compete...
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
> Instant gratification may be part of it, but from Lindy's flight until the
> end of the Apollo program, I'd say flying was seen as a true adventure
> with some glamour thrown in. I believe that brought in a lot of paying
> customers. In today's world, the primary attention flying gets in the
> media is when someone crashes or in telling the tale of how horrible
> commercial air travel has become. The glamour factor is zero.
>
> KB

It is also pretty boring without much in the way of destinations other than
a bad hamburger. Most airports are about as exciting as a morgue at 2:00
am. If there is no social activity it is pretty difficult to get new blood
excited.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> It is also pretty boring without much in the way of destinations other than
> a bad hamburger.

huh?

I guess pilots can be grouped into two groups: one group that loves to fly,
the destination is completely unimportant, the other group doesn't understand
the love of flying.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>
>> It is also pretty boring without much in the way of destinations other
>> than
>> a bad hamburger.
>
> huh?
>
> I guess pilots can be grouped into two groups: one group that loves to
> fly,
> the destination is completely unimportant, the other group doesn't
> understand
> the love of flying.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

It doesn't take long for most people to get bored going up and just boring
holes in the sky. Might be OK for those that only fly 20 hours a year but I
doubt there are many that fly 100+ hours a year just to see the same scenery
flight, after flight, after flight. I have seen many lose interest not long
after passing the check ride due to boredom. Seems to me one way to
increase interest is to develop destinations and groups to sponsor fly-outs
and other activities. The late 40s, 50s and 60s saw a lot of this type of
activity, a healthy GA and lotsa airport activity. For the most part that
is not so today.

[Denny]

The other issue to think about is that it seems that huge numbers of
people <millions> can find the money in the household budget for
boats... And if you think that flying bends the budget, hang around
the local marina and go to a few boat shows... The crowds slobbering
over $15,000 dingies and $1,500,000 Hatteras, is mind boggling...
In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation into
flying which forms the almost insurmountable barrier to entry, not the
price of admission... Officious little people with the power to harass
and attack you over minor issues <ramp check anyone!>, ATC recording
every turn on the radar track and every transmission, reams of
regulations, recurrent training, licensing <actually certification>...

With a boat you sign the bank contract, grab the keys and go... In a
few states you have to take a nominal boating course - 3 hours on a
thursday night and a ten question exam on the level of, "what side is
the red buoy when going up the river?"

Anyway, it is the hassle factor that is more the barrier to attracting
the twenty something into flying than dull airports... It is the
locked gates, the video cameras, the threats of fines and government
sanctions, the trolling of your driving record, the demand that you
surrender your doctor's chart, the security background checks, having
to hand over your certificate at the whim of some pot bellied, tooth
pick chewing yahoo, for his official blessing, having to ask permission
from the control tower to even move your plane across the ramp, etc.,
that turns off the MTV generation... The money is out there... Watch
the $50,000 SUV's towing the sleek, ski boats heading out of town on
Friday afternoon, to go burn a 100 gallons of gas for the weekend...

denny

[Jose]

> In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
> between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation

IMHO that's not even close.

With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.

An airplane does not have any of those features.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
> boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
> friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
> offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.
>
> An airplane does not have any of those features.

not true. Witness Jay H. and his community of friends at the T's and
elsewhere. It's not the same, but to say airplanes do not have ANY of
those features is simply wrong.

Of course, with TSA crap at airports like KBED, it's now much much harder
to socialize than before. But other airports still offer that capability.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
>> between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation
>
> IMHO that's not even close.
>
> With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
> boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
> friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
> offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.
>
> An airplane does not have any of those features.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Exactly, not to mention other activities such as fishing, skiing and taking
friends with to socialize while partaking of wine and cheese. Our boat was
in a slip in a busy harbor and we could spend all weekend socializing
without ever leaving the slip. There were also a number of planned
activities.

At most airports one would die of loneliness.

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Mar 2006 05:37:38 -0800, "Denny" > wrote in
. com>::

>
>The other issue to think about is that it seems that huge numbers of
>people <millions> can find the money in the household budget for
>boats... And if you think that flying bends the budget, hang around
>the local marina and go to a few boat shows... The crowds slobbering
>over $15,000 dingies and $1,500,000 Hatteras, is mind boggling...
>In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
>between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation into
>flying which forms the almost insurmountable barrier to entry, not the
>price of admission... Officious little people with the power to harass
>and attack you over minor issues <ramp check anyone!>, ATC recording
>every turn on the radar track and every transmission, reams of
>regulations, recurrent training, licensing <actually certification>...

To be fair, you must consider the potential consequences to those over
whom we travel; there is no comparable public peril in personal
boating.

How would you characterize the civil responsibility required of an
airman to that of the typical weekend boater? There's another salient
difference.

<long_story>
Once I was sleeping on the beach at the harbor on Anacapa Island off
the California coast, and I found that, if I left the Coleman lantern
lit, it kept the scurrying creatures at bay. Around 3am I was
awakened to the sound of a small power boat and its occupants landing
on the beach. "Thank God you had that lantern lit," they said; they'd
found themselves disoriented at sea, low on fuel, and didn't know what
to do, so they headed toward the only light they could see.

These would not be the sort of folks with whom I'd feel comfortable
sharing the sky.
</long_story>

With regard to ramp checks, recently I had a new acquaintance confess
to me, that he and a partner purchased a C-182, and proceeded to fly
it from their ranch without benefit of airman certificates nor
instruction. With so few FAA Inspectors, their chance of being
charged with a criminal offence, let alone even being found were/are
minimal.

Personally, I am happy uniform, worldwide flight regulations exist.
Officious little people can usually be used against themselves, and
really don't often pose a significant threat.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> To be fair, you must consider the potential consequences to those over
> whom we travel; there is no comparable public peril in personal
> boating.

Huh?

A light airplane is likely to kill, at most, a couple of people on the
ground in a single accident. A really rare conjunction of unusual
circumstances might get half a dozen or so. Most light aviation accidents
hurt no one other than those in the aircraft.

Likewise, boaters endanger plenty of people around them. They operate near
shorelines, especially beaches where large numbers of people cluster. A
boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those on
another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is frequently
of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.

I see very little difference in the potential of harm between the two
activities.

> How would you characterize the civil responsibility required of an
> airman to that of the typical weekend boater? There's another salient
> difference.

Why would the civil responsibility be any different between the two? Each
individual, airman or boater, is a citizen with identical rights and
responsibilities. They each have similar moral obligations to not harm
others. And yet, the boater is not subjected to anywhere NEAR the same
level of regulation and training requirements that the airman is.

Now, that said, I feel that the appropriate level of training and regulation
is a lot closer to that which the airman already experiences, than to that
which the boater does. For some reason, boaters are given practically carte
blanche in their operation, in spite of the similar harm they can (and do)
do to others.

> <long_story>
> [...]
> These would not be the sort of folks with whom I'd feel comfortable
> sharing the sky.
> </long_story>

They are not the sort of folks with whom I'm comfortable sharing a waterway
either.

That said, plenty of pilots get lost too.

Pete

[Jose]

> A
> boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those on
> another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is frequently
> of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.

Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation. Those
on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
hurting shore people. One would have to be reckless, such as
powerboating into a beach. In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the
ground. In a boat I think this is much less likely.

That said, dead is dead no matter how it occurs.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Theune]

Jose wrote:
>> A boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those
>> on another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is
>> frequently of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.
>
>
> Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
> that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation. Those
> on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
> hurting shore people. One would have to be reckless, such as
> powerboating into a beach. In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the
> ground. In a boat I think this is much less likely.
>
> That said, dead is dead no matter how it occurs.
>
> Jose
I don't think that just being on the boat, properly navigating it, is
any more "guilty" then placing yourself in a position to have a airplane
fall on you. In both cases you are not doing anything wrong or
dangerous. I would also be curious to see the number of people killed
on the ground by aircraft as opposed to those killed by boats while not
on another boat*.

* Dismissing acts of of commission such as driving a vehicle into a
building or structure.

[Jose]

> I don't think that just being on the boat, properly navigating it, is any more "guilty" then placing yourself in a position to have a airplane fall on you.

It is difficult to put oneself in a position where an airplane =cannot=
fall on you.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
> that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation.

What a bizarre interpretation of the situation. I suppose then, that if you
are driving downtown, and are killed by a rogue driver who causes an
accident, that you are guilty of putting yourself in harm's way. Whereas, a
pedestrian who is walking right next to your car who is also killed is the
innocent victim?

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm. How
others may be exposed to harm by that person is irrelevant in my opinion.
The issue is proper training of the person who may harm, period.

Ironically, the FAA takes an even more relaxed view of the hazard to
innocents. They allow solo flight by student pilots, with every bit of
endangerment to people on the ground, if not more, that a fully certificated
pilot presents, but protect potential passengers by prohibiting their
presence.

> Those on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
> hurting shore people.

There is every bit as great a potential for harm to them as there is for
people on the ground.

> One would have to be reckless, such as powerboating into a beach.

Happens a lot more often than you apparently think.

> In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the ground. In a boat I think
> this is much less likely.

You think wrong. Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
boats.

In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

Pete

[Jose]

> I suppose then, that if you
> are driving downtown, and are killed by a rogue driver who causes an
> accident, that you are guilty of putting yourself in harm's way.

Yes... moreso than the person who is sitting in their front yard and
gets run over by a rogue driver. If you are driving downtown, you have
accepted certain risks of driving (including rogue drivers) that the guy
in his front yard has not.

> Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

Justice is not involved.

> The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

Of course. But participating in a risky activity (such as hunting) is a
tacit acceptance of possible harm (such as being shot) whereas while
strolling in the park, one has not accepted that risk (real though it
may be).

> Ironically, the FAA takes an even more relaxed view of the hazard to
> innocents. They allow solo flight by student pilots, with every bit of
> endangerment to people on the ground, if not more, that a fully certificated
> pilot presents, but protect potential passengers by prohibiting their
> presence.

They don't allow solo flight until the student has demonstrated
sufficient ability, and the risk to persons on the ground is less than
the risk to passengers in the plane.

> Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
> from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
> boats.

Perhaps. I have no statistics to back me up. I would be interested in
them if anybody does have them available.

> In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
> be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
> or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

There is always risk to innocents, even flying a kite is dangerous to
some extent. Not to consider the extent of risk is ludicrous.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> Yes... moreso than the person who is sitting in their front yard and gets
> run over by a rogue driver. If you are driving downtown, you have
> accepted certain risks of driving (including rogue drivers) that the guy
> in his front yard has not.

I'm not talking about "the guy in his front yard". I'm talking about the
pedestrian "walking right next to your car".

>> Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.
>
> Justice is not involved.

Of course it is. Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of
"innocent".

>> The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.
>
> Of course. But participating in a risky activity (such as hunting) is a
> tacit acceptance of possible harm (such as being shot) whereas while
> strolling in the park, one has not accepted that risk (real though it may
> be).

A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of being
shot. Heck, you don't even need to go out of your house to run the risk of
being shot.

> They don't allow solo flight until the student has demonstrated sufficient
> ability, and the risk to persons on the ground is less than the risk to
> passengers in the plane.

Of course it is. But according to you, the people on the ground are
innocent while the passengers in the plane are not. And according to you,
they should thus be granted more protection.

In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
degree of protection.

> Perhaps. I have no statistics to back me up. I would be interested in
> them if anybody does have them available.

I suspect that even if you count only the handful of large vessels (ferries
seem to be a common type) that plow into a pier killing a dozen or so people
at a time, that number alone still exceeds the people on the ground killed
by aviation accidents.

> There is always risk to innocents, even flying a kite is dangerous to some
> extent. Not to consider the extent of risk is ludicrous.

"Fighting" kites notwithstanding, flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.
It seems to me that, if a person is going to do something that has a genuine
risk of killing someone -- anyone, whether they are a participant or not --
then that person should be required to undergo proper training and
certification.

Now, I will grant that boating isn't close to being the only example of this
not being the reality. There's not even a legal requirement for proper
training to own a gun, never mind for other hazardous activities such as
using a chainsaw, riding a Segway, or operating a bulldozer. But at least
in the case of boating, the activity is VERY comparable to flying in a
number of ways, including the risk exposure to the general public (which is
relatively small in both activities).

Pete

[Jose]

> I'm not talking about "the guy in his front yard". I'm talking about the
> pedestrian "walking right next to your car".

Nothing is black and white. The guy =at= the airport, who has no
intention of flying but is just there to pick Sam up would be more like
the pedestrian on the side of the road. But I'm talking about the
schoolyard that has an airplane fall on it.

> Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of
> "innocent".

"Innocent" means "didn't do it". The "it" that he didn't do needn't be
a Bad Thing. In this context, I use "innocent" to mean "didn't
deliberately put himself in harm's way", where flying an airplane is a
case of deliberately putting oneself in harm's way. You are taking a
chance. Ditto driving a car (each WRT their respective hazards)

> A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of being
> shot.

There is always risk, but when you =contribute= to that risk (by going
hunting, for example) you are no longer "innocent" in the sense that the
picknicker is.

> But according to you, the people on the ground are
> innocent while the passengers in the plane are not. And according to you,
> they should thus be granted more protection.

Yes, they should... by the pilot.

> In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
> degree of protection.

The passengers are at greater risk to begin with.

> I suspect that even if you count only the handful of large vessels (ferries
> seem to be a common type) that plow into a pier killing a dozen or so people
> at a time, that number alone still exceeds the people on the ground killed
> by aviation accidents.

One suspicion vs another. You may be right, I don't know. But I
suspect not.

> flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.

The risk is small, but nonzero. Now we're discussing degree, which is
what I was saying all along. LIttle league pitchers aren't certified,
but there have been fatal pitching accidents too.

> But at least
> in the case of boating, the activity is VERY comparable to flying in a
> number of ways, including the risk exposure to the general public (which is
> relatively small in both activities).

We disagree, but I'm open to being swayed by actual data. (and if you
include big boats, you have to include big planes too)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> Nothing is black and white. The guy =at= the airport, who has no
> intention of flying but is just there to pick Sam up would be more like
> the pedestrian on the side of the road. But I'm talking about the
> schoolyard that has an airplane fall on it.

My point is your willingness to simply alter the stated scenario to suit
your whim. And again, you try to shift the discussion away.

Regardless, the pedestrian in his front yard next door to your house is like
the guy at the airport, being near one terminus of an automobile trip. The
schoolyard is much more like the pedestrian downtown, being somewhere along
the path of travel of the automobile trip.

>> Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of "innocent".
>
> "Innocent" means "didn't do it". The "it" that he didn't do needn't be a
> Bad Thing.

If it's not a bad thing to expose oneself to risk, why is your desire to
punish such a person by affording them less protection from the actions of
others?

> In this context, I use "innocent" to mean "didn't deliberately put himself
> in harm's way", where flying an airplane is a case of deliberately putting
> oneself in harm's way. You are taking a chance. Ditto driving a car
> (each WRT their respective hazards)

There is absolutely no reason that the harm in question needs to include the
irresponsible actions of others.

>> A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of
>> being shot.
>
> There is always risk, but when you =contribute= to that risk (by going
> hunting, for example) you are no longer "innocent" in the sense that the
> picknicker is.

So the park stroller is NOT innocent by your reasoning? After all, they
would have less risk staying at home, so their action of going out and
strolling in the park contributes to their risk. Ergo, "no longer
'innocent'".

>> But according to you, the people on the ground are innocent while the
>> passengers in the plane are not. And according to you, they should thus
>> be granted more protection.
>
> Yes, they should... by the pilot.

The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.

>> In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
>> degree of protection.
>
> The passengers are at greater risk to begin with.

So what? Why should then passengers of boats not be granted the greater
degree of protection, through a similar training and certification program
used for aviation?

You don't seem to be able to stay focused on who it is you'd like to protect
or to not protect. Sometimes you want the "innocents" not directly involved
to be better protected, and sometimes you want the "guilty" who are exposing
themselves to greater risk to be granted greater protection.

But even so, the case in boating is that no one is granted any real
protection by government regulation. Not the passengers, and not the
"innocents".

> [...]
>> flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.
>
> The risk is small, but nonzero.

Really? You know of someone who has been killed by a kite?

I've never heard of such a thing (excluding kites specifically designed to
harm, which I already disqualified in the text you trimmed).

As far as I know, the risk of flying a kite IS zero with respect to a fatal
injury.

> Now we're discussing degree, which is what I was saying all along. LIttle
> league pitchers aren't certified, but there have been fatal pitching
> accidents too.

Well, as I mentioned, there are a number of activities, including many that
are FAR more hazardous than little-league pitching, that are not regulated.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Still, little-league pitching is not
inherently dangerous. That is, no death would occur when the usual and
proper safety precautions are taken. In aviation and boating, you can take
every precaution, and an accident can still kill you.

> We disagree, but I'm open to being swayed by actual data. (and if you
> include big boats, you have to include big planes too)

That's fine. The hazard to people on the ground by large airplanes is even
less than by small airplanes.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:30:00 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

I agree, that's where it should be.

The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.

There are inherent dangers in the FAA's flawed integration of
MTRs into the National Airspace System (NAS). First is the military's
failure to appreciate that MTR operations are conducted in joint use
airspace, of which the military does not have exclusive use. From
discussions I have had with military pilots, they seem to fail to
understand that regulations require them to see-and-avoid conflicting
air traffic during MTR operations.

This leads to the second flaw in the FAA's MTR implementation: the
impossibility of spotting conflicting traffic in time to maneuver out
of the path of collision. Federal regulations restrict maximum
aircraft speed to 250 knots below 10,000 feet, but MTR operations are
conducted under a waiver at speeds nearly double that regulatory
limit. This exemption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be patently
incompatible with separating aircraft by visual means as required by
federal regulation. There is not adequate time available for a human
pilot to conduct his mission, pilot his aircraft, and comply with the
regulatory see-and-avoid mandate at such high speed.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

it is easy to see the problem; things happen too fast for humans to
reliably deconflict at such high speeds. This is evidenced in three
military/civil mid air collisions (MAC) that have occurred in
conjunction with MTR operations.

The first, a collision between a Navy A7 and a glider in 1986,
miraculously resulted in no loss of life, however the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident report
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1>
erroneously failed to list as a probable cause the A7 pilot's failure
to see-and-avoid the glider that apparently had the right-of-way due
to it's being in a different Category. FAR 91.113(d)(2) mandates that
the pilot of a powered airplane shall give way to a glider and may not
pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

In 1993 a military A6 entering a MTR late collided with an Ag-Cat. The
NTSB report
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1> got
the probable cause right this time:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE SEE-AND-AVOID CONCEPT OF
SEPARATION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLIGHT RULES THAT
PRECLUDED THE CREW OF THE A6E AND THE PILOT OF THE AGCAT FROM
RECOGNIZING A COLLISION HAZARD AND TAKING ACTIONS TO AVOID A
MIDAIR COLLISION.

The next military/civil MAC occurred in congested terminal airspace in
2000 by a flight of two F-16s without benefit of ATC clearance. The
criminal misdeeds committed by the USAF flight lead are too numerous
to mention here, but the mishap further illustrates the military's
lack of accountability for its MTR operations. The lead F-16 pilot
failed to see the Cessna 172, and lead his wingman in to a collision
with it resulting in the "disintegration" of ATP rated 172 pilot and
his aircraft; wreckage and carnage was scattered over four square
miles. It was reported that the C-172 was in steep right bank away
from the F-16 at the time of impact, but apparently the civilian pilot
did not have adequate time to successfully maneuver out of the path
the F-16 fighter. The NTSB report
<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1> cites
among the probably causes, the Cessna pilots failure to see-and-avoid
the high-speed military traffic.

From these military/civil MTR MACs it is evident that the hazards
caused by the FAA's integration of MTRs into the NAS are unacceptable,
and the NTSB's failure to appreciate that fact is disappointing. If
it is the military's high-speed low-level MTR operations that are
causing the hazard, it is the military upon whom sole responsibility
for deconflict ion should rest; see-and-avoid is obviously unworkable
at these closing speeds.

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 15:13:06 in message
>, Jose
> wrote:

>With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
>boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
>friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
>offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.

An ex-commodore of a prestigious yacht club once told me that of all the
yachts in the club 80% never or hardly ever left their moorings. Of the
remainder he claimed 80% never left the harbour.

In effect the majority were expensive weekend cottages.
--
David CL Francis

[Dave Stadt]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 15:13:06 in message
> >, Jose
> > wrote:
>
>>With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
>>boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
>>friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
>>offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.
>
> An ex-commodore of a prestigious yacht club once told me that of all the
> yachts in the club 80% never or hardly ever left their moorings. Of the
> remainder he claimed 80% never left the harbour.
>
> In effect the majority were expensive weekend cottages.
> --
> David CL Francis

Actually for a weekend cotttage they are quite reasonably priced.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
> created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
> in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.
> [...]

Heh heh...I don't disagree, but I am amused at how you managed to drag that
issue into this thread. :)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:17:42 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
>> created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
>> in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.
>> [...]
>
>Heh heh...I don't disagree, but I am amused at how you managed to drag that
>issue into this thread. :)
>

That issue needs to be publicly dragged before the FAA and the NTSB
via the news media.

[Jose]

> My point is your willingness to simply alter the stated scenario to suit
> your whim.

You make an analogy that I do not believe fits well. I came up with a
different one.

> If it's not a bad thing to expose oneself to risk, why is your desire to
> punish such a person by affording them less protection from the actions of
> others?

I am not affording them less protection, =they= are affording
=themselves= less protection by engaging in risky activity. My concept
of who should be protected has nothing to do with whether or not they
are doing a "bad" thing, but whether or not they are doing a
=consensual= thing.

> There is absolutely no reason that the harm in question needs to include the
> irresponsible actions of others.

I don't say it's ok that an irresponsible driver in car A hits a
responsible driver in car B. I am saying that by getting into a car,
you are accepting the risk that car A may cross your path, in exchange
for the ability to get car B to where you're going.

> The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.

The pilot is the one in control.

> Why should then passengers of boats not be granted the greater
> degree of protection, through a similar training and certification program
> used for aviation?

If the risk is commensurate, they should.

> ometimes you want the "innocents" not directly involved
> to be better protected, and sometimes you want the "guilty" who are exposing
> themselves to greater risk to be granted greater protection.

The point of the rules is to mitigate or modify risk. Some risks need
more modification because they are.. well... riskier.

> Really? You know of someone who has been killed by a kite?

No, and I don't know of someone who has been killed by a meteor. It's
not impossible though. The risk is not zero. It is also irrelevant how
many victims of what that I know.

> Still, little-league pitching is not
> inherently dangerous. That is, no death would occur when the usual and
> proper safety precautions are taken.

What precautions? What about batting? What precautions would prevent a
batted ball from impacting the pitcher in a fatal manner? You can take
every precaution and an accident can kill you anywhere, in any activity.

> The hazard to people on the ground by large airplanes is even
> less than by small airplanes.

You know this... how? One particular large airplane killed thousands of
people on the ground. Granted this was an unusual event, but it was
significant.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> You make an analogy that I do not believe fits well. I came up with a
> different one.

It only failed to "fit well" because it undermined your point. Changing the
analogy to suit your desire doesn't fix the problem with your point.

> [...]
>> The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.
>
> The pilot is the one in control.

You seem to be forgetting that this is in regards to the question about
regulation. That is, rule-making. In the activity of rule-making, the
pilot is NOT the one in control.

> No, and I don't know of someone who has been killed by a meteor.

You don't? There are a number of scientists who would take issue with your
claim.

> It's not impossible though.

By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone? With a meteor,
the mechanism is pretty plain to see. Even as infrequent as meteors land,
there is documented evidence that they have killed. However, even with the
EXTREMELY frequent use of kites in this country, I am not aware of a single
event in which a kite killed someone.

> The risk is not zero. It is also irrelevant how many victims of what that
> I know.

If you are going to claim that a kite can kill, you ought to at least have
an example of when one has.

> [...]
> You know this... how? One particular large airplane killed thousands of
> people on the ground. Granted this was an unusual event, but it was
> significant.

It was completely irrelevant. No amount of rule-making would have altered
the one time I'm aware of that a large airplane (two, actually) killed
thousands of people on the ground. It wasn't accidental.

As far as how I know the situation with respect to accidents, the proof is
in the accident record. Large airplanes practically never crash, and even
when they do, it's very unusual for anyone on the ground to be hurt. On the
other hand, small airplanes crash all the time. Even though it is similarly
unusual for anyone on the ground to be hurt, the sheer difference in
accident rate causes a larger risk exposure.

Pete

[Jose]

> You seem to be forgetting that this is in regards to the question about
> regulation. That is, rule-making. In the activity of rule-making, the
> pilot is NOT the one in control.

True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

> You don't [know of someone who has been killed by a meteor]?
> There are a number of scientists who would take issue with your claim.

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

> By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone?

A dive into a person asleep on the lawn, where the strut penetrates
through the eyeball into the brain is one method. I will agree that
this is a difficult feat to accomplish, but I do not believe it is
out-and-out impossible.

> If you are going to claim that a kite can kill, you ought to at least have
> an example of when one has.

No, that is not only not true, it is foolish.

> No amount of rule-making would have altered
> the one time I'm aware of that a large airplane (two, actually) killed
> thousands of people on the ground.

One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky. And that it was
deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were large aircraft
attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small aircraft are not
as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not recognized by the ADIZ
people.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:36:27 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone?
>
>A dive into a person asleep on the lawn, where the strut penetrates
>through the eyeball into the brain is one method. I will agree that
>this is a difficult feat to accomplish, but I do not believe it is
>out-and-out impossible.

Or, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11766288/

Don

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
> influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

Boats don't have pilots?

> Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

Once again, you rewrite my post to suit your desire.

I didn't write that you know someone who was killed by a meteor. I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

> [...]
> One, actually.
>
> A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

Again, rewriting my post. My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

> And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
> was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
> aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky.

I never said they don't. And with respect to the question of rule-making,
it is VERY MUCH relevant whether an event would be stopped by rule-making.
Ironic that you would claim it's not relevant, and then write this:

> And that it was deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were
> large aircraft attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small
> aircraft are not as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not
> recognized by the ADIZ people.

The biggest problem with the ADIZ (rule-making) is that it has no effect on
the intentional actions of terrorists. The question of intent versus
accidental is very relevant to the question of rule-making.

I realize that making up stuff is a popular Usenet tactic, but I really have
no interest in feeding your tendencies.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Or, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11766288/

That is precisely the type of "kite designed to harm" that I excluded from
the discussion.

[Jose]

> I wrote
> that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
> SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
> certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

Why should I know of someone who was killed by a meteor? It is not
necessary to know of someone who was killed by a meteor to ascertain
whether or not it is possible to be killed by a meteor.

> My comment about two airplanes does not in any
> way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
> anything real for you to criticize.

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

In any case the thread is drifting into irrelevance.

I contend that flying is more dangerous to the non-flying public than
boating is dangerous to the non-boating public. I might be wrong; I'm
open to data.

However, I also contend that =IF= the above is true, =THEN= it makes
sense to have more stringent regulation of airplane pilots than boating
pilots.

I also do not see an inconsistancy WRT allowing a student pilot to fly
solo but not with passengers. Since the danger to passengers is
inherently greater than the danger to the nonflying public, it makes
more sense to protect passengers via this rule. If the risk is small
enough, rulemaking is not necessary. (FSVO "small")

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 22:30:00 in message
>, Peter Duniho
> wrote:
>You think wrong. Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
>from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
>boats.
>
>In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
>be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
>or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

A while back (a few years), I found an interesting article on risk. I
still have a copy but not the author's name although the references are
still there. The author chose different ways of expressing risk. Like
how much would you have to tax an activity to raise a million pounds for
every death. One that struck me was smoking - a tax of 14 British Pounds
on a packet of 20.

The method that impressed me the most was one that took each risk and
said how long you would live on average if that risk was the only one
there was.

Unfortunately he did not have a figure for G.A. flying.

However he did give a figure for being killed by a falling aircraft and
that was: 50,000,000 years. Yes - Fifty Million Years.

Another was travelling in a train for a 100 hours a week would give you
a life expectancy of 200,000 years. Even smoking 40 cigarettes a day
would give you an average of 1,300 years.

This was written quite a few years ago so today there are probably more
aircraft in the sky to fall!

I seem to recall a slightly different risk statement, from a forgotten
source (not from that article), concerning flying scheduled airlines .
That said that if you took one scheduled flight every day and that was
the only life threatening risk then you would, on average, live 25,000
years.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 at 19:11:39 in message
>, Jose
> wrote:

>It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
>point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
>there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident
killed thousands of people on the ground? I am interested in aircraft
accidents but I do not know at the moment of any that fit that category.
--
David CL Francis

[Jose]

> Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident killed thousands of people on the ground? I am interested in aircraft accidents but I do not know at the moment of any that fit that category.

I'm talking about the 9/11 incidents involving the WTC, which while
deliberately caused, were not deliberately caused by the (original)
pilots or crew, but by a (n understandable) failure of the airline
industry to prevent the hijacking. That it is not possible to prevent
this kind of thing is part of the risk of big airplanes hitting people
on the ground (or connected to the ground via the structure of a building).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident
> killed thousands of people on the ground?

He's referring to the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11/01.

> I am interested in aircraft accidents but I do not know at the moment of
> any that fit that category.

That's because it wasn't an accident, and was so clearly irrelevant to this
thread that it wouldn't be surprising for a reader to not figure out what he
was talking about in this context.

Pete

[Jose]

> That's because it wasn't an accident, and was so clearly irrelevant to this
> thread that it wouldn't be surprising for a reader to not figure out what he
> was talking about in this context.

It's not irrelevant at all. It was not a deliberate act by the pilot.
It was an unanticipated malfunction in a system.

If you want another one, there was an entire community wiped out in or
near San Diego when a jetliner crashed into a small plane, and then
plummeted straight down. I don't know if it was "thousands dead" but
certainly hundreds, and iirc it led to the TCA around San Diego.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 at 22:39:57 in message
>, Jose
> wrote:

>I'm talking about the 9/11 incidents involving the WTC, which while
>deliberately caused, were not deliberately caused by the (original)
>pilots or crew, but by a (n understandable) failure of the airline
>industry to prevent the hijacking. That it is not possible to prevent
>this kind of thing is part of the risk of big airplanes hitting people
>on the ground (or connected to the ground via the structure of a building).

I understand, however, in my book, there is no way that deliberate act
can be classified with normal aircraft accident or risk, anymore than
the London attacks can be taken as part of the risk of riding on the
London Underground or even living or working in London. It is risk of
terrorist activity which could strike almost anywhere.

I would not count a war risk either. Late in WW2 a V2 fell on a
Woolworth store in London that was full of people. Some 140 died; is
that to be included in the risks of shopping?
--
David CL Francis

[Jose]

> I understand, however, in my book, there is no way that deliberate act can be classified with normal aircraft accident or risk, anymore than the London attacks can be taken as part of the risk of riding on the London Underground or even living or working in London.

The two are not quite the same. The risk of attacks like the London
attack is a risk of living in any major city, which is an attraction
point for such attacks. Same for muggings and such. It is not really a
risk of the underground per se. And to immunize large aircraft from
such events, rare as they may be, does not accurately represent the risk
from falling aircraft.

Consider deciding whether or not to construct a vacuum tube between NY
and SF, to run orbital speed subways through. Even if the technological
issue could be solved, there still remains the very real risk of a
deliberate act of sabotage, which at orbital speeds, would have
significant impact on the area of the country above the mishap. This is
a very real risk of a subterrainan orbital subway; to ignore it does a
disservice.

As for war... if the impact (of the V2) was random then no, the risk of
shopping should not include that. However, if the V2 were
micro-targeted at populated areas, and a shopping center qualified, then
yes, it is reasonable to include that as a risk of shopping in a
sufficiently attractive shopping center. (and yes, I know the V2 was not
guided).

The risk, when divided out, is small, but it does not disappear, and it
is attached to whatever served as the aim point, for the same reason it
was chosen as an aim point.

In any case, there was also one I mentioned before, a jetliner
plummeting into a town in Southern California and wiping out an entire
community. A C150 crash would not have that effect. There aren't many
jetliner crashes, but when a jetliner does have an undesired contact
with terrain, the consequences are bigger.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> there was an entire community wiped out in or near San Diego when a
> jetliner crashed into a small plane, and then plummeted straight down. I
> don't know if it was "thousands dead" but certainly hundreds, and iirc it
> led to the TCA around San Diego.

Only seven people on the ground were killed:
http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-05.pdf. (That's similar to
the number of people killed on the ground when AA 587 crashed into a
residential neighborhood in NY in November 2001.)

--Gary

[Jose]

> Only seven people on the ground were killed:
> http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-05.pdf. (That's similar to
> the number of people killed on the ground when AA 587 crashed into a
> residential neighborhood in NY in November 2001.)

Seven people? Wow... that's impressive. I had been led to beleve that
an entire neighborhood was leveled.

Staying on the ground is safer than I thought. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:49:18 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Only seven people on the ground were killed:
>> http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-05.pdf. (That's similar to
>> the number of people killed on the ground when AA 587 crashed into a
>> residential neighborhood in NY in November 2001.)
>
>Seven people? Wow... that's impressive. I had been led to beleve that
>an entire neighborhood was leveled.
>
>Staying on the ground is safer than I thought. :)
>
There were 15 dead on the ground in the Cerritos DC9/PA28 crash in
'89. Maybe you were thinking of that.

Before anybody asks, there were 4 dead on the ground in the SST crash.

Don

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:40:09 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:49:18 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>
>>> Only seven people on the ground were killed:
>>> http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-05.pdf. (That's similar to
>>> the number of people killed on the ground when AA 587 crashed into a
>>> residential neighborhood in NY in November 2001.)
>>
>>Seven people? Wow... that's impressive. I had been led to beleve that
>>an entire neighborhood was leveled.
>>
>>Staying on the ground is safer than I thought. :)
>>
>There were 15 dead on the ground in the Cerritos DC9/PA28 crash in
>'89. Maybe you were thinking of that.
>
>Before anybody asks, there were 4 dead on the ground in the SST crash.

Over 50 were killed in Amsterdam when an El-Al 747 crashed into an
apartment building.

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 at 02:03:18 in message
>, Jose
> wrote:

>If you want another one, there was an entire community wiped out in or
>near San Diego when a jetliner crashed into a small plane, and then
>plummeted straight down. I don't know if it was "thousands dead" but
>certainly hundreds, and iirc it led to the TCA around San Diego.

I know that one . Collision between a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 727 over
San Diego. Sept 25 1978.

144 died of which 135 were in the Boeing, 2 in the Cessna and seven on
the ground. 22 Houses were destroyed or badly damaged and a number of
motor vehicles wrecked.

So a lot of damage but hundreds dead - NO.

There are other examples you could have chosen! Two airliners collided
over New York 16 Dec 1960 . A DC8 and a Super Constellation. 128 dead
from both aircraft and 6 dead on the ground in the Park Slope area of
Brooklyn where most of the DC8 fell.

31 August1986. A DC9 collided with a Piper Archer over Los Angeles.
58 in the DC9, 3 in the Piper Archer and 15 on the ground died.

Some of the worst incidents involving aircraft 'falling from the sky'
have occurred at Air Shows.

Two air show disasters stand out for killing and injuring spectators.

1. Ramstein AFB Germany in 1988. The Italian Airforce's aerobatic
team were the cause of 60 people killed and hundreds injured on
the ground.

2. Ukraine 27 July 2002. A Ukrainian Air Force SU-27 tumbled into
the spectator area killing 86 and injuring 156

Airshows are, to some extent, a chosen risk even though none of us
expect to die at an air display! Some people have been killed who were
outside the air show spectator perimeter but it seems to be a very small
number over the years. In particular the Russian TU- 144 (The Russian
Concorde) crashed at the Paris Airshow in 1973 killing 8 members of the
general public and injuring 60.


E&OE

--
David CL Francis