Better drivers?

[cpw]

I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
(automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

[Bob Gardner]

Patting myself on the back, I think that is true. Both flying and
maneuvering ships (with no brakes in either case) requires constant
evaluation of your surroundings and doing a lot of predicting. I'm watching
everyone, in both directions, and always have an evasion plan. Can't trust
anyone these days.

Bob Gardner

"cpw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"cpw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
expected to be, I see no reason to think they would be better drivers. That
is, if they can't even be better-than-average in flying than they'd be
expected to be, why would one expect them to be better-than-average in
anything else?

If anything, I find some of the most common problems with driving
(aggressive driving such as tailgating and speeding, lack of basic knowledge
of right-of-way rules) to be quite rampant among the drivers with whom I
share the airport parking lot.

For my own part, it doesn't happen much if at all these days, but when I
first learned to fly, I kept having trouble keeping my driving reflexes out
of my flying and vice a versa. I'd check the (nonexistent) mirror, reach
for the (nonexistent) turn signal, and look over my shoulder to check my
(irrelevant) blind spot before making a turn in an airplane. In the car,
I'd find myself pushing and pulling on the steering wheel in response to
changing terrain.

Finally, while not a proof of my opinion, it seems to me that insurance
companies would be more eager to get pilots on their rolls for auto
insurance if they were statistically superior risks. I have never seen any
sort of targeted advertising along those lines.

What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a
tendency to think that they are superior to the average person and a
misplaced belief that that above-average-ness permeates throughout their
entire existence. I've seen that attitude posted here enough, that's for
sure.

But, while there certainly are pilots who are above-average, I don't really
see any reason to think there are more pilots, relatively speaking, who are
above-average than there are people who are above-average in the general
population.

Remember, something like 80% of all drivers believe they are above-average.
Obviously nearly half of those people are wrong.

Pete

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> If anything, I find some of the most common problems with driving
> (aggressive driving such as tailgating and speeding, lack of basic knowledge
> of right-of-way rules) to be quite rampant among the drivers with whom I
> share the airport parking lot.



I remember going to lunch with a flight instructor and having her drive. She
scared the crap out of me. Not that she was aggressive; it was more that she
was just a **** poor driver.... wandered over the lines, etc. I tried to get
her to let me drive back but no go.

She's flying for a major now. As I recall, she was a good pilot; just a really
bad driver. I don't think there's any correlation at all. You'd think the
hand-eye coordination would help but apparently there are other factors at work.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am not sure if I agree. The only car accident I ever got into was
because I was looking up at the clouds trying to figure out which
direction the wind was blowing from, and rear ended the car in front.
That's when I realized that looking up at the sky is something I have
been doing routinely while driving.

There is very little similarity between the decision making processes
involved in driving and flying. Weather is a leading cause of aviation
accidents. It is just a minor incovenience when driving. Flying fast is
good, and slow is bad. The opposite is true with driving. Running out
of fuel in an airplane could be bad, but in a car it is just an
inconvenience. Flight planning is a must. Driving plan... I have driven
all across the country and never did anything that even comes close to
a 50NM flight plan.



Bob Gardner wrote:
> Patting myself on the back, I think that is true. Both flying and
> maneuvering ships (with no brakes in either case) requires constant
> evaluation of your surroundings and doing a lot of predicting. I'm watching
> everyone, in both directions, and always have an evasion plan. Can't trust
> anyone these days.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "cpw" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> > wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> > (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> > my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> > situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> > etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
> >

[cpw]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> If anything, I find some of the most common problems with driving
> (aggressive driving such as tailgating and speeding, lack of basic knowledge
> of right-of-way rules) to be quite rampant among the drivers with whom I
> share the airport parking lot.

> What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a
> tendency to think that they are superior to the average person and a
> misplaced belief that that above-average-ness permeates throughout their
> entire existence. I've seen that attitude posted here enough, that's for
> sure.

This reminds me of a remark I once heard from a hospital administrator
regarding physicians (who he once held as above reproach). "You know,
if you're an a**hole when you go into medical school, you're generally
an a**hole when you get out". No reason to think pilots are any
different, I suppose.
CPW

[Morgans]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
>
> I remember going to lunch with a flight instructor and having her drive.
> She scared the crap out of me. Not that she was aggressive; it was more
> that she was just a **** poor driver.... wandered over the lines, etc. I
> tried to get her to let me drive back but no go.
>
> She's flying for a major now. As I recall, she was a good pilot; just a
> really bad driver. I don't think there's any correlation at all. You'd
> think the hand-eye coordination would help but apparently there are other
> factors at work.

I can say the same thing about an acquaintance of mine, who is a pilot. All
over the road, and fast, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"cpw" wrote:

>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

The scariest driver I know is a commercial pilot and CFI. He speeds, cuts
in and out of traffic and regards red lights as advisory only; I will not
ride with him. He may have "improved driving skills," but he's a menace.

Besides him, the pilots I know seem pretty average as drivers.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[soxinbox]

I am glad you asked this question.
I used to consider myself a good driver, but after learning to fly, my
driving ability has deteriorated.
When you get used to talking on the radio, tracking maps, scanning gauges,
pulling out approach plates, and tracking navigational aids, you get very
good at multitasking. When you get back in the car, you think you can read a
map, talk on the phone, and adjust the radio in heavy traffic, and it
doesn't work so well.

In the plane, you have to multitask, but you can vary your coarse a few
miles either way and +- 100 feet. In the car you need to single task and can
only vary your coarse by a few feet.

I am interested to see if anyone else feels the same.

"cpw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
>

[Jose]

> Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
> avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
> expected to be...

I have no idea what this means. It sounds a lot like "the average pilot
is no better than average at piloting". Could you clarify?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> For my own part, it doesn't happen much if at all these days, but when I
> first learned to fly, I kept having trouble keeping my driving reflexes out
> of my flying and vice a versa. I'd check the (nonexistent) mirror, reach
> for the (nonexistent) turn signal, and look over my shoulder to check my
> (irrelevant) blind spot before making a turn in an airplane. In the car,
> I'd find myself pushing and pulling on the steering wheel in response to
> changing terrain.

Just as long as you don't stop looking out the windshield and just
scan the dashboard if the road dips into fog....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
>> avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
>> expected to be...
>
> I have no idea what this means. It sounds a lot like "the average pilot
> is no better than average at piloting". Could you clarify?

I can try.

Let's assume for a moment that pilots make for better drivers. Presumably
that happens because they somehow have superior judgment or superior skills
(the two characteristics useful in avoiding accidents). Judgment and skills
generally apply across all of one's activities; this premise is in fact the
basis for the conceit that pilots make better drivers (the thinking
generally goes like this: "it requires special skills to learn to fly, so
the person in possession of those special skills also uses them to be a
better driver").

However, aviation is filled with examples of accidents. As has been
established often enough here, aviation is at least as risky relative to
accidents than driving is. (Of course, due to the nature of the activity
and the equipment, injuries and fatalities occur in a greater percentage of
accidents).

If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos. But they don't. If anything, they wreck planes more often
relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos, but for sure they wreck them
at least as often.

In the areas where pilots do a better job avoiding wrecks (commercial,
business, air transport), one can readily point to regulations that lead to
that. The pilots aren't any better, though they are better trained, they
are just as inclined to have an accident. But the regulations, assuming
they follow them (which they generally do), are what lead to the improved
safety statistics. Not pilot ability.

I think cpw's anecdote sums up my view pretty well. One can argue that
entry into aviation (or med school) is limited to a particular kind of
person, but in reality there's no evidence that the "particular kind of
person" (even if one can point to certain personality traits to lead one to
those activities) has any correlation with better judgment or skills.

I don't know if that helps. I've had a splitting headache since Tuesday and
am having trouble expressing myself in my usual crystal clear, concise
manner. :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> Just as long as you don't stop looking out the windshield and just
> scan the dashboard if the road dips into fog....

Uh...

Nope, never did that. Nuh-uh. That's my story, sticking to it.

[Jose]

> If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
> accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
> autos.

I think this is faulty reasoning. Unless you hide behind "relatively
speaking", it may be simply that flying is more dangerous than driving.

> If anything, they wreck planes more often
> relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos

Per mile? Per hour? Per trip? The statistic is not meaningless, but
it can easily be made to be so. Again I see "relatively speaking",
which suggests some normative calculation whose definition is left,
well, undefined.

> In the areas where pilots do a better job avoiding wrecks (commercial,
> business, air transport), one can readily point to regulations that lead to
> that. The pilots aren't any better, though they are better trained, they
> are just as inclined to have an accident. But the regulations, assuming
> they follow them (which they generally do), are what lead to the improved
> safety statistics. Not pilot ability.

Is this borne out by the relative accident rates of ATPs in GA aircraft,
vs the run of the mill GA pilot?

I think I agree that pilots are not in general better drivers than non
pilots, but I have no data to back this up. However, your reasoning is
not compelling.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
> [...]
> I think I agree that pilots are not in general better drivers than non
> pilots, but I have no data to back this up. However, your reasoning is
> not compelling.

Whatever. My point is not to enter the quagmire of trying to compare
accident statistics. That's obviously a hopeless cause. If pilots were
truly above-average, then the difference in safety would be dramatic and
positive for pilots.

Regardless of what you think about the various parameters, it's clear that
pilots are not significantly enough above average to produce a tangible
difference in accident statistics. The only areas in which aviation is
demonstrably safer is in areas where regulations make it so.

Left to their own devices, pilots do just as many dumb things as anyone
else.

In any case, I have no need to use the argument to which you object as
"proof". It's simply a conversational observation, and you're mistaken to
try to make it more than that. The real "proof" (such as it is) that pilots
aren't better drivers can be seen in their behavior as drivers. I witness
just as much bad driving on the part of pilots as I do on the part of the
average population.

If you want some conclusive, analytical evidence, you're in the wrong
thread.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
> accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
> autos.

You can't make that conclusion or assumption.

The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some means
of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
conclusive.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
>> accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
>> autos.
>
> You can't make that conclusion or assumption.

Sure I can. I just did.

> The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some
> means
> of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
> statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
> statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
> conclusive.

Even your proposed driving test would not be conclusive. Tests have biases
and inaccuracies too.

That said, statisticians make a pretty good living discovering interesting
facts about the world through nothing more than simple study of the existing
numbers. If you really care, you might want to read the book
"Freakanomics", which has lot of interesting case studies in statistical
conjecture.

Sure, it's technically conjecture, but there's very little in the world that
can actually be *proven* -- there is always a non-zero chance that the
attempt at the "proof" is flawed -- and statistics, when applied in a
careful manner, can reveal all sorts of interesting truths.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> If anything, they wreck planes more often relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos,
> but for sure they wreck them at least as often.

Is this one of those things that writers leave in to check if their
readers are paying attention or do you really mean it? Pilots wreck
planes more often than drivers wreck autos? :) :) Unless the
"relatively speaking" bit means something that I don't yet know... :)

Ramapriya

[Greg Farris]

I don't believe studies have been done, and even if they had, as Pete says,
they may be error prone - so we're all guessing in the dark really.

For my part, I'll bet beginning and low-time pilots probably do make better
drivers, for two reasons : 1)Respect for rules and 2)Weather observation.
Some here feel weather is more of a "nuisance" in driving than anything else,
but it remains one of the most often cited contributing causes in accidents.
Pilots are simply less likly to be surprised by weather, or to launch blithley
into degrading conditions. They also ahve at their fingertips a whole palette
of tools to allow them to quickly and accurately assess weather situations.

As for respect for rules - well, that's why I said beginning and low-time
pilots. Too often, after a few hundred, or better yet a few thousand hours,
pilots begin to feel that all those pesky, meticulous rules are just for
smaller fry, and this attitude probably carries over into their driving as
well.

GF

[Nathan Young]

On 9 Jun 2006 14:49:47 -0700, "cpw" > wrote:

>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
>wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
>(automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
>my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
>situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
>etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

This article presents results from a study that indicates that pilots
are less likely to have an accident than most other occupations.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P63952.asp

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> >> If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
> >> accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
> >> autos.
> >
> > You can't make that conclusion or assumption.
>
> Sure I can. I just did.

ok. sure, you can. But it isn't valid.

>
> > The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some
> > means
> > of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
> > statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
> > statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
> > conclusive.
>
> Even your proposed driving test would not be conclusive. Tests have biases
> and inaccuracies too.

Well, of course a flawed test would be useless. But not all tests have
meaningful biases or inaccuracies.


> That said, statisticians make a pretty good living discovering interesting
> facts about the world through nothing more than simple study of the existing
> numbers. If you really care, you might want to read the book
> "Freakanomics", which has lot of interesting case studies in statistical
> conjecture.

Discovering a correlation doesn't prove cause and effect, a mistake
way too many people make. Absent proof of cause and effect, these statistical
"facts" are generally just (potentially) interesting trivia.

>
> Sure, it's technically conjecture, but there's very little in the world that
> can actually be *proven* -- there is always a non-zero chance that the
> attempt at the "proof" is flawed -- and statistics, when applied in a
> careful manner, can reveal all sorts of interesting truths.

None of which supports your orginal thesis or even validates your approach.

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

[Gene Seibel]

My sister says she'd rather ride with me in an airplane than a car.
Don't know what that means.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



cpw wrote:
> I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Gene Seibel" > wrote:

> My sister says she'd rather ride with me in an airplane than a car.
> Don't know what that means.

Airplane rides are always more fun than mere car rides. :-)

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> This article presents results from a study that indicates that pilots
> are less likely to have an accident than most other occupations.
>
> http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P63952.asp

Interesting data point, but it's addressing a different question. It's
looking at the accident rate per elapsed time (per year), rather than per
time spent driving. So it could be that the ones with lower accident rates
simply do less driving, rather than that they're safer when they drive.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
> When you get used to talking on the radio, tracking maps, scanning gauges,
> pulling out approach plates, and tracking navigational aids, you get very
> good at multitasking. When you get back in the car, you think you can read
> a map, talk on the phone, and adjust the radio in heavy traffic, and it
> doesn't work so well.

One of the most important skills when flying is maintaining situational
awareness. Keeping track of whether you're in a car or else a plane (and the
implications as to what tasks you can safely perform) is a pretty basic
element of situational awareness. :)

--Gary

[FLAV8R]

"Jose" wrote in message ...
> I think this is faulty reasoning. Unless you hide behind "relatively
> speaking", it may be simply that flying is more dangerous than driving.
>
> Jose
> --
Do you really believe that flying is more dangerous than driving?
When was the last time you drove in any major city?
And how many times did you have to modify your speed, direction
or stopping distance because of another drivers mistake?

I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.

The statistics show the 50,000 drivers die per year.
I believe the number for airplane accidents is around 900 per year
worldwide.
And if I'm not mistaken, the 50k is in the U.S. alone.

Can anyone back up the stats, I know I have seen them printed somewhere
before.

David

[Matt Whiting]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2006 14:49:47 -0700, "cpw" > wrote:
>
>
>>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
>>wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
>>(automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
>>my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
>>situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
>>etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
>
>
> This article presents results from a study that indicates that pilots
> are less likely to have an accident than most other occupations.
>
> http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P63952.asp
>
>

Interesting. I'm an engineer and a pilot, but not a pilot
professionally. I wonder what that means? :-)


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> None of which supports your orginal thesis or even validates your
> approach.

What approach?

You and Jose seem to be under the misimpression that I'm trying to prove
something here. You attack my statements on that basis, when in fact you
are completely wrong about my intent. Your argumentative replies are
irrelevant.

[Chris W]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
> avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
> expected to be, I see no reason to think they would be better drivers. That
> is, if they can't even be better-than-average in flying than they'd be
> expected to be, why would one expect them to be better-than-average in
> anything else?

How on earth could the average person preform better than average? By
definition that is impossible.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> Interesting data point, but it's addressing a different question. It's
> looking at the accident rate per elapsed time (per year), rather than per
> time spent driving. So it could be that the ones with lower accident rates
> simply do less driving, rather than that they're safer when they drive.

Indeed, and it only looks at professional pilots (possibly even only airline
pilots, given the all-too-common bias against other professional pilots
among people outside the aviation industry). If it's only airline pilots,
there's a clear bias there, given that the daily routine of an airline pilot
is often VERY different from that of most of professionals, with a lot of
time spent actually in an airplane or at an airport, at least when on duty.

Of course, the article also doesn't tell us what the sample size of each
population (professional) group is. It's not hard to imagine the
possibility that they didn't even have 1000 pilots in the study, making the
statistical error of that group (and similarly under-represented groups)
much higher than for other groups.

Note also that the study was done by starting with a database of 1 million
accidents, and then cross-referencing that with a database of insurance
policy owners. This is exactly the kind of statistical analysis that others
have complained about in this thread. Personally, I think it's useful to
the extent that one recognizes its limitations, but it's not going to
"prove" anything, especially to someone insistent on ignoring the data.

Beyond that, I think it's telling that while there appear to be genuine
statistical differences, even if one assumes that they are due entirely to
individual behavior rather than circumstantial conditions, there's really
not that much difference across the various professions, especially for the
"accident" category. For an insurance company, I suppose the difference
between 80 accidents in a year for 1000 people and 100 accidents in a year
could be useful information (insurance companies live and die on aggregating
huge numbers of experiences in order to get predictable outcomes), but what
that really says is that there's a lot of overlap in individual performance.

Even if one assumes that study is completely applicable, if anything what it
suggests is that *most* pilots are probably about the same sort of driver as
*most* other individuals, at least when it comes to having accidents.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"FLAV8R" > wrote:
....
> I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.
....
> Can anyone back up the stats, I know I have seen them printed somewhere
> before.

This probably isn't what you are thinking of, but it is tbe only study I've
found on the web that compares the accident rate of various modes of
transportation and normalizes the data:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

For my own comparative purposes, GA flying appears to be ~7 times more
likely to lead to a fatal accident than driving (rounded average of columns
1 and 4 in table 5; all the other columns use measures not relevant to my
own situation).

[Chris W]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I am not sure if I agree. The only car accident I ever got into was
> because I was looking up at the clouds trying to figure out which
> direction the wind was blowing from, and rear ended the car in front.
> That's when I realized that looking up at the sky is something I have
> been doing routinely while driving.

Let's see, so you are easily distracted from the task of driving by
irrelevant things, if you are the same way while flying, you probably
aren't a very safe pilot either.


> There is very little similarity between the decision making processes
> involved in driving and flying. Weather is a leading cause of aviation
> accidents. It is just a minor incovenience when driving. Flying fast is
> good, and slow is bad. The opposite is true with driving.

Not true. Driving 35 on the high way is just as dangerous as driving 75
in a housing area. Just like flying, driving needs to be done at the
correct speed for the conditions. The only time this wouldn't be true
is if you were the only animated object on or near the road. Also
flying too fast can be as dangerous as driving too fast.


Running out
> of fuel in an airplane could be bad, but in a car it is just an
> inconvenience. Flight planning is a must. Driving plan... I have driven
> all across the country and never did anything that even comes close to
> a 50NM flight plan.

Just because the things that are important to make decisions about while
driving aren't the same as they are while flying, doesn't mean the
ability to make good decisions is any different for either activity.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Matt Whiting]

Chris W wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>>
>> Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better
>> at avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would
>> statistically be expected to be, I see no reason to think they would
>> be better drivers. That is, if they can't even be better-than-average
>> in flying than they'd be expected to be, why would one expect them to
>> be better-than-average in anything else?
>
>
> How on earth could the average person preform better than average? By
> definition that is impossible.
>

You've obviously never been to Lake Wobegon.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:zoEig.52763$9c6.36774@dukeread11...
> How on earth could the average person preform better than average? By
> definition that is impossible.

I have no idea what you mean.

I am a better than average computer programmer, but a less than average
baseball player. Obviously being an "average person" (or even "less than
average person") does not preclude me also being a "better than average"
person.

Pete

[Skywise]

"cpw" > wrote in news:1149889787.502247.107120
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

I know I am a better driver for the simple reason that I've been
riding a motorcycle for 20 years and am still in one piece.

But no, I don't fly.....yet.... I hope that I'll do well. I'm
a stickler for procedure and rules, but have no problem making
stuff up on the fly when necessary.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Chris W > wrote in news:rBEig.52766$9c6.23723@dukeread11:

> Andrew Sarangan wrote:

<Snipola>
>> There is very little similarity between the decision making processes
>> involved in driving and flying. Weather is a leading cause of aviation
>> accidents. It is just a minor incovenience when driving. Flying fast is
>> good, and slow is bad. The opposite is true with driving.
>
> Not true. Driving 35 on the high way is just as dangerous as driving 75
> in a housing area. Just like flying, driving needs to be done at the
> correct speed for the conditions. The only time this wouldn't be true
> is if you were the only animated object on or near the road. Also
> flying too fast can be as dangerous as driving too fast.
<Snipola>

I agree. One of my pet peeves is people not accelerating on the
acceleration ramp. Yes, that's the proper name for it. Not "on
ramp". That's what I was taught in drivers ed and my experince
since confirms this. You are supposed to accelerate to the speed
of traffic BEFORE merging. Many accidents occur at "on ramps"
where traffic is going at vastly different speeds. Trying to
merge onto a freeway moving at 75 while still only doing 35 is
a very bad thing.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > None of which supports your orginal thesis or even validates your
> > approach.
>
> What approach?

Your approach of trying to make a claim/proof/whatever about pilots as
drivers based on aircraft accident rates without any basis for a relationship
between the two.

>
> You and Jose seem to be under the misimpression that I'm trying to prove
> something here.

You attempted to make *something*.

>You attack my statements on that basis

No. I disagreed with your argument based on its flaws. Not on you
or your intent.

> , when in fact you
> are completely wrong about my intent. Your argumentative replies are
> irrelevant.

your intent is irrelevant. My intent is irrelevant.

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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"cpw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
>

Of course current pilots are going to have less accidents. They have been
screened by a FAA approved AME for any number of medical issues that could
affect their ability to drive or could result in a sudden incapacation. How
could they possibly NOT be safer? Right? If they weren't, what would be the
point behind all the various classes of medicals and stuff?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Your approach of trying to make a claim/proof/whatever about pilots as
> drivers based on aircraft accident rates without any basis for a
> relationship
> between the two.

If the fact that a person is a pilot is relevant to whether they are a good
driver or not, surely the question of whether they are a *good* pilot is
also relevant.

Conversely, if it's your claim that their abilities as a pilot are
irrelevant to their abilities as a driver, then the only logical conclusion
is that the question of whether they are a pilot at all is also irrelevant.

Which is what I originally said in the first place.

> [...]
>>You attack my statements on that basis
>
> No. I disagreed with your argument based on its flaws. Not on you
> or your intent.

When you say that my proof is invalid, you necessarily make the assumption
(ie the basis for your comments) that I am trying to prove something. Given
that I'm not trying to prove anything, your claim that my proof is faulty is
irrelevant.

Pete

[Jose]

> I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.

"find" implies knowledge - results of investigations and such. Perhaps
more apt would be "believe" (unless you have had a sufficient number of
car crashes =and= airplane crashes from which to draw valid conclusions).

> The statistics show the 50,000 drivers die per year.
> I believe the number for airplane accidents is around 900

Numbers are meaningless without appropriate normalization. Per mile?
Per year? Per passenger? Per flight? Per dollar?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> You and Jose seem to be under the misimpression that I'm trying to prove
> something here. You attack my statements on that basis, when in fact you
> are completely wrong about my intent.

What is your intent? We only "attack" your statements because we
believe they are invalid - that is, an inaccurate representation of
reality. I'm not asking for proof, just pointing out what I believe to
be a significant error in reasonsing.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I think it's telling that while there appear to be genuine
> statistical differences, even if one assumes that they are due entirely to
> individual behavior rather than circumstantial conditions, there's really
> not that much difference across the various professions, especially for the
> "accident" category. [...]
> Even if one assumes that study is completely applicable, if anything what it
> suggests is that *most* pilots are probably about the same sort of driver as
> *most* other individuals, at least when it comes to having accidents.

I'll buy that. In fact, that's probably the most significant finding
that we, as pilots, should take away from this.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
> What is your intent? We only "attack" your statements because we believe
> they are invalid - that is, an inaccurate representation of reality. I'm
> not asking for proof, just pointing out what I believe to be a significant
> error in reasonsing.

Your only proposed counter-argument (so far, anyway) to what I wrote is that
"flying is just more dangerous". While it's true that statistically
speaking, it seems more dangerous than driving, there's no reason to believe
that's inherent in flying. Between the *excellent* safety record of the
airlines, and the fact that the vast majority of accidents with known causes
are due to an error in pilot judgment, not some mysterious "more
dangerous-making" factor, I see no reason to think that flying is inherently
more dangerous than driving.

There are certain aspects of flying that make it less forgiving, but I'm not
talking about injury or fatality rates here. I'm just talking about
accidents. Per accident, injuries and fatalities are higher in aviation, as
would be expected given the generally higher energies involved in accidents.
But other than that, if pilots were generally "better", the overall accident
rate should be significantly lower. I've seen no data to suggest that it
is.

I find *your* suggestion that flying is inherently more dangerous to be a
significant error in reasoning. There's no question that some kinds of
flying is inherently dangerous, but that's not what we're talking about, and
there are kinds of driving that is also inherently dangerous. That
proposition cuts both ways. Flying an airplane is only somewhat more
difficult than driving a car, and this is mitigated somewhat by the fact
that most of the time, one need not be *nearly* as precise in an airplane as
is required in a car, and is mitigated greatly by the significant increase
in training required to obtain flight privileges. And again, this is
reinforced by the fact that pilot skills are rarely the actual cause of an
accident; pilot judgment is most often the cause.

The best you might argue is that skills in driving are not transferable to
skills in flying, and thus there should be no correlation between driving
statistics and flying statistics. But once you do that, you have assumed
the original question to be answered in the negative, which was my point in
the first place.

Pete

[Jose]

> Your only proposed counter-argument (so far, anyway) to what I wrote is that
> "flying is just more dangerous".

I said that "flying =may= be more dangerous", which if true, negates
your argument (which was "If pilots made for better drivers, then
average pilots should have fewer accidents in airplanes, relatively
speaking, than average drivers do in autos.")

You may well reach the right conclusion, but I don't think that your
(original) reasoning is the correct way to get there. I don't argue
that your conclusion is correct or incorrect, and thus have (and need)
no counter argument.

> Between the *excellent* safety record of the
> airlines...

Any dangerous activity can be made less dangerous by the sufficient
application of training, care, equipment, and support, which the
airlines are in a position to apply.

> ...and the fact that the vast majority of accidents with known causes
> are due to an error in pilot judgment, not some mysterious "more
> dangerous-making" factor...

See above - danger need not be "mysterious", it just requires more and
better judgement.

> ...I see no reason to think that flying is inherently
> more dangerous than driving.

What is "danger" and how would it be measured? It requires more
training to fly safely - is that not a measure of inherent danger? The
question is actually harder to answer than it would appear on the
surface, especially if you consider how danger can be mitigated, and
whether or not that should be included in the "danger rating" of the
activity.

> I find *your* suggestion that flying is inherently more dangerous to be a
> significant error in reasoning.

You may be right, but you may also be sliding (with me) on the
definition of "inherent danger" (see above). But if that is the case,
then the differences (in "inherent danger") are probably not significant
anyway.

> The best you might argue is that skills in driving are not transferable to
> skills in flying, and thus there should be no correlation between driving
> statistics and flying statistics. But once you do that, you have assumed
> the original question to be answered in the negative, which was my point in
> the first place.

I agree there, especially as (as you say) accidents (in both cases) are
mainly the result of judgement errors.

Which then raises the question of whether judgement (in driving and
flying) is correlated, or whether pilots are self selected to have
better (or worse) judgement, or whether a pilot's judgement that he has
better driving judgement because he is a pilot is itself poor judgement.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[tom418]

Years ago, I found myself flying with a captain who lived within 5 miles of
me, on Long Island. We decided to carpool for that month ( to LGA). He was
one of the best B727 captains I flew with. But his driving was atrocious. He
would run red lights ( "It's 4:30 in the morning" he hollered at me, when I
protested) . When it was my turn to drive, he wanted to talk into running a
red light by making a "right on red", and then making a "U"-turn on the side
street, followed by another "right on red".
Fortunately for me, he had enough senority to upgrade and I never flew with
him again.

"cpw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
> wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
> (automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
> my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
> situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
> etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?
>

[Kyler Laird]

Chris W > writes:

>> Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
>> avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
>> expected to be, I see no reason to think they would be better drivers. That
>> is, if they can't even be better-than-average in flying than they'd be
>> expected to be, why would one expect them to be better-than-average in
>> anything else?

>How on earth could the average person preform better than average? By
>definition that is impossible.

I recall (but not so well that I can readily provide a reference) that
this is fairly common. I suppose it depends on your definition of
"average person."

For an extreme example, let's say that there are 100 GA pilots and only
one GA crash in a year. The average is .01 crashes/pilot, right? And
99% of the pilots have done better than that by not crashing, right?

Even if you want to use some definition of "average person" that results
in a partial crash per year, almost all of your pilots have done
"better-than-average" (as stated in the part you quoted).

(Yes, this is getting off of the flying/driving thread a bit.)

--kyler

[Jose]

> Even if you want to use some definition of "average person" that results
> in a partial crash per year, almost all of your pilots have done
> "better-than-average" (as stated in the part you quoted).

Almost all of your pilots are not average pilots. The issue wasn't
"almost all" but "average".

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tater Schuld]

"cpw" > wrote in message

> I am wondering ...
<snip>
> It has seemed to me that...
<snip>

most of the later responses in this thread have forgotten that the original
poster had said these two things.

he did NOT say

"it seems to be..."

or

"I find..."

he was not trying to state facts, he was looking to see if that others
noticed the same thing.

while I am not a pilot, I try to act as PIC while driving. got a warning for
excessive speed today. no speed limits in the air <shrugs>

[[email protected]]

Tater Schuld wrote:
>
> while I am not a pilot, I try to act as PIC while driving.

Ditto here. I'm very regimented in my approach to car driving and
haven't thus come even remotely near a traffic violation of any kind. I
use my C240's Cruise Control all the time to help me not exceed
specified speed limits <g>

Ramapriya

[Jim Logajan]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote:
> while I am not a pilot, I try to act as PIC while driving. got a
> warning for excessive speed today. no speed limits in the air <shrugs>

Actually there are speed limits for aircraft (though just high enough that
many GA aircraft can only dream of flying that fast). See FAR 91.117.

[Chris W]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> Airplane rides are always more fun than mere car rides. :-)
>


While the potential for fun is greater in air planes than in cars, I can
think of a lot of cars I would have more fun in than a 152.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Bob Noel]

In article <IG8jg.52859$9c6.22887@dukeread11>, Chris W > wrote:

> > Airplane rides are always more fun than mere car rides. :-)
>
> While the potential for fun is greater in air planes than in cars, I can
> think of a lot of cars I would have more fun in than a 152.

well, maybe if the car is parked and even that depends on the companion.
wink wink

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

[Skylune]

by "Peter Duniho" > Jun 9, 2006 at 05:37 PM


"What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a
tendency to think that they are superior to the average person and a
misplaced belief that that above-average-ness permeates throughout their
entire existence. I've seen that attitude posted here enough, that's for

sure.


<<

Agreed. No one personifies this attitude better than Boyer, a
megalomaniac who thinks the Congress and FAA report to him, and that the
nonflying "civilians" affected by small planes and GA airport have no
rights, or even ability to comment, even though it is their tax dollars
subsidizing the business.

This arrogant attitude is why some pilots react angrily and irrationally
when faced with facts about things like FAA funding sources.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> by "Peter Duniho" > Jun 9, 2006 at 05:37 PM
>
>
> "What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a tendency to think that
> they are superior to the average person


Hey, that's how it exactly is in my country where aviation education
can only be afforded by roughly 1 in 1,000. Most Indian pilots are an
awfully snooty lot... heard so many say that :(

Ramapriya

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Skylune wrote:
>>
>> "What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a
>> tendency to think that
>> they are superior to the average person

We don't think that, we KNOW that.

>
>
> Most Indian pilots are an
> awfully snooty lot...

Deservedly so!!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Al]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Skylune wrote:
>>>
>>> "What I *would* agree with is that pilots are an arrogant lot, with a
>>> tendency to think that
>>> they are superior to the average person
>
> We don't think that, we KNOW that.
>

I've watched a husband/wife team (friends of ours) run through this:

He makes some comment
She says "You think"
He says, "I don't think; I know!"
She says "I don't think(pause) you know; either."

Al G

[B A R R Y]

wrote:
>
>
> Hey, that's how it exactly is in my country where aviation education
> can only be afforded by roughly 1 in 1,000. Most Indian pilots are an
> awfully snooty lot... heard so many say that :(

I met a 15 year old Indian student pilot. A really, really nice, and
very intelligent kid, who plans to be an airline pilot, possibly for an
Indian airline.

His mom rode along in the back seat, in traditional dress, for his first
few lessons. As usual, the first lesson involved parking and
securing the plane after the lesson. He's maybe 120 pounds soaking wet.
Watching him push a Warrior into the tie-down as pretty funny, until
we helped him out. The whole thing was kind of cute.

We'd kid him as the only pilot in history who needs to add nose weight
to solo. <G> (he dosen't REALLY need to...)

By now, he's probably got his commercial, and I don't think he has a
driver's license.

[[email protected]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, that's how it exactly is in my country where aviation education
> > can only be afforded by roughly 1 in 1,000. Most Indian pilots are an
> > awfully snooty lot... heard so many say that :(
>
> I met a 15 year old Indian student pilot. A really, really nice, and
> very intelligent kid, who plans to be an airline pilot, possibly for an
> Indian airline.
>
> His mom rode along in the back seat, in traditional dress, for his first
> few lessons. As usual, the first lesson involved parking and
> securing the plane after the lesson. He's maybe 120 pounds soaking wet.
> Watching him push a Warrior into the tie-down as pretty funny, until
> we helped him out. The whole thing was kind of cute.
>
> We'd kid him as the only pilot in history who needs to add nose weight
> to solo. <G> (he dosen't REALLY need to...)
>
> By now, he's probably got his commercial, and I don't think he has a
> driver's license.


Nice one :)

I got my 8-yr old son to do an ultralight ride recently. He was excited
enough to answer "Yes" soon as I asked him whether he'd like the idea
of enrolling for a license (yep, you need a license even for
ultralights here in Dubai). Mulled over it awhile, then discussed it
with a pilot friend who laughed at the idea and I left it at that. And
that very guy mailed me a tale of an 8-yr old Californian flying
ultralight solos, just to rub it in :)

Btw, that ultralight didn't even have an attitude indicator or
inclinometer! And airspeed was in kilometers per hour, like in my car,
not knots. Top that? :)

Ramapriya

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nice one :)
>
> I got my 8-yr old son to do an ultralight ride recently. He was excited
> enough to answer "Yes" soon as I asked him whether he'd like the idea
> of enrolling for a license (yep, you need a license even for
> ultralights here in Dubai). Mulled over it awhile, then discussed it
> with a pilot friend who laughed at the idea and I left it at that. And
> that very guy mailed me a tale of an 8-yr old Californian flying
> ultralight solos, just to rub it in :)
>
> Btw, that ultralight didn't even have an attitude indicator or
> inclinometer! And airspeed was in kilometers per hour, like in my car,
> not knots. Top that? :)

If it gets really noisey...pull.
If it gets really quiet...push.

;O)

Jay B

[[email protected]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> >
> > inclinometer! And airspeed was in kilometers per hour, like in my car,
> > not knots. Top that? :)
>
> If it gets really noisey...pull.
> If it gets really quiet...push.
>
> ;O)
>
> Jay B


Good one :@)

Btw, are there any diesel-powered aircraft around? I ask because if I'm
not mistaken, diesel is cheaper than A-1 in India :)

Ramapriya

[Dan Luke]

> Btw, are there any diesel-powered aircraft around? I ask because if I'm
> not mistaken, diesel is cheaper than A-1 in India :)

http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=528&L=1

[Morgans]

>> Btw, are there any diesel-powered aircraft around? I ask because if I'm
>> not mistaken, diesel is cheaper than A-1 in India :)
>
> http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=528&L=1

Perhaps he should have said in widespread use. <g>

There are not very many of the above out there flying, yet.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

>>> Btw, are there any diesel-powered aircraft around? I ask because if I'm
>>> not mistaken, diesel is cheaper than A-1 in India :)
>>
>> http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=528&L=1
>
> Perhaps he should have said in widespread use. <g>
>
> There are not very many of the above out there flying, yet.

Yeah. It's disappointing that diesel isn't advancincing faster. It doesn't
look much like a revolution, does it?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM