uh-oh...

[Dan Luke]

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

[Maxwell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm
>

That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>>
>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm
>>
>
> That's priceless!!!
>
> "The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
> aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
> from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
> wrote.
>
> Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that not-so-astute
observation...

KB

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> >http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm
>
> That's priceless!!!
>
> "The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
> aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
> from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
> wrote.
>
> Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

The statistics are no surprise.
I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
professionally driven buses, too.

Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.

It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
get done with everything.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
ps.com...

>
> The statistics are no surprise.
> I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
> professionally driven buses, too.
>
> Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
> Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
> passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
> fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
> compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
> passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.
>
> It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
> expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
> get done with everything.
>

Agreed.

I think I saw a couple of points that defeated the purpose of the artical to
me. She stated the statistics were comparable to riding a motorcycle which
doesn't seem to send her running off to save the bike shops, when it seems
to me a lot more people consider them well worth the risk. And she doesn't
mention what an large part of GA accidents are attributed to fuel starvation
and weather. If you are a fair weather pilot like me, and always asure you
have quality fuel and extra reserves, it seems to speak very well for GA to
me.

I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel stavation
and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

[Jim Logajan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Here's the link to the original JAMA article (requires registration to read
the article - which I have not yet done myself):

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/297/14/1596

Some of the conclusions mentioned in the article that Dan linked to appear
to be inconsistent with the annual NALL reports; specifically "Not wearing
safety restraints, including lap belts and shoulder restraints, is another
risk factor for pilot death," and "The higher fatality rate for general
aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand
impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as
commercial aircraft are."

So far as I know, neither of the those two assertions appear to have any
validity. An implication in their claims is that commercial aviation and
general aviation both have a comparable number of accidents per flight hour
but that GA accidents have a higher probability of generating fatalities.
That runs dramatically contrary to statistics I've seen elsewhere.

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
> stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18% of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

(Should be required reading for pilots, IMHO.)

82.9% * (8.3% + 13.6%) = 18.2%

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:41:29 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
> > stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?
>
> Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
> following source, those two items accounted for about 18% of all
> fatalities:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

I did my own study of Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2004 (excluding
training accidents)... a bit over 1,000 accidents. Some highlights of my
results:

General Pilot Error 52.5%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Fuel System 0.9%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
Carb Ice 1.2%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%

The "General Pilot Error" basically is the cases where the pilot lost control of
the aircraft (generally during takeoff and landing), misjudged the approach,
stall/spin, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

[Maxwell]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:41:29 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>

>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
>> > stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?
>>
>> Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
>> following source, those two items accounted for about 18% of all
>> fatalities:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
>

> I did my own study of Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2004
> (excluding
> training accidents)... a bit over 1,000 accidents. Some highlights of my
> results:
>

> General Pilot Error 52.5%
> Maintenance Error 4.6%
> Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
> Engine Mechanical 3.7%
> Fuel System 0.9%
> Other Mechanical 4.2%
> Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
> Carb Ice 1.2%
> VFR to IFR 5.2%
> Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
> Fuel Contamination 0.5%
>
> The "General Pilot Error" basically is the cases where the pilot lost
> control of
> the aircraft (generally during takeoff and landing), misjudged the
> approach,
> stall/spin, etc.
>

I thought I might be quoting an urban legend, that's why I invited the
numbers. I knew someone would have them handy. Back when I was learning to
fly in '71, these numbers were a little more difficult to come by. But I did
hear it quoted a lot, often by some of my own CFIs.

I didn't see any numbers on icing, or control failure due to ice though.
Ron, was that part of the General Pilot Error figure, or did it say?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:21:42 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:

> I didn't see any numbers on icing, or control failure due to ice though.
> Ron, was that part of the General Pilot Error figure, or did it say?

The figures I posted was from my own analysis, and covered only non-training
accidents in 172s and 210s from 1998-2004. I didn't find any in-flight icing
accidents of these aircraft in this period, although several due to not removing
frost during preflight.

My process was to download the NTSB reports, read the narrative, and come to my
own conclusion as to the cause. I mostly, but not always, agreed with the
NTSB's probable cause.

Here are the cause categories included in my database:

Engine failures -
Undetermined
Engine Internal
Fuel - Firewall forward
Fuel - Aft of Firewall
Ignition
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation
Fuel Contamination
Drive system
Oil System
Carburetor Mechanical
Carb Ice
Cooling System
General Pilot Mishandling, including loss of control due to stalls, winds,
other, and unknown.
VFR to IFR
Disorientation
Wake Turbulence
Mechanical Failure
Airframe
Controls
Propeller/spinner
Other
Maneuvering at Low Alt
Failure to Recover from maneuver (deliberate aerobatics)
Pilot Incapacitation
Density Altitude
Manufacturer/Builder error
Maintenance Error
Midair
Control Blockage
Inadequate Preflight
Inexperience
CG or Weight
Fire
Suicide
Controller Error
Undetermined

During my analysis, I would assign an "Initiator" (my equivalent of probable
cause) and check off other categories as secondary/tertiary factors as
appropriate.

The analysis was performed as part of a study of homebuilt accidents, published
in KITPLANES magazine last year. I included the Cessna 172/210 accidents as a
control group.

Ron Wanttaja

[Maxwell]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:21:42 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> I didn't see any numbers on icing, or control failure due to ice though.
>> Ron, was that part of the General Pilot Error figure, or did it say?
>
> The figures I posted was from my own analysis, and covered only
> non-training
> accidents in 172s and 210s from 1998-2004. I didn't find any in-flight
> icing
> accidents of these aircraft in this period, although several due to not
> removing
> frost during preflight.
>
> My process was to download the NTSB reports, read the narrative, and come
> to my
> own conclusion as to the cause. I mostly, but not always, agreed with the
> NTSB's probable cause.
>
> Here are the cause categories included in my database:
>
List only <snip>

> During my analysis, I would assign an "Initiator" (my equivalent of
> probable
> cause) and check off other categories as secondary/tertiary factors as
> appropriate.
>
> The analysis was performed as part of a study of homebuilt accidents,
> published
> in KITPLANES magazine last year. I included the Cessna 172/210 accidents
> as a
> control group.
>

Thanks Ron, sounds like a very educational endeavor. Sorry I missed the
article, sounds like an interesting piece, especially to us Cessna guys.
It's got me thinking I might reframe my question at this point, and start
new post tomorrow.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

From the article:

"From 2002 through 2005, general aviation accounted for an annual
average of 1,685 crashes and 583 deaths, making up 91 percent of all
U.S. aviation crashes and 94 percent of all aviation deaths, the
researchers said."

That seems improbable to me. It would imply that there were an average
of 166 commercial aviation crashes per year, or one every other day. It
would also imply an average of 37 deaths per year from commercial
aviation, or an average of 0.22 deaths per crash for a commercial
accident, versus an average of 0.34 deaths per crash for GA. Given that
the average commercial aircraft probably has dozens of times more
passengers than the average GA aircraft, it seems improbable that the
death rate per crash should be lower. It seems to me that at least one
of those numbers has to be wrong, which renders them all suspect.

rg

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>>>
>>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm
>>>
>>
>> That's priceless!!!
>>
>> "The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because
>> such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect
>> occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the
>> researchers wrote.
>>
>> Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.
>
> I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that
> not-so-astute observation...
>

Government grant?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>>>
>>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm
>>>
>>
>> That's priceless!!!
>>
>> "The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because
>> such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect
>> occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the
>> researchers wrote.
>>
>> Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.
>
> I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that
> not-so-astute observation...
>
On second thought, IIRC, the case that drove Cessna to stop production of
piston singles in the 80's was after a judgement against them for several
$$$millions to the familiy of a man who flew a 172 (?) into a shear rock
wall. Their argument was that better seatbelts would have saved his life.

So, maybe the funding was from the Trial Lawyers Assn? Now that they only
have 18 years (imagine that in automobiles) they need something else to ream
the populace.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2007/Jackpot_Justice/index.html

The Cost of Lawsuits: According to the Pacific Research Institutes new
study, Jackpot Justice, the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system is
$737.4 billion, which is equivalent to an eight-percent tax on consumption,
a 13-percent tax on wages. The annual price tag, or tort tax, for a family
of four in terms of costs and foregone benefits is $9,827. [Source:
insideronline.org]

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:09:27 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
10 Apr 2007 20:00:21 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - Private U.S. flights, usually
involving small airplanes, are 82 times more likely to be involved
in a fatal crash than major airlines, researchers said on Tuesday.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said these
non-commercial flights account for most U.S. aviation crashes,
injuries and deaths.

They called these so-called general aviation flights a public
safety problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and
the National Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve
safety of small airplanes.

The general aviation rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight
hours is 82 times greater than for major airlines, said the
researchers, who analyzed government statistics.


The above conclusion drawn by the Johns Hopkins University researchers
clearly shows their lack of comprehension of GA vs Airline flight
missions and which flight operations constitute the greatest hazards.
Airline flights:

* Long distance legs require lots of hours but only one takeoff
and
one landing
* Two professional pilots at the controls
* An FAA certificated Dispatcher on the ground influencing flight
decisions.
* Able to fly above the weather
* ...


General Aviation flights:

* Short distance legs mean many more landings and takeoffs are
performed per hour than on airline routes.
* Usually a single pilot at the controls
* Often the pilot holds only a student certificate.
* During training flights, which constitute a large percentage of
GA flight hours, the corners of the flight envelope are
routinely
explored.
* Flights conducted entirely within the Troposphere where weather
exists.
* ...

Is it reasonable to expect the fatal crash rate per 100,000 flight
hours of short training flights conducted by single, often student,
pilots with an emphasis on landing and takeoff operations to compare
favorably to long duration flights conducted by usually three FAA
certified professional personnel with only a single takeoff and
landing?

Should the Johns Hopkins University researchers be chastised and
dismissed for their fundamental errors leading to their faulty
analysis of a subject of which they obviously possess little knowledge
and understanding, yet proffer themselves as experts?


[This response was provided to Reuters via this link
http://www.alertnet.org/help/otherfaq.htm as no e-mail address was
provided for the author of the article.]

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:01:23 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>no e-mail address was provided for the author of the article.


But you can submit a response to this e-mail address:

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:21:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:01:23 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in >:
>
>>no e-mail address was provided for the author of the article.
>
>But you can submit a response to this e-mail address:



You can send your comments on this "research" directly to the Johns
Hopkins University researchers:

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH:
Susan P. Baker, MPH:

================================================
Guohua Li, MD, DrPH;
Guohua Li
Professor
Director of Research, Department of Emergency Medicine

Academic Degrees
MD, Beijing Medical University, 1984; MPH, Tongji Medical University,
1987; DrPH, Johns Hopkins University, 1993

Departmental Affiliation
Health Policy and Management

Joint Departmental Affiliations
Emergency Medicine

Departmental Address
5801 Smith Avenue, Suite 3220, Davis Building
Baltimore, MD 21209

Email:
Phone: 410-735-6419
Fax: 410-735-6425

Research and Professional Experience
An epidemiologist, Dr. Li is interested in injury causation and trauma
outcomes, with an emphasis on risk factors identification and policy
intervention. His studies encompass innovative research methodology,
injury surveillance systems, occupational safety, aging, and alcohol
abuse.

With funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Li and
colleagues are working on projects aimed at understanding and reducing
injury risks facing the elderly population in occupational, driving,
recreational, and home settings, and assessing the safety benefit of
mandatory alcohol testing programs in aviation and motor carriers.

Keywords
Accident, Alcohol, Aviation, Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, Injury,
Mortality, Occupational Safety, Public Policy, Risk Factor,
Statistics, Surveillance, Trauma
-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/emergencymedicine/Faculty/JHH/li.html
Guohua Li, M.D., DrPH

Professor
Director of Research,
Department of Emergency Medicine

Education
Beijing Medical University, Beijing, China (M.D., 1984)
Tongji Medical University, Wuhan, China (M.S., 1987)
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr.P.H., 1993)

Fellowship
Johns Hopkins University, Health Policy and Management (1990)

An epidemiologist, Dr. Li is interested in injury causation and trauma
outcomes, with an emphasis on risk factors identification and policy
interventions. His studies encompass innovative research methodology,
injury surveillance systems, occupational safety, aging, and alcohol
abuse.

With funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Li and
colleagues are working on projects aimed at understanding and reducing
injury risks facing the elderly population in occupational, driving,
recreational, and home settings, and assessing the safety benefit of
mandatory alcohol testing programs in aviation and motor carriers.

Dr. Li has published over 100 manuscripts in the field of injury
epidemiology. He is a Guggenheim Fellow, a recipient of the Kenneth
Rothman Epidemiology Prize, and a Fellow of the American College of
Epidemiology.
================================================== ====================


Susan P. Baker, MPH
http://faculty.jhsph.edu/Default.cfm?f=Susan&l=Baker
Susan Baker
Professor
Director, NIAAA Training Program in Alcohol, Injury, & Violence

Academic Degrees
MPH, Johns Hopkins 1968; ScD (Hon.), Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 1998; BA, Cornell Univ., 1951

Departmental Affiliation
Health Policy and Management
Health and Public Policy

Joint Departmental Affiliations
Environmental Health Sciences

Departmental Address
624 N. Broadway
Baltimore MD, 21205

Email:
Phone: 410-955-2078
Fax: 410-614-2797

[Gene Seibel]

On Apr 11, 8:09 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

No surprise to pilots. Airlines have an incredible safety record to
which an undisciplined bunch of individual ragtag private pilots will
never come close.
--
Gene Seibel
Daughter Becca's Jewelry - http://pad39a.com/stelle_sheen
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Ron Garret wrote:
> Given that
> the average commercial aircraft probably has dozens of times more
> passengers than the average GA aircraft, it seems improbable that the
> death rate per crash should be lower.

Well, remember that any flight under 121 or 135 is "commercial", so
everything from a 6-seat puddle jumper to a 747-400 is included (and
given the way most of the puddle jumper pilots I've seen move, I'll
believe it!).

Also, I believe that was the conclusion the researchers drew; that even
though there are more people involved in an average commercial flight,
far fewer of them are killed than on average GA flights, which should
allow the hypothesis that passengers are better protected on a
commercial flight (or else their crashes are less violent, it's not an
absolute conclusion).

Furthermore, they may be using the NTSB method of determining injury,
that is a flight is "fatal" if persons expire on impact or very soon
after; if they are gravely wounded and die two weeks later in the
hospital, the crash itself is still classed as only "serious". It may be
that commercial flights don't kill as many immediately, but the true
death-tolls aren't being properly tallied.

TheSmokingGnu

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Garret" wrote:

> It seems to me that at least one
> of those numbers has to be wrong, which renders them all suspect.

That wouldn't matter to Scary Mary or the TV networks.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:57:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:21:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in >:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:01:23 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>no e-mail address was provided for the author of the article.
>>
>>But you can submit a response to this e-mail address:

>
>
>You can send your comments on this "research" directly to the Johns
>Hopkins University researchers:
>
>Guohua Li, MD, DrPH:
>Susan P. Baker, MPH:
>
>================================================


I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
original article available in its entirety at:
http://download3-5.files-upload.com/2007-04/13/15/Crash_Risk_in_General_Aviation.pdf



Dear Mr. Dighera, Thank you for writing to us. It appears that your
anger is based on reading the news report rather than what we wrote in
the commentary. Attached for your information is the commentary we
published in JAMA. Your points are well taken if used for explaining
why GA has a much higher crash rate than airlines. Please feel free
to contact us should you have any comment or question after reading
our commentary.

Sincerely,

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH
Professor and Director of Research
Department of Emergency Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
5801 Smith Avenue
Davis Building, Suite 3220
Baltimore, MD 21209





>>> Larry Dighera > 4/12/2007 6:07 PM >>>


Dear Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, and Susan P. Baker, MPH:

I read with interest this Reuters summary of your research:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
10 Apr 2007 20:00:21 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - Private U.S. flights, usually
involving small airplanes, are 82 times more likely to be involved
in a fatal crash than major airlines, researchers said on Tuesday.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said these
non-commercial flights account for most U.S. aviation crashes,
injuries and deaths.

They called these so-called general aviation flights a public
safety problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and
the National Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve
safety of small airplanes.

The general aviation rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight
hours is 82 times greater than for major airlines, said the
researchers, who analyzed government statistics...

The above conclusion drawn by the Johns Hopkins University researchers
clearly shows their lack of comprehension of GA vs Airline flight
missions and which flight operations constitute the greatest hazards.
Airline flights:

* Long distance legs require lots of hours but only one takeoff
and one landing
* Two professional pilots at the controls
* An FAA certificated Dispatcher on the ground influencing flight
decisions.
* Able to fly above the weather
* ...


General Aviation flights:

* Short distance legs mean many more landings and takeoffs are
performed per hour than on airline routes.
* Usually a single pilot at the controls
* Often the pilot holds only a student certificate.
* During training flights, which constitute a large percentage of
GA flight hours, the corners of the flight envelope are
routinely explored.
* Flights conducted entirely within the Troposphere where weather
exists.
* ...

Questions:
Is it reasonable to expect the fatal crash rate per 100,000 flight
hours of short training flights conducted by single, often student,
pilots with an emphasis on landing and takeoff operations to compare
favorably to long duration flights conducted by usually three FAA
certified professional personnel with only a single takeoff and
landing?

Should the Johns Hopkins University researchers be chastised and
dismissed for their fundamental errors leading to their faulty
analysis of a subject of which they obviously possess little knowledge
and understanding, yet proffer themselves as experts?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
> Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
> original article available in its entirety at:
> http://download3-5.files-upload.com/2007-04/13/15/Crash_Risk_in_General_Aviati
> on.pdf

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later."

Anyone able to post it?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:29:45 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
>> Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
>> original article available in its entirety at:
>> http://download3-5.files-upload.com/2007-04/13/15/Crash_Risk_in_General_Aviation.pdf
>
>"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
>Please try again later."

That's strange. It works for me.
This is the first time I've used files-upload.com. Perhaps there's a
better place to host/post the article?

>Anyone able to post it?

I'm happy to e-mail the article to anyone who wants it.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-11 18:09:27 -0700, "Dan Luke" > said:

> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

>> They called these so-called general aviation flights a public safety
>> problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and the National
>> Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve safety of small
>> airplanes.

Okay. "So-called general aviation?" Obviously we are hiding something here.

They missed the main factor in GA accidents -- pilot error. Airlines
don't buzz the house of the pilot's girlfriend. They don't chase cows.
They don't drop notes to the pretty girls on the beach. They don't fly
up box canyons to look at the view. They don't fly VFR into IMC. They
don't do aerobatics at 1500 feet. They don't load up the front seat
with camera equipment so that you can't see out and then try to fly
from the back seat. They take care of their airplanes. They don't fly
airplanes with known maintenance problems. They don't use automobile
parts to fix their airplanes. They know how much fuel they need. They
pay attention to weight and balance. They don't fly single engine IFR
over the mountains at night. They don't fly at 16,000 feet without
oxygen. They fly above the weather, not through it. They don't take off
with the wrong mixture setting. They pay attention to density altitude.
They don't fall asleep at the controls (well, not as often, anyway).
They don't get drunk as often. They don't fly with just one pilot. They
don't shoot the wing off the plane with an automatic shotgun while
hunting coyotes in Montana. If they botch a landing, they go around
instead of trying to save it. They figure out their route and flight
plan before they depart. In sum, they look professional, think
professional, and act professional.

GA pilots don't fly like airline pilots and have the accident record to
prove it. You can stuff all the airbags in the world into your seatbelt
and it will not save you from stupidity.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Tony Cox]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

What's with it with medical journals these days? First, it
was "The Lancet" with the (now discredited) claim of a
supposed 600,000 deaths in Iraq. Now it's the JAMA
publishing what appears to be something better suited to
the Scandinavian Journal of Statistics on a dull Sunday. Is
the medical research field so sparse these days that they
have to muscle in on other scientists' territory?

And what's with physicians who think that their medical
qualifications make them experts in Aviation Safety, anyway?

[J. Severyn]

This is just a couple of folks at Johns Hopkins that need a publication or
two in a "professional" journal to put on their annual job appraisal.
Without it they have no chance of getting a pay raise. With it, they might
make the cut, at the expense of GA. Neither author has especially
impressive credentials in medicine and no credibility or credentials in
aviation safety. It just looks very unprofessional. JH and JAMA editors
are not doing their jobs. I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.

John Severyn

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> And what's with physicians who think that their medical
> qualifications make them experts in Aviation Safety, anyway?
>
>

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:29:45 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> http://download3-5.files-upload.com/2007-04/13/15/Crash_Risk_in_General_Aviation.pdf
>>
>> "The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
>> Please try again later."

I get the same error, with both Firefox 1.5 and wget. Digging around in
the "Files catalogue - Documents" link from their home page will lead
you to it, eventually.

1. Go to
http://files-upload.com/files/166280/Crash_Risk_in_General_Aviation.pdf

2. If your browser asks, let the site set cookies. You won't be able
to download the file if you don't.

3. Wait for the little countdown timer (left side of the page, towards
the bottom) to get to zero.

4. Click on the underlined "Download link".

The link it gives you in step 4 _is_ the link that Larry posted, but the
site disallows direct downloads - you have to go through the steps as
above.

> This is the first time I've used files-upload.com. Perhaps there's a
> better place to host/post the article?

You appear to be posting through AT&T Worldnet; they give you a certain
amount of "personal" web space with each email address. At one time it
was 10 megs but it may be more now.

In general, ISP-provided web space is good for things like this. Once
you outgrow that space, it's probably a good idea to spend maybe $5 a
month on an entry-level hosting plan; it's a lot easier for people to
use and you don't generally have to put up with ads, silly download
restrictions, etc.

Matt Roberds

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:38 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> wrote in
>:

>This is just a couple of folks at Johns Hopkins that need a publication or
>two in a "professional" journal to put on their annual job appraisal.

That was my thought too.

>Without it they have no chance of getting a pay raise.

Perhaps the people JH people responsible for job appraisals should get
a copy of our critique too.

>With it, they might make the cut, at the expense of GA.

Apparently at the expense of taxpayers too:

This work was funded in part by grants R01AA09963
and R01AG13642 from the National Institutes of Health and grant
CCR302486 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding agencies had no role in the
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

I wonder who would appropriate to contact at the above institutions?

>Neither author has especially
>impressive credentials in medicine and no credibility or credentials in
>aviation safety.

You will find references to several previously published reports
authored by Mr. Li in the article's bibliography! Given the quality
of this one, I can imagine the quality of all his other aviation
related reports.

>It just looks very unprofessional. JH and JAMA editors
>are not doing their jobs. I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
>stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.
>
>John Severyn

Good. Give me the e-mail addresses of the JH and JAMA editors, and
I'll do the same.

[Tony Cox]

"J. Severyn" > wrote in message news:
...
>
> I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
> stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.

I'd be very interested if you post any response you get
here, relevant to aviation of not!

[J. Severyn]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:38 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
snip
>
> This work was funded in part by grants R01AA09963
> and R01AG13642 from the National Institutes of Health and grant
> CCR302486 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
>
> Role of the Sponsor: The funding agencies had no role in the
> preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
>
> I wonder who would appropriate to contact at the above institutions?

I do not know. But I believe NIH is in WashDC and CDC is in Atlanta.

>
> Good. Give me the e-mail addresses of the JH and JAMA editors, and
> I'll do the same.

Well here is where I gave feedback to JAMA:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/feedback
using the cite info:
COMMENTS:
Re:Crash Risk in General Aviation
Guohua Li, MD, DrPH; Susan P. Baker, MPH
JAMA. 2007;297:1596-1598.

I just clicked the "General Editorial Question" as I figured that had the
best chance of getting to one of the JAMA editors. A recognition email was
returned immediately (I asked for a copy to be returned). I was amused that
the return email included my IP address.

I do not know the JH editors, but I sent the same note directly to the
authors at:
Guohua Li, MD, DrPH:
Susan P. Baker, MPH:
which you found earlier too.

John Severyn

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:06:01 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> wrote in
>:


>Well here is where I gave feedback to JAMA:
>http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/feedback
>using the cite info:
>COMMENTS:
>Re:Crash Risk in General Aviation
>Guohua Li, MD, DrPH; Susan P. Baker, MPH
>JAMA. 2007;297:1596-1598.
>
>I just clicked the "General Editorial Question" as I figured that had the
>best chance of getting to one of the JAMA editors. A recognition email was
>returned immediately (I asked for a copy to be returned). I was amused that
>the return email included my IP address.
>

Thanks, John, for your support and the JAMA e-mail address.