Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news pgbnh wrote:
I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
saving their life

Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
were spent on training.
That is a certainty.

The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.

No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the
levels seen by those drivers.

First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

It was a sardonic comment on the lack of correlation of formal training
with accident rates in the only other comparable transportation mode
available to the general public.

But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
reduces accidents.

The point isn't whether the additional training reduces accidents, it is
whether the point of diminishing returns has been reached where other
mechanisms like safety equipment can yield a similar or even better
reduction in fatalities.

I will pose as proof for that statement the fact
that an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot
with the same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

You'll note that the first sentence of my original post made note of a lack
of supporting documentation you supplied for your assertions. Even though I
accept the claim that additional training can reduce accidents, there are
no numbers provided on how much training reduces the accident rate. Nor are
numbers provided on how many potentially fatal accidents were resolved to
non-fatal accidents due to BRS deployments. Without those two numbers it is
impossible for me, at least, to come to the same conclusion as you or Peter
Dohm. It is not at all obvious or self-evident to me. Present the numbers
on both sides to convince me.