Flying - third most dangerous occupation

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 at 16:36:22 in message
, Corky Scott
wrote:
The bombers were only in combat for a few minutes out of the 12 to 14
hours they were in the air, unlike in Europe where for a while anyway,
they were under threat of attack the moment they crossed the French
coast. I saw a chilling picture of an entire B-24 group head on to a
B-17 group. This was during form-up, and both groups passed without a
collision, but a number of bombers missed each other by mere feet.
Someone had gotten their coordinates wrong... Collisions under these
circumstances were considered non combat.

I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
over the target.
--
Francis E-Mail reply to

In article , Gary L.
Drescher writes
"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Well then, a quarter of us would have the NTSB write our obituary.
Something wrong with these statistics.

The Nall Report is talking about the fatality rate per hour. Commercial
pilots presumably fly more hours per year than recreational pilots, on
average. So commercial pilots may have a higher fatality rate annually,
despite their lower hourly rate.

It is amazing how many misleading statistics there are. One needs sight
of the raw data before coming to any conclusions.

I read that the chance of dying per hour while rock climbing is the same
as just being a man over 70. Does that mean that I should now take up
rock climbing?
--

David CL Francis E-Mail reply to

In article ,
David Megginson wrote:

"Gary L. Drescher" writes:

1 in 8 per year? Bull... That number is non sustainable, and
therefore bogus...

But that's not the number cited. One in eight die in the course of a
30-year career, not in a single year.

I just ran a quick search at the NTSB site. From January 1 1991 to
January 1 2001 there were a total of 183 fatal accidents in Alaska
operating under

Part 91: 121
Part 121: 1 (air carrier)
Part 129: 1 (foreign carrier)
Part 133: 6 (heavy heli)
Part 135: 52 (air taxi and commuter)
Public Use: 2

So that's an average of 5.2 fatal crashes/year for part 135 ops in
Alaska -- without reading the individual reports, I don't know how
many of those had more than one crew fatality, and how many had only
non-crew fatalities. Is there any way to find out how many commercial
pilots work in Alaska?

My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
pilot. Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
pilot.

If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25% of
aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
database).

Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
professional pilots
there(http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),

--Gary

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
I read that the chance of dying per hour while rock climbing is the same
as just being a man over 70.

That doesn't sound right. As of a few years ago, a 70-year-old man could
expect to live another 13 years
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr51_03t11.pdf), hence another
110,000 hours. But this study
(http://www.ew.govt.nz/ourenvironment.../thamescoast/d
ocuments/ursk.pdf) cites an annual fatality rate of one in 125 rock climbers
(in the UK). So even if the climbers average as many as 1,000 climbing
hours per year (which seems unlikely), rock climbing still has more than 100
times the hourly fatality rate of just being a 70-year-old man.

--Gary

Does that mean that I should now take up rock climbing?
--

David CL Francis E-Mail reply to

David CL Francis wrote:

I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
over the target.

Not with the USAAF, though that figure may have been true at one time for RAF
Bomber Command. For the Cologne raid in early '42, the forecast was for two
collisions for roughly 1,000 aircraft. As it turned out, one occurred over
Europe and a second one over the UK on return. That's less than half of one
percent for that raid.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

David

From many conversations with people (both US and British) flying in
Europe in WWII (both bombers and fighters)

1. GB had no infrastructure to set up some kind of a ATC as we know it
for control of the fighters/bombers.

2. Any one, any time could take off and fly IFR over GB without any
type of a clearance.

3. On raids to Europe, aircraft took off and climbed on the same
heading if there were clouds, until they were on top and then circled
for rendezvous with other bombers or escort fighters.

As has been posted to this thread, mid air collision were very rare as
the powers that be had calculated.

Some of the talk about flights running through other flights head on,
These occurred while Squadrons were VFR under or on top and not IFR in
the clouds.

Long time ago in a far away place with a different set of rules from
what we fly by today.

Big John


On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:23:58 +0100, David CL Francis
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 at 16:36:22 in message
, Corky Scott
wrote:
The bombers were only in combat for a few minutes out of the 12 to 14
hours they were in the air, unlike in Europe where for a while anyway,
they were under threat of attack the moment they crossed the French
coast. I saw a chilling picture of an entire B-24 group head on to a
B-17 group. This was during form-up, and both groups passed without a
collision, but a number of bombers missed each other by mere feet.
Someone had gotten their coordinates wrong... Collisions under these
circumstances were considered non combat.

I have read that 1% aircraft were expected to be lost in collisions
over the target.

In article ,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a licensed
pilot.

If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25% of
aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
database).

Only if you presume the level of competence to be the same. I'd suggest
that bush flying in Alaska weeds out the marginal ones.


Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
professional pilots
there(http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),

Would a "professional pilot" be one whose primary income is derived as a
pilot?

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that in the Alaskan population, 1 in 4 is a
licensed
pilot.

If that were so, then 25% of licensed US pilots would be Alaskan (the
population there is over 600,000). Unless Alaskan pilots fly much less
often than pilots elsewhere in the US, we'd therefore expect at least 25%
of
aviation fatalities to be in Alaska, since flying there is at least as
dangerous as flying in the rest of the US. In fact, though, only 4% of
fatal US aviation accidents occur in Alaska (according to the NTSB
database).

Only if you presume the level of competence to be the same. I'd suggest
that bush flying in Alaska weeds out the marginal ones.

Yes, it weeds them out by killing them. That's why the fatality rate for
flying in Alaska is much higher than the US average--not several times
lower, as would be required to explain why only 4% of fatal crashes occur in
Alaska if 25% of US pilots were Alaskan (although 25% of US pilots being
Alaskan is already very implausible on the face of it).

In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan pilots
with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?

Based on the nature of flying in Alaska, I would suspect that the
percentage of commercial pilots is higher than the lower 48 as well.

According to Alaska's Department of Labor, there are about 3,000
professional pilots
there (http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/odb/02/ak02.xls),

Would a "professional pilot" be one whose primary income is derived as a
pilot?

For purposes of the labor statistics we were discussing earlier, I'd assume
the definition is along those lines.

--Gary


--
Ron

In article 3hxjb.572390$cF.246908@rwcrnsc53,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan pilots
with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?

Not from browsing statistical databases, that's for sure.

It's just something I was told when in Alaska, talking with Alaskan
pilots and those who rely on their services.

They do tend to use airplanes there much the same way we use pickup
trucks here in Texas. Not all of our pickups are licensed and on the
farm, many of the drivers are years from license age.

--
Ron