plane down near seattle

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my
worst
fears would come true eventually.


Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.

The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
more often than your passengers.

Gig,

The dice don't have a memory


Or, in other words: There is no law of small numbers. Only one of large
numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.

The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
more often than your passengers.

I agree with what you're saying - but if I take that risk 'n' times more
than you then I'm 'n' times more likely to have my number come up.

If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately - which
proportionately affects my chances of continuing on in this life in good
health!

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately

Not really. Funny thing about statistics, they don't always make intuitive
sense to someone that hasn't sat down and looked at the math.

Your statement would be correct if you were talking about an agreement made
in advance to spin the barrel and pull the trigger some very large number of
times. But that wasn't your statement.

Every time you choose to take a try at your million-chambered revolver, you
have exactly a 1 in 1 million chance of killing yourself. Once you've taken
a try and survived, the next try still has exactly a 1 in 1 million chance
of killing yourself.

No matter how many times you take a try, the next time you take a try, the
chance is still exactly 1 in 1 million.

Now, how does this matter with respect your fire suit? I suppose it depends
on how you think about it. In one respect, each time you fly you have
exactly the same chance of burning up as any of your passengers do. In that
respect, it does seem unfair that you fly around in your fire suit while
allowing your passengers to go unprotected.

In other respect, however, you have "made an agreement in advance" to make a
number of flights. The actual number is perhaps not known with any
accuracy, but it may be safe to say that it's hundreds, if not thousands of
flights. By choosing (again, in advance) to wear a fire suit on each and
every flight, you are a) betting that you WILL crash and burn during some
point in those hundreds or thousands of flights, and b) making a decision to
try to protect yourself against that eventuality.

But the truth remains that for any given flight, no matter how many flights
you've already made, you still have exactly the same chance of crashing and
burning as you had on the previous flight, and will have on the subsequent
flight, statistically speaking. If on any flight, you feel it's necessary
for you to wear a fireproof suit, a passenger would be well within their
rights to feel like they are being treated with less care than the pilot is
treating himself. After all, on that flight, both the passenger and the
pilot have the exact same chance of being in the plane if and when it
crashes and burns.

So to me, the real question is this: when you are flying with passengers, do
you allow one of the passengers to wear your fire suit instead of wearing it
yourself, or do you take advantage of them and protect yourself to a greater
degree than you protect your passengers?

Another question would be: do you wear the same suit when driving a car?
After all, there's a risk of being in an accident where the car (and
occupants) are consumed by fire in an automobile as well. How about when
you fly commercially? Ride in someone else's car? Stay in a hotel? Sleep
in your own bed?

Not very many aviation accidents result in one or more occupants being
burned when they otherwise would have survived the accident. Although it
does happen, the risk is comparable to the risk of being burned in any
number of other situations in which I'm guessing you don't wear your suit.
I don't know what a full Nomex suit costs, but I know that I'd choose to
spend that money on other more relevant safety devices, like a nice ANR
headset, or a backup handheld radio, or a handheld GPS, rather than wasting
it on clothing that is probably never going to be of any use to me, and
which does nothing to improve the safety of my passengers.

Which is not to say you shouldn't wear your suit if you feel it's useful.
It's just to say that I don't really understand your thinking, and probably
never will. I wouldn't be surprised if more people share that sentiment
than don't.

Pete

Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
burn- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
radio or GPS.

Actually, if you're going to wear a suit, you should also consider gloves
and socks as well as a "turkey bag" flame hood.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
burn

I don't think I suggested it did. I certainly never intended to. It's a
point worth keeping in mind though.

- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
radio or GPS.

That's not any cheaper than a used handheld radio or GPS.

Pete

Not quite correct.

Nomex will burn in a fire - but it won't support combustion (ie you couldn't
put a match to a suit hanging from a coat hanger and expect it to go up in
flames). As a rule it supports a higher temperature before burning as well,
compared to normal everyday clothes. Additionally, when you remove the
source of the flame it won't leave charred remains smouldering.

It's thermal insulation (for just the suit) is minimal (as you rightly point
out) - the increased thermal protection comes from the layered nomex under
garments.

I think a lot of people mis-understand the purpose of a nomex suit - it's
not to allow you to sit in a burning cockpit as flames reduce everything
around you to smouldering ash - it's to significantly reduce your injuries
from burns in the 5 to 10 seconds you have to get the hell out of a burning
wreckage and clear of the fire - or if you like, use that time to assist
someone else who isn't as well protected.


"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
burn- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
radio or GPS.

Actually, if you're going to wear a suit, you should also consider gloves
and socks as well as a "turkey bag" flame hood.

I understand what you're saying - and I agree that "the aeroplane doesn't
have a memory" per sec - but what I'm saying is no matter how small the
odds, if you repeat the event often enough, then you're number WILL come up
eventually.

If the chances of dying in aviation were 1 in every 10 flights - and I
agree it's one in 10 for every flight regardless of how many successful
flights I've already had - then I hope you'll agree that if you keep taking
that 1 in 10 chance then it probably won't be too long before you're dead.

Does this help any passengers who have been unlucky enough to have been on
this flight? Nope - not one little bit. But I'm not prepared to lower my
degree of protection just to make it "fair" all around: I'm not going to
take off my seat belt just becuase you've chosen not to wear one. However,
if they wish to invest in the same equipment then they're most welcome to
reap the benefits of that by wearing it in aircraft I command.

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology - sorry, I don't have a degree in
statistical math - but I stand by my principle that if you repeat small odds
enough times then eventually it bites you in the bum, even if the odds of it
happening on any given flight remain the same.

I think we're drifting a bit off course here, which is as much my doing as
anyone elses - I'm not just talking Nomex flying suits - my original post
was written as a result of my frustration of how so many pilots think of
themselves as safe pilots (have you ever met a single one who would define
himself as a dangerous one?) - and yet I'm forever seeing them fly off into
the blue yonder in jeans and tee shirts - over water - single engine - no
life jackets - no flight plan - or overloaded - or with an aircraft that's
not up to standard. Seems about the only thing they never forget is the
"she'll be right" attitude.

Statistically speaking they're probably going to be just fine - but the
reality is a small (and no doubt statistically correct) number of them keep
killing themselves - I don't want to be one of them - neither (no doubt) do
others - the difference is I'm trying to do something to influence the odds
in my favour. What I can't understand is why others aren't doing the same?

If we knew in advance which pilots were going to be the unlucky ones then
the rest of us could relax a little - but of course we don't know that -
which is why we all need to be taking, at a minimum, some common sense
precautions. I don't plan on having an accident each time I drive - and I'm
a careful driver - but I wear my seatbelt anyway.

Good post by the way - very impressive communication skills.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't
be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any
one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times
and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately

Not really. Funny thing about statistics, they don't always make
intuitive
sense to someone that hasn't sat down and looked at the math.

Your statement would be correct if you were talking about an agreement
made
in advance to spin the barrel and pull the trigger some very large number
of
times. But that wasn't your statement.

Every time you choose to take a try at your million-chambered revolver,
you
have exactly a 1 in 1 million chance of killing yourself. Once you've
taken
a try and survived, the next try still has exactly a 1 in 1 million chance
of killing yourself.

No matter how many times you take a try, the next time you take a try, the
chance is still exactly 1 in 1 million.

Now, how does this matter with respect your fire suit? I suppose it
depends
on how you think about it. In one respect, each time you fly you have
exactly the same chance of burning up as any of your passengers do. In
that
respect, it does seem unfair that you fly around in your fire suit while
allowing your passengers to go unprotected.

In other respect, however, you have "made an agreement in advance" to make
a
number of flights. The actual number is perhaps not known with any
accuracy, but it may be safe to say that it's hundreds, if not thousands
of
flights. By choosing (again, in advance) to wear a fire suit on each and
every flight, you are a) betting that you WILL crash and burn during some
point in those hundreds or thousands of flights, and b) making a decision
to
try to protect yourself against that eventuality.

But the truth remains that for any given flight, no matter how many
flights
you've already made, you still have exactly the same chance of crashing
and
burning as you had on the previous flight, and will have on the subsequent
flight, statistically speaking. If on any flight, you feel it's necessary
for you to wear a fireproof suit, a passenger would be well within their
rights to feel like they are being treated with less care than the pilot
is
treating himself. After all, on that flight, both the passenger and the
pilot have the exact same chance of being in the plane if and when it
crashes and burns.

So to me, the real question is this: when you are flying with passengers,
do
you allow one of the passengers to wear your fire suit instead of wearing
it
yourself, or do you take advantage of them and protect yourself to a
greater
degree than you protect your passengers?

Another question would be: do you wear the same suit when driving a car?
After all, there's a risk of being in an accident where the car (and
occupants) are consumed by fire in an automobile as well. How about when
you fly commercially? Ride in someone else's car? Stay in a hotel?
Sleep
in your own bed?

Not very many aviation accidents result in one or more occupants being
burned when they otherwise would have survived the accident. Although it
does happen, the risk is comparable to the risk of being burned in any
number of other situations in which I'm guessing you don't wear your suit.
I don't know what a full Nomex suit costs, but I know that I'd choose to
spend that money on other more relevant safety devices, like a nice ANR
headset, or a backup handheld radio, or a handheld GPS, rather than
wasting
it on clothing that is probably never going to be of any use to me, and
which does nothing to improve the safety of my passengers.

Which is not to say you shouldn't wear your suit if you feel it's useful.
It's just to say that I don't really understand your thinking, and
probably
never will. I wouldn't be surprised if more people share that sentiment
than don't.

Pete

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
I understand what you're saying - and I agree that "the aeroplane doesn't
have a memory" per sec - but what I'm saying is no matter how small the
odds, if you repeat the event often enough, then you're number WILL come
up
eventually.

Well, that also depends on what exactly you're talking about. It's
certainly not necessarily true for most things we think about in aviation.

That is, we speak of accident statistics as though it's a foregone
conclusion that we will all suffer the exact same rate of accidents. But we
don't. Some people are clearly more accident-prone than others. The
statement regarding gear-up accidents "there are those who have, and those
who will" is fun to say, but it's not actually literally true. Some pilots
will never have a gear-up landing, even if they always fly retractable gear
aircraft.

Additionally, for any statistically measurable event, there is *always* some
non-zero probability that the event will never happen. For events that are
already unlikely, the non-zero probability that the event will never happen
can be quite significant.

Aircraft accidents in which a Nomex flight suit would actually produce a
significant difference in the outcome of the accident fall into this
category. They are extremely rare, and so even when one assumes a pilot
flying with great frequency, the non-zero probability that the event will
never happen is quite large.

By "produce a significant difference in the outcome of the accident", I mean
accidents in which there is not only a fire that occurs prior to occupant
exit of the airplane (not a common outcome of accidents in general), but
there is a fire that is escapable by the occupant (most people who die by
fire in an accident would not have had a chance even wearing Nomex...they
were trapped in the aircraft, and they most often die by smoke inhalation
anyway, not from their clothes catching fire).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that, for the type of event that a Nomex
suit would protect against, it's simply not true that "your number WILL come
up eventually", even assuming you repeat the event some humanly-possible
number of times (say, eight one hour flights a day).

Now, all that said, you also write...


I think we're drifting a bit off course here, which is as much my doing as
anyone elses - I'm not just talking Nomex flying suits - my original post
was written as a result of my frustration of how so many pilots think of
themselves as safe pilots (have you ever met a single one who would define
himself as a dangerous one?) - and yet I'm forever seeing them fly off
into
the blue yonder in jeans and tee shirts - over water - single engine - no
life jackets - no flight plan - or overloaded - or with an aircraft that's
not up to standard. Seems about the only thing they never forget is the
"she'll be right" attitude.

I certainly have no problem with that observation. I'd agree that many
people *completely* neglect "negative outcome" issues, and fail to make even
the most rudimentary preparations. I myself probably fail to prepare with
quite as much thoroughness as you apparently do.

However, the Nomex suit is a good talking point with respect to that. You
wear the suit, because you feel it's a worthwhile way of preparing for a
possible event, even if it's an unlikely event. Many other things are
similar.

I think flying over inhospitable terrain without suitable clothing is dumb,
and I never do it. But how about for a local flight? Some people may feel
that any time you get into the airplane, circumstances out of your control
may take you into inhospitable terrain, and thus you should always be
prepared with warm clothing, possibly a sleeping bag and tent and other
survival equipment as well.

But there's always the issue of cost versus benefit. In the same way that I
look at the Nomex suit and say "the odds of that actually being useful are
so incredibly low, it's a waste of my time and effort to bother with the
Nomex suit...I can spend that time and effort in much more productive,
preparative ways", others may look at other preparations we might both make
and say they are not worth it.

Obviously, I'd disagree with them, but at least I'd understand how they came
to that conclusion.

[...] I don't plan on having an accident each time I drive - and I'm
a careful driver - but I wear my seatbelt anyway.

As well you should. But do you also wear your Nomex suit every time you
drove?

Good post by the way - very impressive communication skills.

Heh...glad you think so. Others are often not so gracious, preferring to
describe my posts as "verbose", or "irrelevant", or [expletive deleted]...


Pete

I've had a great idea ...

.... From now on I think I'll just do my own thing - and let other do the
same. No doubt they'll keep doing dumb things, but with a bit of luck
they'll slowly remove themselves from the gene pool.

Somehow I think the reason many people take so many risks in aviation isn't
so much to do with a deep mathematical analysis of the situation as "I'll
never happen to me and I'd be able to handle it if it did (which it won't
because it'll never happen to me). A combination of denial & invincibility.

Thanks for the debate all.

CC