Safety, yet again...

Of the total fatalities (130), there are probably less than 40 that apply to
the sort of flying that you claim to do. So you should be able to multiply
the safety probability by more than 4 (or reduce your risk by a factor of
more than 4.... maybe something closer to 300,000 to 1).

False.

You can't just change the numerator, you must also look at the
denominator - that is, you need to then remove all the non-accident
flights outside the envelope.

Simple example - assume that 10% of the pilots are female. There are
312 accidents, and they happen to be distributed 10% female, 90% male.

If you're female, are you really ten times safer because you can
discount the 90% of male accidents?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Of the total fatalities (130), there are probably less than 40 that apply
to the sort of flying that you claim to do. So you should be able to
multiply the safety probability by more than 4 (or reduce your risk by a
factor of more than 4.... maybe something closer to 300,000 to 1).

False.

You can't just change the numerator, you must also look at the
denominator -


C'mon... I'm trying to give the guy something to hang on to :-)!! Nobody
said this was a scientific study! :-)

Nevertheless, it may be "false", but not completely so.

Although I don't have the numbers..... it is a good bet that for many of
those "outside the envelope" categories ( IFR in IMC, helicopter, night
flights, aerobatics, hand-propping, etc.) the denominator is, in fact,
proportionately small relative to the total numbers "inside" the "basic"
Jay-type operations envelope.

How often do you drive drunk?

How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?

How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...

Uh, never.

What's your point?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

e) Never fly at night

You're missing some great views.

I know. But it's one aspect of risk that Mary and I have agreed is
easily avoidable. Once the kids are on their own, we'll go back to
night flying, I'm sure.

I'm with you on the rest, except maybe the IFR part, once I'm
instrument rated. To me there's IFR, and there's _IFR_.

IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Your list is comprehensive and no doubt helpful, with the exception of items
D and E, which taken together I consider a net negative.

Interesting that you would say that, John. Why is not flying IFR, and
not flying at night "taken together a net negative"?


The point is this: what can you do? and what will you do in response?
What is the real world benefit to you if you calculate that you can decrease
your fatality probability from 1 in 73,187 flights (GA) to 1 in 581,395
flights (scheduled 135)?

There is no real world benefit -- it's an intellectual exercise. I
would continue to fly regardless of the risk -- but one of my family
members has inquired, and I would like to be able to share some real
numbers with her.

Preferably, I would like to share numbers that include: "If you don't
fly drunk, the statisics improve to 'x'..." ,or, "If you don't run out
of gas, the statistics improve to 'Y'..."

Unfortunately, there seems to be no scientific way to arrive at an
answer. (Which, if you think about it, is really quite amazing. What
the hell do we pay all those FAA bureaucrats to DO all day, anyway?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
from my personal risk assessment.

Can you really? I recall one of your particular Sun-and-Fun return trip
write-ups (perhaps last year) that had a moment that could be classified as
a stupid pilot trick, namely continuing VFR into deteriorating weather and
scud running.

Um, if you actually READ my account, we performed a 180 and landed the
plane. I believe this is the prescribed procedure to follow when one
runs into deteriorating weather?

Instead of admitting that types of accidents can be eliminated from my risk
assessment, I still use them to motivate me not to make them.

That is obvious, and goes without saying. Any other reading of my
"eliminating them from my personal risk assessment" is a
misconstruction of my intent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
How often do you drive drunk?

How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?

How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...

Uh, never.

What's your point?

I believe his point is that the auto statistics include those behaviors as
well. If you're going to adjust the aviation statistics to exclude stuff
you don't do, you have to adjust the auto statistics to exclude stuff you
don't do. Otherwise, the two numbers aren't comparable.

Pete

Nevertheless, I believe you are making a grave error in attempting to
reassure yourself that you are beating the odds. Private GA flying is
dangerous; more dangerous than driving by two orders of magnitude, according
to the NTSB statistics you posted. That disparity is so huge I don't see
how you can convince yourself that you can reduce it to equality in your own
flying. If you do manage to believe this you are living in a dream world, a
dangerous place for a pilot.

I never said ANYTHING about wanting to reduce my risk to that of
driving. In fact, I am already more than satisifed that flying is as
safe as I can make it, and worth the risk. I wouldn't commit aviation
over 100 times per year if I thought it weren't worth the risks.

But I would like to extract, if possible, all the stupid stuff that I
don't, won't or can't do from the accident statistics. Unfortunately,
there appears to be no way to do that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If you're female, are you really ten times safer because you can
discount the 90% of male accidents?

Mary would say "YES!"...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
How often do you drive drunk?

How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?

How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...

Uh, never.

What's your point?

The point is if you're trying to ascertain _your_ risk factor, you must
compare apples and oranges...both on the ground and in the air.

Your risk factor is higher (VFR only, recreastion/personal flying) and your
automobile risk factors are lower. Using general statistics won't help YOU
because you're outside the generalities that the accident stats are
picturing.