Better drivers?

Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
expected to be...

I have no idea what this means. It sounds a lot like "the average pilot
is no better than average at piloting". Could you clarify?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
Given that I've seen no evidence that pilots on the whole are better at
avoiding crashes in airplanes than they otherwise would statistically be
expected to be...

I have no idea what this means. It sounds a lot like "the average pilot
is no better than average at piloting". Could you clarify?

I can try.

Let's assume for a moment that pilots make for better drivers. Presumably
that happens because they somehow have superior judgment or superior skills
(the two characteristics useful in avoiding accidents). Judgment and skills
generally apply across all of one's activities; this premise is in fact the
basis for the conceit that pilots make better drivers (the thinking
generally goes like this: "it requires special skills to learn to fly, so
the person in possession of those special skills also uses them to be a
better driver").

However, aviation is filled with examples of accidents. As has been
established often enough here, aviation is at least as risky relative to
accidents than driving is. (Of course, due to the nature of the activity
and the equipment, injuries and fatalities occur in a greater percentage of
accidents).

If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos. But they don't. If anything, they wreck planes more often
relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos, but for sure they wreck them
at least as often.

In the areas where pilots do a better job avoiding wrecks (commercial,
business, air transport), one can readily point to regulations that lead to
that. The pilots aren't any better, though they are better trained, they
are just as inclined to have an accident. But the regulations, assuming
they follow them (which they generally do), are what lead to the improved
safety statistics. Not pilot ability.

I think cpw's anecdote sums up my view pretty well. One can argue that
entry into aviation (or med school) is limited to a particular kind of
person, but in reality there's no evidence that the "particular kind of
person" (even if one can point to certain personality traits to lead one to
those activities) has any correlation with better judgment or skills.

I don't know if that helps. I've had a splitting headache since Tuesday and
am having trouble expressing myself in my usual crystal clear, concise
manner.

Pete

If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos.

I think this is faulty reasoning. Unless you hide behind "relatively
speaking", it may be simply that flying is more dangerous than driving.

If anything, they wreck planes more often
relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos

Per mile? Per hour? Per trip? The statistic is not meaningless, but
it can easily be made to be so. Again I see "relatively speaking",
which suggests some normative calculation whose definition is left,
well, undefined.

In the areas where pilots do a better job avoiding wrecks (commercial,
business, air transport), one can readily point to regulations that lead to
that. The pilots aren't any better, though they are better trained, they
are just as inclined to have an accident. But the regulations, assuming
they follow them (which they generally do), are what lead to the improved
safety statistics. Not pilot ability.

Is this borne out by the relative accident rates of ATPs in GA aircraft,
vs the run of the mill GA pilot?

I think I agree that pilots are not in general better drivers than non
pilots, but I have no data to back this up. However, your reasoning is
not compelling.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
.com...
[...]
I think I agree that pilots are not in general better drivers than non
pilots, but I have no data to back this up. However, your reasoning is
not compelling.

Whatever. My point is not to enter the quagmire of trying to compare
accident statistics. That's obviously a hopeless cause. If pilots were
truly above-average, then the difference in safety would be dramatic and
positive for pilots.

Regardless of what you think about the various parameters, it's clear that
pilots are not significantly enough above average to produce a tangible
difference in accident statistics. The only areas in which aviation is
demonstrably safer is in areas where regulations make it so.

Left to their own devices, pilots do just as many dumb things as anyone
else.

In any case, I have no need to use the argument to which you object as
"proof". It's simply a conversational observation, and you're mistaken to
try to make it more than that. The real "proof" (such as it is) that pilots
aren't better drivers can be seen in their behavior as drivers. I witness
just as much bad driving on the part of pilots as I do on the part of the
average population.

If you want some conclusive, analytical evidence, you're in the wrong
thread.

Pete

"Jose" wrote in message ...
I think this is faulty reasoning. Unless you hide behind "relatively
speaking", it may be simply that flying is more dangerous than driving.

Jose
--
Do you really believe that flying is more dangerous than driving?
When was the last time you drove in any major city?
And how many times did you have to modify your speed, direction
or stopping distance because of another drivers mistake?

I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.

The statistics show the 50,000 drivers die per year.
I believe the number for airplane accidents is around 900 per year
worldwide.
And if I'm not mistaken, the 50k is in the U.S. alone.

Can anyone back up the stats, I know I have seen them printed somewhere
before.

David

"FLAV8R" wrote:
....
I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.
....
Can anyone back up the stats, I know I have seen them printed somewhere
before.

This probably isn't what you are thinking of, but it is tbe only study I've
found on the web that compares the accident rate of various modes of
transportation and normalizes the data:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...omparisons.pdf

For my own comparative purposes, GA flying appears to be ~7 times more
likely to lead to a fatal accident than driving (rounded average of columns
1 and 4 in table 5; all the other columns use measures not relevant to my
own situation).

I find that I'm much safer in a plane than in a car.

"find" implies knowledge - results of investigations and such. Perhaps
more apt would be "believe" (unless you have had a sufficient number of
car crashes =and= airplane crashes from which to draw valid conclusions).

The statistics show the 50,000 drivers die per year.
I believe the number for airplane accidents is around 900

Numbers are meaningless without appropriate normalization. Per mile?
Per year? Per passenger? Per flight? Per dollar?

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

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos.

You can't make that conclusion or assumption.

The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some means
of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
conclusive.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos.

You can't make that conclusion or assumption.

Sure I can. I just did.

The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some
means
of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
conclusive.

Even your proposed driving test would not be conclusive. Tests have biases
and inaccuracies too.

That said, statisticians make a pretty good living discovering interesting
facts about the world through nothing more than simple study of the existing
numbers. If you really care, you might want to read the book
"Freakanomics", which has lot of interesting case studies in statistical
conjecture.

Sure, it's technically conjecture, but there's very little in the world that
can actually be *proven* -- there is always a non-zero chance that the
attempt at the "proof" is flawed -- and statistics, when applied in a
careful manner, can reveal all sorts of interesting truths.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

If pilots made for better drivers, then average pilots should have fewer
accidents in airplanes, relatively speaking, than average drivers do in
autos.

You can't make that conclusion or assumption.

Sure I can. I just did.

ok. sure, you can. But it isn't valid.


The only valid test of pilots making better drivers is to look at some
means
of putting pilots through drivings tests vs non-pilots. Looking at the
statistics of drivers involved in auto accidents to see if there is a
statistical diffence between pilots/non-pilots would be relevant but not
conclusive.

Even your proposed driving test would not be conclusive. Tests have biases
and inaccuracies too.

Well, of course a flawed test would be useless. But not all tests have
meaningful biases or inaccuracies.


That said, statisticians make a pretty good living discovering interesting
facts about the world through nothing more than simple study of the existing
numbers. If you really care, you might want to read the book
"Freakanomics", which has lot of interesting case studies in statistical
conjecture.

Discovering a correlation doesn't prove cause and effect, a mistake
way too many people make. Absent proof of cause and effect, these statistical
"facts" are generally just (potentially) interesting trivia.


Sure, it's technically conjecture, but there's very little in the world that
can actually be *proven* -- there is always a non-zero chance that the
attempt at the "proof" is flawed -- and statistics, when applied in a
careful manner, can reveal all sorts of interesting truths.

None of which supports your orginal thesis or even validates your approach.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate