Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

B A R R Y wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:45:25 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
Judah wrote:

How many accidents per sex hour are there?
define "accident" :-)

I rolled out of bed once, hitting my head on the radiator.

Hmmm....time for a bigger bed.

Or the floor.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, Judah wrote:

2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial aviation
safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of flying when all
of 800 people die a year doing it.

Because 800 people are out of a much smaller group of people (pilots)
than the general population, thus it's a much higher statistical
likelihood. Lung cancer isn't a great risk for the population as a
whole, but it IS for smokers, so they charge smokers higher rates...
same with pilots.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Calvin, we will not have an anatomically correct snowman!"

Judah writes:

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The figures you quoted discussed the
relative safety of GA vs. Commercial flying. That's not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is the relative danger of flying as compared with other
lifetime activities.

Flying is safer than those with a fear of flying generally believe.
However, it is not as safe as, say, riding in an elevator.

I note that many insurance policies ask subscribers if they are crew
members on aircraft. I doubt that they would do that unless there
were some sort of added risk associated with spending a lot of time in
the air. I don't see how air crews run any significant added risk,
but there must be something special about them or insurance companies
wouldn't ask the questions.

True, but I will point out that the figures are skewed when looked at over
a single year. Your 2005 statistics don't gibe with the statistics for
2001, or 1998, or any other year during which there was an Airline
accident...

Nevertheless, the long-term numbers are unfavorable to general
aviation. Why not just accept that reality and be done with it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera writes:

That figure seems a little high.

Be sure to pass your opinion on to the NTSB, the source of that
number.

I know you won't provide any credible evidence to support your
allegations, so I'll cite some statistics that do not agree with your
figures:

I went directly to the horse's mouth, instead of the AOPA:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

Your statistical accident rate analysis fails to appreciate the fact
that departures and landings are generally personally flown by airmen,
as opposed to en route operations that are routinely flown by
autopilot. Because the vast majority of air carrier operations are
spent flying en route, they are not nearly as often exposed to the
hazards posed by landings and takeoffs. GA departures exceed air
carrier departures by four 400%.

Given the fact that GA performs about four times the number of
landings and takeoffs annually as air carriers, is not staffed by
high-time ATP rated professionals, nor is the percentage of turbine
powered, or indeed multi-engine aircraft in the GA fleet any where
near that of air carriers, the figures you cite are meaningless for
comparison purposes.

You can massage numbers all day, but if you do it too much, you give
people the impression that you're trying to hide something. That's
not the way to promote general aviation. GA just isn't as safe as
commercial air travel; it's as simple as that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are plenty
of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than flying. Yet
somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate fear of flying, and
it leads to things like insurance companies asking about it on their
policies.

I don't think insurance companies ask subscribers if they work for
airlines because the insurance companies are afraid of flying. Nobody
understands risks better than insurance companies.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:51:31 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted the
opportunity to create a human being,

Without an ovum, there is no opportunity to create anything but a
mess. :-)

and thus have been equivalent to committing murder.

Unfortunately, irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts
like the killing of a nun in retaliation for characterizing some of
the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as "evil and
inhuman."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2012335.shtml

Hey - I don't make the rules, or even follow many of 'em. I'm just the
reporter here....

Dana M. Hague d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in
news
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, Judah wrote:

2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial
aviation safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of
flying when all of 800 people die a year doing it.

Because 800 people are out of a much smaller group of people (pilots)
than the general population, thus it's a much higher statistical
likelihood. Lung cancer isn't a great risk for the population as a
whole, but it IS for smokers, so they charge smokers higher rates...
same with pilots.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ "Calvin, we will not have an anatomically correct snowman!"


This argument is negated by the sex and falling argument.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The figures you quoted discussed
the relative safety of GA vs. Commercial flying. That's not the issue
at hand. The issue at hand is the relative danger of flying as compared
with other lifetime activities.

Flying is safer than those with a fear of flying generally believe.
However, it is not as safe as, say, riding in an elevator.

I note that many insurance policies ask subscribers if they are crew
members on aircraft. I doubt that they would do that unless there
were some sort of added risk associated with spending a lot of time in
the air. I don't see how air crews run any significant added risk,
but there must be something special about them or insurance companies
wouldn't ask the questions.

Exactly how many insurance companies ask this question?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are
plenty of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than
flying. Yet somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate
fear of flying, and it leads to things like insurance companies asking
about it on their policies.

I don't think insurance companies ask subscribers if they work for
airlines because the insurance companies are afraid of flying. Nobody
understands risks better than insurance companies.

As you stated in your previous message, not all insurance companies ask the
question. Only some of them.

I used to work with actuaries. Actuaries are people too. They run the
numbers that they are supposed to run. But they're still people, with
emotions and phobias like everyone else. If being a pilot or aircrew were
really a risk, every Actuary would agree, and every insurance company would
charge a premium except for a select few "specialty" companies, as is the
case with smoking and with being overweight. However, to my knowledge,
several insurance companies that are very mainstream don't ask about being
a pilot. So clearly it's a subjective decision, not based on numbers...

Judah writes:

Exactly how many insurance companies ask this question?

Every time I've filled out an insurance application I've been asked if
I were a member of an airline crew.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.