Better drivers?

"Peter Duniho" writes:

For my own part, it doesn't happen much if at all these days, but when I
first learned to fly, I kept having trouble keeping my driving reflexes out
of my flying and vice a versa. I'd check the (nonexistent) mirror, reach
for the (nonexistent) turn signal, and look over my shoulder to check my
(irrelevant) blind spot before making a turn in an airplane. In the car,
I'd find myself pushing and pulling on the steering wheel in response to
changing terrain.

Just as long as you don't stop looking out the windshield and just
scan the dashboard if the road dips into fog....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"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

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Just as long as you don't stop looking out the windshield and just
scan the dashboard if the road dips into fog....

Uh...

Nope, never did that. Nuh-uh. That's my story, sticking to it.

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

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

If anything, they wreck planes more often relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos,
but for sure they wreck them at least as often.

Is this one of those things that writers leave in to check if their
readers are paying attention or do you really mean it? Pilots wreck
planes more often than drivers wreck autos? Unless the
"relatively speaking" bit means something that I don't yet know...

Ramapriya

I don't believe studies have been done, and even if they had, as Pete says,
they may be error prone - so we're all guessing in the dark really.

For my part, I'll bet beginning and low-time pilots probably do make better
drivers, for two reasons : 1)Respect for rules and 2)Weather observation.
Some here feel weather is more of a "nuisance" in driving than anything else,
but it remains one of the most often cited contributing causes in accidents.
Pilots are simply less likly to be surprised by weather, or to launch blithley
into degrading conditions. They also ahve at their fingertips a whole palette
of tools to allow them to quickly and accurately assess weather situations.

As for respect for rules - well, that's why I said beginning and low-time
pilots. Too often, after a few hundred, or better yet a few thousand hours,
pilots begin to feel that all those pesky, meticulous rules are just for
smaller fry, and this attitude probably carries over into their driving as
well.

GF

On 9 Jun 2006 14:49:47 -0700, "cpw" wrote:

I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death in the past. I am
wondering if there are any statistics on whether pilots are safer
(automobile) drivers than the general public. It has seemed to me that
my pilot training has improved my driving skills in several ways:
situational awareness, planning ahead, general safe driving practices,
etc. Anybody have any opinions (HAH!) in the group?

This article presents results from a study that indicates that pilots
are less likely to have an accident than most other occupations.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...car/P63952.asp