planes vs cycles

Generally speaking, an insurance policy goes with
an airplane or motorcycle, not specifically the driver of that vehicle.
That is, you don't wind up with more policies for airplanes just because
there are more people riding in an airplane.


The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the cost
out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based on
number of seats).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...


General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles

Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
another.

Another shibboleth ruined!

What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?

Of course, as posted earlier, it really should be *driver*-miles, not
passenger-miles, since automobiles likely carry more people on average
than GA aircraft.

Really? Most cars I see on the highway are empty, but our plane is usually
2 or 3 people (sometimes 5 or 6).

Could the airports install PlanePool lanes? Or maybe ATC could give priority
to planes with two or more people aboard.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the
cost
out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based
on
number of seats).

Since the owner/operator/pilot of the vehicle most often winds up being
liable for passenger damages, passenger insurance doesn't spread the risk
out nearly as much as you appaer to be claiming.

As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.

Pete

As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.


Maybe we're saying the same thing different ways. I thought it would go
without saying that a crash that kills 300 is 300 times worse than a crash that
kills 1. My point was that it doesn't increase the likelihood by itself.

Now, if I were going to fly a jetliner, and one airline uses 30 seat airplanes,
and the other uses 250 seat airplanes, and they fly the same number of
passengers per year, and they each have one crash per year, I'd fly the smaller
planes. But this comes right out when you look at trips per year.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

But for the basic premise, you
don't even need the stats.

Well, the stats do help, because they often contradict basic premises.

For example, the driver of a Toyota Avalon (also Accord, Camry, even
Civic) is much less likely to die in a million miles than is the
driver of the biggest, baddest SUV or light truck on the road.

Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that you will save your life if you
switch from an Escalade to an Avalon. It is very clear, looking at the
range of automobiles and light trucks, that the more likely the thang
is to be driven by a young man, the more dangerous it is to its
driver. I have not seen many University of New Hampshire students in
Avalons.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:02:49 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Really? Most cars I see on the highway are empty,

Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
live?

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:28:12 GMT, Duck Dog wrote:

Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
live?

In the Washington suburbs, drivers are known to buy inflatable dolls
for the purpose of planting one in the passenger seat, so as to
qualify for the car-pool lane.

Now hybrid cars also qualify.

I can see the day when empty cars will indeed be on the road. I wonder
if an empty hybrid still qualifies for the car-pool lane?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver wrote:

General Aviation 0.036 / million passenger-miles
Motorcycles 0.309 / million passenger-miles

Making GA about 9 times safer than motorcycles to get from one place to
another.

Another shibboleth ruined!

What do the same statistics say about GA and automobiles?

Automobiles 0.021 / million passenger-miles

Making the fatality rate 70% higher per passenger-mile for GA.

Of course, as posted earlier, it really should be *driver*-miles, not
passenger-miles, since automobiles likely carry more people on average
than GA aircraft.

That is why I also quoted the numbers for vehicle-miles in my earlier
post -- One vehicle, one driver.

Beyond that, the average occupancy of automobiles is typically quoted as
about 1.6 people per vehicle. In General Aviation, as defined by the
FAA, occupancy is a bit over 3 per aircraft.

And where does GA stop? Does it include biz jets?

Yes, which are considered quite safe.

I think what most of us would like to know is the hazard of
*lightplanes" perhaps defined as single-engine recips.

Single engine piston aircraft contribute 60% of all aircraft hours.
Turbojets contribute about 10%, with rotorcraft (7$), turboprops (7%),
and experimentals (5%) contributing most of the rest.

Single engine recips would likely contribute less than 60% of the
passenger-miles, considering the higher speed and greater capacity of
most turboprops and turbojets. Recips probably are involved in more
than their share of all fatal accidents. That suggests that a safety
comparison of small piston aircraft to automobiles on a passenger-mile
basis would be worse than shown above for all GA activity.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:53:40 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:28:12 GMT, Duck Dog wrote:

Most of the one's I've seen have at least one driver. Where do you
live?

In the Washington suburbs,

My condolences. I grew up there, and go back every now and then.
What a zoo.

drivers are known to buy inflatable dolls
for the purpose of planting one in the passenger seat, so as to
qualify for the car-pool lane.

Is it still 2 drivers on 66 and 3 on 95?

Now hybrid cars also qualify.

I can see the day when empty cars will indeed be on the road. I wonder
if an empty hybrid still qualifies for the car-pool lane?

Like I said, I would hope that it would at least have a driver.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:59:33 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

Recips probably are involved in more
than their share of all fatal accidents. That suggests that a safety
comparison of small piston aircraft to automobiles on a passenger-mile
basis would be worse than shown above for all GA activity.

Okay, I am even more skeptical of the figures than before. While I
realize that bizjets are more dangerous than large airliners, still
they're hardly in the same league as a 172 or Bonanza.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org