Aviation is too expensive

The liability argument is facile and naive.
If it were true, cars would be more expensive than airplanes. You all
know those statistics about safety of air travel versus cars. (Yeah,
I'm a lawyer; but I don't handle airplane crashes (not very many) but
as for car wrecks...

Not true. There is MUCH more precedent in the legal system for car crashes.
If I have a one car crash because I failed to negotiate a curve, chances are
I'm not going to get to far in a lawsuit. If I crash my plane because I
wasn't paying attention to my airspeed on final, I get to sue the makers of
the CD-player in my panel. Again...jurors know how to drive cars.....and
only rich people with too much money (that should be shared) fly
airplanes.... blyak.....I feel grimy just typing it

"Capt. Doug" wrote:

..... and yet, there
aren't too many airboaters stranded in the swamps.

And you know this how?

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

(Michael) wrote in message om...

Let's all get real. Supply and demand and economies of scale?
snip

Well, economies of scale are a large factor. The airplanes that
roll out of the factories today are all basically hand crafted.
Unlike the automated, roboticized car assmbly lines. If Cessna could
utilize automation and robotics like Ford or GM, their planes would
carry a much lower price tag (and probably have better initial
quality). Unfortunately, they don't sell enough planes to justify the
vast investment in those technologies, while Ford/GM can happily
spread the costs over millions of units.

No, let's be real. The real enemy is our government - specifically
the FAA. They're the reason we're struggling to keep 40 year old
technology going rather than getting new stuff at a fraction of the
cost.

Also true. It takes a huge investment and lots of time to get a
product through the bureaucratic nightmare that is the FAA. But
again, the cost of that struggle is spread over a very few units,
thereby bumping up the price.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


Michael

G.R. Patterson III wrote in message And you know this how?

From the NTSB website.

D.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"jim rosinski" wrote in message
om...
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would
have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

--Gary



Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
et...

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads
here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure,
GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.


I prefer Rod Machado's view which ties into another current thread in this
forum:

In an airplane, the pilot has complete control over his actions, and more
options. In the automobile, there is a thin (yellow) line between me and my
existence; there is no controlling the other vehicle on the other side of an
imaginary plane of separation, and no where to go if there's a violation.

I think there's also something to be said about NOT being 1 of 600 of 300M,
as opposed to 1 of 42,600 of 300M. Self-delusional or not, the logic works
for me.

I have always wondered how these numbers would change
if the "gross negligence" factor was removed. In other words,
folks who drag race, drive drunk, crash because a bee was
in the car, take off in terrible weather, run out of fuel, skip
preflights or maintainance, "watch this" antics.

What would the comparison be if we only looked at "safe" drivers
and "safe" GA pilots.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:29:57 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

--Gary

Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.


Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."

Thanks

"Jeff Franks" wrote in message
...
Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would
have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.


Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."

Jeff, you can find the GA fatality rate in ASF's Nall Report (AOPA web
site), and the automobile rate at the NTSB's site. The GA rate is more than
ten times higher. Multiplying the automobile rate by that factor gives more
than .5 M deaths per year.

--Gary


Thanks