Accidents - correlation and causation?

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

Boats don't have pilots?

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

Once again, you rewrite my post to suit your desire.

I didn't write that you know someone who was killed by a meteor. I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

[...]
One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

Again, rewriting my post. My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky.

I never said they don't. And with respect to the question of rule-making,
it is VERY MUCH relevant whether an event would be stopped by rule-making.
Ironic that you would claim it's not relevant, and then write this:

And that it was deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were
large aircraft attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small
aircraft are not as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not
recognized by the ADIZ people.

The biggest problem with the ADIZ (rule-making) is that it has no effect on
the intentional actions of terrorists. The question of intent versus
accidental is very relevant to the question of rule-making.

I realize that making up stuff is a popular Usenet tactic, but I really have
no interest in feeding your tendencies.

Pete

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
Or, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11766288/

That is precisely the type of "kite designed to harm" that I excluded from
the discussion.

I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

Why should I know of someone who was killed by a meteor? It is not
necessary to know of someone who was killed by a meteor to ascertain
whether or not it is possible to be killed by a meteor.

My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

In any case the thread is drifting into irrelevance.

I contend that flying is more dangerous to the non-flying public than
boating is dangerous to the non-boating public. I might be wrong; I'm
open to data.

However, I also contend that =IF= the above is true, =THEN= it makes
sense to have more stringent regulation of airplane pilots than boating
pilots.

I also do not see an inconsistancy WRT allowing a student pilot to fly
solo but not with passengers. Since the danger to passengers is
inherently greater than the danger to the nonflying public, it makes
more sense to protect passengers via this rule. If the risk is small
enough, rulemaking is not necessary. (FSVO "small")

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 22:30:00 in message
, Peter Duniho
wrote:
You think wrong. Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
boats.

In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

A while back (a few years), I found an interesting article on risk. I
still have a copy but not the author's name although the references are
still there. The author chose different ways of expressing risk. Like
how much would you have to tax an activity to raise a million pounds for
every death. One that struck me was smoking - a tax of 14 British Pounds
on a packet of 20.

The method that impressed me the most was one that took each risk and
said how long you would live on average if that risk was the only one
there was.

Unfortunately he did not have a figure for G.A. flying.

However he did give a figure for being killed by a falling aircraft and
that was: 50,000,000 years. Yes - Fifty Million Years.

Another was travelling in a train for a 100 hours a week would give you
a life expectancy of 200,000 years. Even smoking 40 cigarettes a day
would give you an average of 1,300 years.

This was written quite a few years ago so today there are probably more
aircraft in the sky to fall!

I seem to recall a slightly different risk statement, from a forgotten
source (not from that article), concerning flying scheduled airlines .
That said that if you took one scheduled flight every day and that was
the only life threatening risk then you would, on average, live 25,000
years.
--
David CL Francis

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 at 19:11:39 in message
, Jose
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident
killed thousands of people on the ground? I am interested in aircraft
accidents but I do not know at the moment of any that fit that category.
--
David CL Francis

Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident killed thousands of people on the ground? I am interested in aircraft accidents but I do not know at the moment of any that fit that category.

I'm talking about the 9/11 incidents involving the WTC, which while
deliberately caused, were not deliberately caused by the (original)
pilots or crew, but by a (n understandable) failure of the airline
industry to prevent the hijacking. That it is not possible to prevent
this kind of thing is part of the risk of big airplanes hitting people
on the ground (or connected to the ground via the structure of a building).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident
killed thousands of people on the ground?

He's referring to the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11/01.

I am interested in aircraft accidents but I do not know at the moment of
any that fit that category.

That's because it wasn't an accident, and was so clearly irrelevant to this
thread that it wouldn't be surprising for a reader to not figure out what he
was talking about in this context.

Pete

That's because it wasn't an accident, and was so clearly irrelevant to this
thread that it wouldn't be surprising for a reader to not figure out what he
was talking about in this context.

It's not irrelevant at all. It was not a deliberate act by the pilot.
It was an unanticipated malfunction in a system.

If you want another one, there was an entire community wiped out in or
near San Diego when a jetliner crashed into a small plane, and then
plummeted straight down. I don't know if it was "thousands dead" but
certainly hundreds, and iirc it led to the TCA around San Diego.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 at 22:39:57 in message
, Jose
wrote:

I'm talking about the 9/11 incidents involving the WTC, which while
deliberately caused, were not deliberately caused by the (original)
pilots or crew, but by a (n understandable) failure of the airline
industry to prevent the hijacking. That it is not possible to prevent
this kind of thing is part of the risk of big airplanes hitting people
on the ground (or connected to the ground via the structure of a building).

I understand, however, in my book, there is no way that deliberate act
can be classified with normal aircraft accident or risk, anymore than
the London attacks can be taken as part of the risk of riding on the
London Underground or even living or working in London. It is risk of
terrorist activity which could strike almost anywhere.

I would not count a war risk either. Late in WW2 a V2 fell on a
Woolworth store in London that was full of people. Some 140 died; is
that to be included in the risks of shopping?
--
David CL Francis

I understand, however, in my book, there is no way that deliberate act can be classified with normal aircraft accident or risk, anymore than the London attacks can be taken as part of the risk of riding on the London Underground or even living or working in London.

The two are not quite the same. The risk of attacks like the London
attack is a risk of living in any major city, which is an attraction
point for such attacks. Same for muggings and such. It is not really a
risk of the underground per se. And to immunize large aircraft from
such events, rare as they may be, does not accurately represent the risk
from falling aircraft.

Consider deciding whether or not to construct a vacuum tube between NY
and SF, to run orbital speed subways through. Even if the technological
issue could be solved, there still remains the very real risk of a
deliberate act of sabotage, which at orbital speeds, would have
significant impact on the area of the country above the mishap. This is
a very real risk of a subterrainan orbital subway; to ignore it does a
disservice.

As for war... if the impact (of the V2) was random then no, the risk of
shopping should not include that. However, if the V2 were
micro-targeted at populated areas, and a shopping center qualified, then
yes, it is reasonable to include that as a risk of shopping in a
sufficiently attractive shopping center. (and yes, I know the V2 was not
guided).

The risk, when divided out, is small, but it does not disappear, and it
is attached to whatever served as the aim point, for the same reason it
was chosen as an aim point.

In any case, there was also one I mentioned before, a jetliner
plummeting into a town in Southern California and wiping out an entire
community. A C150 crash would not have that effect. There aren't many
jetliner crashes, but when a jetliner does have an undesired contact
with terrain, the consequences are bigger.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.