If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
... The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if you play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if you just play the lottery once. The odds are only higher at the beginning of your life. For what you wrote to be true, you have to be calculating the odds at the beginning of your life, and make some assumption about how often you'll play (every day, for example), and about how long your life is (a year, for example). Once you make that calculation, then you go on with your life. Every day you play the lottery. Every day that you fail to win the lottery, the percentage chance of winning the lottery *during your life* is REDUCED (the chance of winning on any given day, of course, is the constant chance anyone has of winning on any given day). On the last day of your year-long life, having not won the lottery, the chance of your winning the lottery is exactly the same as the chance a person who has never played before and who will only play this one day. The only reason that it *seems* like people with high hours have a higher chance of experience an engine failure is that the odds are being calculated by assuming a fixed chance of the event over the entire number of hours. But the hours already flown are irrelevant for the purpose of figuring your chance of an engine failure for a given flight, as are the hours you expect to fly after that flight. Pete |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career." Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start. That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight. Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is false. Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number of times you play. That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL trials (flights), and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. Pete |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, I fly IMC at night, single engine on the east coast. Granted, they
aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or night, they still don't provide a good place to land. When I fly at night, I have two flash lights (minimum), spare batteries for both. If any light in/on the plane is not working, it is a no-go. The GPS must have the most current map, the VORs must have just been tested (e.g., in air, VOT, etc.), both radios must be functional, I carry both VFR and IFR charts and both are marked for planned flight. I generally file for 7,000 to 10,000 (well above the Min altitudes) and ask for direct. My wife generally is following along on the VFR charts to know where the closest airport is (and we use the GPS to assist in this). Oh, did I mention I also have a hand-held GPS as well? And I work at *NOT* getting into icing conditions (probably why the plane has been in the hanger since November 04). I am 49, 330+ hours, have a family that flies with me in IMC. Regards, Steve.T PP ASEL/Instrument |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve.T" wrote Ok, I fly IMC at night, single engine on the east coast. Granted, they aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or night, they still don't provide a good place to land. Steve.T I didn't ask you how old you are. I'll bite anyway. I am not against any form of night flight, and I'll also say that East coast mountains are different, but most of all, the amount of airports on the right cost is vastly different. -- Jim in NC |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "Peter Duniho" "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career." Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start. That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight. Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is false. Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number of times you play. That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL trials (flights), and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. Pete It is a useful calculation for making the decision as to "Should I fly over the mountains at night?" Using Ron Garret's example of 1 in 100 chance of having an engine failure, and assuming that an engine failure at night over the mountains has a 100% chance of being fatal (I know it's not 100%, but I'd bet it's awfully close). And that you have a "99% chance" of having an engine failure if you fly back and forth over the mountains "460 times". I agree with you that on the 461st you have no more chance of having an engine failure than the first time you make the flight. BUT....there IS a 99% chance that you don't live long enough to make that 461st flight. While your assertion is quite correct that the closer you get to the end of your flying career, the lower the odds of having an engine failure (and consequently, crash and burn on a mountainside), the higher the odds are that you're already dead. In other words, when you make that 461st flight.....chances are that you're in a box that's been loaded in the back of the plane. This brings to mind the old saying: "It's easy to beat death, but death's advantage is that it only has to win once" Yes it is a very old saying, especially since someone like me has already been clinically dead once. I Guess I won that round. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career." Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start. Obviously. If the career is over then one need not invoke probabilities at all. Probabilities are only useful when discussing things whose outcomes are not yet known. That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight. Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is false. The cumulative probability of an event over N trials is the probability that the event occurs at least once in those N trials. In that respect, my claim is true. Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number of times you play. That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL trials (flights), Obviously we only care about the odds for the flights we have not yet made. For the flights that we have made we already know whether the engine failed or not. and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. That is a matter of opinion. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero. And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that exceeds one's risk tolerance. rg |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Peter,
That's not true. The longer you play, the more opportunities you have to win. But each time you play, you have the same exact chance to win (all else being equal, which means ignore the variations in chance due to different numbers of participants, etc), and there is NO length of time you can play that will guarantee a win. Or, in other words I like a lot: There is no law of small numbers. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... [...] Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four. Only approximately. The only reason doubling (or quadrupling) the number of engines doubles (or quadruples) the chance of an engine failure (approximately) is that the failure rate is so low. For example, if the failure rate were 50%, a doubling of that would cause you to expect an engine to fail each flight (a 100% chance of failure), when in fact the chance is actually only 75%. Pete |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... [...] and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known. Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't very useful information if you don't know what N is. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. That is a matter of opinion. Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so useful. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero. For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience? It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my lifetime. Duh. And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that exceeds one's risk tolerance. Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career. I doubt one exists. If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, you are without a point (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause that's the kind of guy I am). Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Routine Aviation Career | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 0 | September 26th 04 12:33 AM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Night Flying Tips | BoDEAN | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 04 03:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |