Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

This just ain't so.

Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
played it.

It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

Those that are not up on statistics will argue that point forever. Then add
a couple years!
--
Jim in NC

"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

"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

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

"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

"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.

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

In article ,
wrote:

The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.

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.

Approximately? They are exactly the same.

I said "approximately" because not all lotteries are the same.



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.

all other variables held constant...


So the guy who buys 4 lottery tickets is4 times as likely to win
(actually, lose) his money than a guy who buys one.

After everybody loses today, however, when we stepup to the window
tomeorrow, our odds are exactly the same. The guy who bought 4
tickets yesterday is no better off than I am, who never played.

A source of much confusion is when people try to compare probabilities
of events with different pre-conditions.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

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)

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