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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Russell" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:59:51 GMT, "C Kingsbury" wrote: mean it that way. I don't think that women are inherently worse drivers than men, but the one's that fit that description are deadly. Actually on the whole women have a better record than men by a non-trivial amount, primarily because they are less likely to drive recklessly. Though I would still stay far away from that minivan. Point is, I don't feel like I'm in anywhere near that level of danger when I fly. The reason is that I don't have to deal with all of those people that are trying to kill me. It's basically true- on a bike death is rarely more than a few seconds away. In a plane this is only true during certain phases of takeoff or landing. If you're alert you have a better chance of stopping an accident sequence before it runs its course. -cwk. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Why am I using the composite automobile numbers when highway numbers
are much higher (more dangerous)? Why am I using *any* set of numbers? If we can pick and chose the numbers we want, we can 'prove' virtually anything. It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car' to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA planes. Please feel free to break out 'self-piloted' GA numbers from the total number of hours, the total number of deaths and the total number of injuries if you so wish...but when you analyse the question 'Will you be safer on a 1000 mile trip if you travel by car or by GA airplane?' *Even if* you use the '50% higher' figures you want to use, you will STILL find that If 'safety' = 'probability of arriving at your destination without injury or death', then travel by GA plane (personal flying), is *still* safer than travel by car. If 'safety' = 'probability of not getting killed before reaching your destination', then travel by car is safer than travel by GA (personal flying). It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?") to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed' (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars). The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't. Cheers, Cap "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events: Event Automobile Plane -------------------------------------------------------- Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030 Injuries 495,000 1,742,969 Accidents 251,429 2,614,453 Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087 Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an automobile. But they are both quite low. But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is *much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are still pretty low. Why are you using the composite light GA numbers when personal flying has an accident rate 50% higher? Mike MU-2 |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote It seems to me like most pilots here are in denial about the true risks of what they are doing. I also believe this is the primary reason we have the product liability climate in GA that we do. There have been lots of lawsuits against aircraft and component manufacturers by grieving widows and orphans. As there have been against companies which do bungee-jumping, parachuting, hang gliding, mountain climbing, deep-sea fishing, and a million other activities which any logical person can see require taking risks which can cause death. "Well, we're going to tie a rubber band around your ankles and throw you off a bridge." What it comes down to is acceptance of responsibility. Not a century ago it was a rare family that hadn't lost one or more young children to disease by the age of ten and if you survived that there were wars, workplace accidents, railroad crashes, ships sinking, and a long list of now-routine illnesses that meant certain death. Today when someone dies in their sixties we say "so young" and the loss of a child is an agony beyond conception. We understand everything. We dig tunnels thirty miles long under oceans and dam rivers to make lakes the size of small countries. We cut peoples' chests open, stop their hearts to replace a valve or four as if it were just another engine, and administer a shock to start it all running again. Satellites a hundred miles above the Earth send images which have turned the most devastating storms into mere incoveniences. The temperature of the polar ice cap is three degrees higher than normal? Clearly we are burning too much fossil fuel! When an airliner crashes, we suck up five million little bits off the ocean floor and put it all back together. It takes a year or two, but then a man in glasses gets up before a screen, and shows a film which explains exactly what happened. "Here, you see, these indents the size of a dime show where a cross-member hit, consistent with our theory that a spark in the tank caused an explosion." And none of this progress is illusory. The tunnels do not collapse and fill with water. The patient gets out of bed and three weeks later resumes hosting his late-night talk show and likely watches his grandchildren graduate from high school. Airline travel has become safer than driving a car. Hurricanes in the US regularly cause tens of billions in damage yet kill hardly any. Men fly, the sick are healed, and oracles predict the future from their perch in the sky. Have we not become the gods of our own existence? The only thing we don't believe in is the unpreventable accident. When someone dies of cancer, the family sues the doctor for not finding it sooner. When someone dies in a car crash, the automaker is sued because a properly-designed car should allow the driver to survive rolling off the road at sixty miles an hour. Every accident happens for a reason, and since we know airplanes run out of gas, shouldn't we design ones that can't? Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the safety of small planes. -cwk. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Carnivorous, eh?
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... C Kingsbury wrote: I'm with Mike on this. Flying is higher risk than gardening. You've not seen the weeds in my garden. - Andrew |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message nk.net... "Michael" wrote in message om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote "Well, we're going to tie a rubber band around your ankles and throw you off a bridge." You make is sound like a crazy thing to do! Mike MU-2 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
I would say safety is a function of surviving the trip! Your last numbers
showed a fatal accident rate for aircraft 4.6 time greater than for autos on a per mile basis. Looking at another set of numbers for autos, the NTSB shows a rate of 1.48 fatal accidents/100 million miles. Converting the NTSB data for GA to miles (assuming 125kts and 1.15 sm/nm) we get 9.46 fatals/100 million miles and as I pointed out earlier, this number understates the risk for light GA personal flying by a factor of two. The overwhelming majority of auto injuries are minor, some are not even noticed before the ambulance chaser suggest them. If you rephrased the question including the fact that the flying is 12 times as likely to result in death but the auto has a higher chance of minor injury, I doubt if anyone would consider flying to be safer. Mike MU-2 "Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... Why am I using the composite automobile numbers when highway numbers are much higher (more dangerous)? Why am I using *any* set of numbers? If we can pick and chose the numbers we want, we can 'prove' virtually anything. It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car' to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA planes. Please feel free to break out 'self-piloted' GA numbers from the total number of hours, the total number of deaths and the total number of injuries if you so wish...but when you analyse the question 'Will you be safer on a 1000 mile trip if you travel by car or by GA airplane?' *Even if* you use the '50% higher' figures you want to use, you will STILL find that If 'safety' = 'probability of arriving at your destination without injury or death', then travel by GA plane (personal flying), is *still* safer than travel by car. If 'safety' = 'probability of not getting killed before reaching your destination', then travel by car is safer than travel by GA (personal flying). It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?") to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed' (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars). The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't. Cheers, Cap "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events: Event Automobile Plane -------------------------------------------------------- Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030 Injuries 495,000 1,742,969 Accidents 251,429 2,614,453 Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087 Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an automobile. But they are both quite low. But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is *much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are still pretty low. Why are you using the composite light GA numbers when personal flying has an accident rate 50% higher? Mike MU-2 |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car' to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA planes. Except that it doesn't, really. A 500-hour pilot flying an Arrow and two ATPs cuing the FMS on a Gulfstream V are about as different as a wheelbarrow and a submarine. Even owner-flown jets and turboprops rarely match the safety record of profesionally-crewed flights in the same equipment. The data are unambiguous on this point. It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?") to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed' (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars). As any exit pollster will tell you, how people answer the question is largely determined by how you ask it. Try asking the question this way: "Activity A is three times more likely to cause you an injury than Activity B. Activity B is four and a half times more likely to kill you than Activity A. Which sounds like the safer activity?" Another problem is that you're not weighting for the severity of injury. Breaking an arm and being paralyzed from the neck down are thus being counted the same. Without knowing this breakdown we can only guess at what's going on. The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't. By your own tortured numbers you are 4.5 times as likely to die in a plane crash as a car crash. QED. -cwk. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
"Back_To_Flying" wrote Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age. Stating an argument like that, shows you have little to no grasp of statistics. Everyone (nearly) drives. Everyone does not fly. Well over 90% of all deaths occur in bed. Seems to be the single most dangerous place to be. Stay away from them ! ;o) Cheers CV |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, C Kingsbury posted:
(largely snipped for brevity) The only thing we don't believe in is the unpreventable accident. When someone dies of cancer, the family sues the doctor for not finding it sooner. When someone dies in a car crash, the automaker is sued because a properly-designed car should allow the driver to survive rolling off the road at sixty miles an hour. Every accident happens for a reason, and since we know airplanes run out of gas, shouldn't we design ones that can't? Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the safety of small planes. A most excellent summary of the "modern human's" state of mind. Thanks for posting this! Neil |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message link.net...
"Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car' to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA planes. Except that it doesn't, really. A 500-hour pilot flying an Arrow and two ATPs cuing the FMS on a Gulfstream V are about as different as a wheelbarrow and a submarine. Even owner-flown jets and turboprops rarely match the safety record of profesionally-crewed flights in the same equipment. The data are unambiguous on this point. Indeed. And since we are comparing 'autos' to 'GA Airplanes', then if you are going to start teasing out certain components from one side to make the data appear a certain way, then we need to tease the data out from the other side as well. Highway travel, for instance, is significantly more deadly than local driving. So...do you want to tease out 'car trips over 200 miles' and compare them to 'plane trips over 200 miles'? How about 'Plane trips over 200 miles flown by pilots over 25 years of age' versus 'car trips over 200 miles made by....' You want to talk 'wheelbarrows' and 'submarines'? Then it is equally unfair to use auto statistics that include 100 drivers driving 2 miles to the video store each way and back and comparing that to a Mooney driver flying a 400 mile XC in hard IFR at night. And when you start teasing out all the possible permutations, the data really becomes meaningless. Is it *really* useful to know that travelling 300 miles at night in the Southwest US during October, you are 3.16 times more likely to be injured in a car than in an airplane? I'm not arguing that professionally flown aircraft are safer. Professionally driven cars are safer too. But even increasing the accident, injury, and death per hour rates by 50%, you *still* find that by using GA (even owner-flown) you are *still* more likely to arrive at your destination without a scratch (i.e. without being injured or killed) than if you take that same trip by car. It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?") to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed' (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars). As any exit pollster will tell you, how people answer the question is largely determined by how you ask it. Try asking the question this way: "Activity A is three times more likely to cause you an injury than Activity B. Activity B is four and a half times more likely to kill you than Activity A. Which sounds like the safer activity?" Indeed. And I can ask the exact same question a different way and get a different response. I understand what and agree with what you are saying. Another problem is that you're not weighting for the severity of injury. Breaking an arm and being paralyzed from the neck down are thus being counted the same. Without knowing this breakdown we can only guess at what's going on. The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't. By your own tortured numbers you are 4.5 times as likely to die in a plane crash as a car crash. QED. Well, that isn't quite 'true' The liklihood of dying in any event is proportional to the time spend performing it. But basically you are right...and you are 4 times more likely to be injured per mile while driving a car than flying. But to have a 'serious' (i.e. 10%) probability of dying in *either*, one would have to spent several *years* doing either as a full time job. And in aviation, it's been very clearly shown that low-time pilots (under 350 hours) have a *vastly* higher accident and death rate than more experienced pilots (See "The Killing Zone", by Paul A. Craig), then the more you fly, the lower your odds per mile traveled of dying becomes. I doubt that is the case withd riving, but I don't know. This issue is harder to get a hold of than some people seem to think. It is *not* as simple as just saying 'GA aviation is more dangerous than driving' It is *provable* that if you define 'more dangerous' as 'more likely to experience injury or death', then GA is actually clearly *safer* than driving. if you define 'more dangerous' as 'more likely to experience death', then GA travel is clearly *more dangerous*. Cheers, Cap -cwk. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's minimum safe O2 level? | PaulH | Piloting | 29 | November 9th 04 07:35 PM |
Baghdad airport safe to fly ?? | Nemo l'ancien | Military Aviation | 17 | April 9th 04 11:58 PM |
An Algorithm for Defeating CAPS, or how the TSA will make us less safe | Aviv Hod | Piloting | 0 | January 14th 04 01:55 PM |
Fast Safe Plane | Charles Talleyrand | Piloting | 6 | December 30th 03 10:23 PM |
Four Nimitz Aviators Safe after | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 28th 03 10:31 PM |