How safe is it, really?

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?

The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
about the risks they take (mostly, anyway).

I really doubt this. It's lawyers and the silly litagous legal system
that make obscene reward settlements a fact of life. I don't believe for
a second that almost all families of dead jumpers would refuse a chance
for a big settlement. And, the fact that parachute manufacturers do get
sued suggests something else is going on. Maybe judges recognize that
only an insane person would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

There's a real "Blue
Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
you sign a waiver.

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

moo


I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

Mike
MU-2

"CV" wrote in message
...
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.

I person once told me you can sleep when you die.
Stay away from them ! ;o)

Cheers CV

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in

I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots' families.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote:
I already had 3 hours fuel aboard

If there's *no* chance of weather being a factor, then that's more
than reasonable.

I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours'
fuel is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd
top off.

On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.

I assume this is a joke...

Of course not. Why would you think so?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message link.net...


But the OP's question was basically, "is my husbnad going to kill himself in
an airplane one of these days."

So rather than falling down the rabbit hole, you look at the gross average,
which by its nature weights for all the possibilities. Imperfectly, to be
sure, as all statistical measures are. But it is by far more valid for
forecasting purposes than picking-and-choosing at every level.

-cwk.

Exactly. Which is precisely why I chose to use *all* auto statistics
versus *all* GA Fixed-wing data. The Nall Report doesn't cover the
G-IVs and Citations of the world..it covers planes below 12,500
lbs...which is the kind of plane her husband will be flying.

And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
a scratch* if he flys GA, but more likely to arrive *alive* of he
travels in an auto.

And either way, he is *very* likely to be fine. To have even a 10%
probability of dying in an aircraft accident, one would have to fky 10
hours every week, of every month, of every year for over 15
years...we're not talking about the danger of explosive ordnance
disposal versus sitting in a rocking chair knitting. Both are 'safe',
and their relative safety (as borne out by the statistical data)
depends on whoch question you ask.

Cheers,

Cap

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
If there's *no* chance of weather being a factor, then that's more than
reasonable.

I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours' fuel
is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd top
off.

Hell yes.

On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.

I assume this is a joke...

Of course not. Why would you think so?

6$ in the aviation business is like a QM effect in the world of Newtonian
Mechanics. And, it sounds like a bad reason to take a risk. But, anyone
who plans reserves in hours is not in the fuel exhaustion risk category
should be entitled to *anything* that six dollars might buy. Cheers etc.

Moo

On 2 Dec 2004 11:29:59 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

Anyone who flies a taildragger from the back seat knows you can't see
crap from there - but there are controls there anyway.

In the case of the J-3 Cub, the controls are there for a very good
reason: the airplane is or ought to be placarded "Solo From Rear Seat
Only".

As a matter of fact, I've never flown a J-3 from the front seat, but
I'm told that the viz up there is actually worse. (The big problem
flying from the rear seat is not what you see of the airfield or the
sky; it's what you don't see of the instruments with a passenger in
the front seat.)

I have flown a PA-18 Super Cub from the front, but the seat is higher,
since that is the expected pilot's location.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

On 3 Dec 2004 07:30:05 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

Not in the U.S., I reckon?

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Hi Captain Wubba,

I've read your contributions to this thread, and appreciate your usage of
logic and statistical analysis. I'm pleased that some people can integrate
the two into a sensible understanding of risk!

Recently, Captain Wubba posted:
(mostly snipped for brevity)
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message

But the OP's question was basically, "is my husbnad going to kill
himself in an airplane one of these days."

[...]

And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
a scratch* if he flys GA, but more likely to arrive *alive* of he
travels in an auto.

The above appears to be a mutually exclusive statement. I'd state this a
little differently, taking into account your earlier analysis: "...her
husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without a scratch* if
he flys GA, but [*if involved in an accident* he'd be] more likely to
arrive *alive* of (SIC) he travels in an auto.

And either way, he is *very* likely to be fine.

This is the salient point. The chances of being involved in an accident in
either mode of transportation is quite low.

Regards,

Neil

"Happy Dog" wrote:
I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours'
fuel
is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd
top off.

Hell yes.

Is that hell yes, you would or hell yes, you wouldn't?

On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.

I assume this is a joke...

Of course not. Why would you think so?

6$ in the aviation business is like a QM effect in the world of
Newtonian Mechanics.

Hee-hee! That's a beauty! Request permission to use it on another
ng. I'll trade you "In the big picture, it's a few pixels."

And, it sounds like a bad reason to take a risk. But, anyone who
plans reserves in hours is not in the fuel exhaustion risk category
should be entitled to *anything* that six dollars might buy.

Lunch at Burger King?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM