GA _is_ safer than some modes of transport. Was: Tragedy

"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with "VFR
into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support stupidity as the
cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is iffy.

As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily chalk
up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with
"VFR into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support
stupidity as the cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is
iffy.

As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily
chalk up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".


I would't mind seeing adjusted statistics eliminating night flight from
the equation as well. I don't put night flight in the "stupid"
catagory, but it certainly has risks that "day VFR" fights do not.



--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous
than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the
normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres

------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"

http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low
altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB

Other modes of transportation have as much if not more "stupid" factor. If
you back it out for one mode you need to be consistent and back it out for
others. All of which is impossible so just stick with the raw numbers for
any kind of meaningful comparison.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.


I'd have to disagree with you on your last statement, Kyle. I've done many
stupid things in airplanes over the years and gotten away with them. God grants
a special dispensation for newbies and morons. I'd like to think I was just new
at it, but I still catch myself doing dumb things from time to time. The major
difference now is that I'm better able to deal with the consequences.

Frankly, every pilot with less than 200 hours is an accident waiting to happen.
However, that special dispensation I mentioned allows the vast majority of them
to transition without incident.

I will say that if you think you don't make mistakes then you're incapable of
learning ("you" being used in the general sense).

Flying is actually very forgiving of stupidity. It's when things start piling
up that accidents happen. You can only deal with so much at one time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

"Skylune" wrote:

Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22


Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB


But if you remove the those classes of accidents from flying then you
need to make the same changes to the other modes of travel and I think
you find that just removing the achohol related accidents from driving
brings the numbers down more then they will for flying poorly since the
% of achohol related airplane accidents is much lower then for cars/bikes

Kyle Boatright wrote:


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2.

same for motorcycling...

Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering.

too fast, no helmet & protective clothing, "watch this" etc.

Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

I own a motorcycle and I have taken numerous flights with GA-aircraft as
a passenger. Both offer great pleasure and involve a risk that can be
influenced but not eliminated.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

"stupid" is made up of all the things that you would -=never=- do, but
that other people do. It is decided by other people, after the accident
caused by what =you= did.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim

Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to see
a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.


Jim Logajan wrote:
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm