"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching
pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and
then to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the
fatal accident rate for GA
...

I think this whole statistics discussion is irrelevant, even dangerous.

Imagine a young beginning student pilot. If all those experienced pilots
keep telling him that this or that activity (insert your favorite) is more
dangerous than flying, what attitude will he develop?

Instead, keep hammering in his (and your!) head that flying is extremely
dangerous (which it really is). The only way to survive flying is knowing
the risks and being dead serious about it, each time, always, no
exceptions. A side effect of this attitude will be that the statistics
will go down and flying will *appear* to be less dangerous.

Stefan

I agree and have always tried to have a realistic assesment of risk in
whatever I do so that I can make an informed descision about whether the
activity is worth doing. I see no point in downplaying the risks and,
frankly, I'd view anybody whom I could convince that flying with me was as
safe as flying on an airliner to be a total idiot. I am considering some
climbing in the Himalaya and the fatal rate is about 4-5% per trip. There
is no point in thinking these stats don't apply to me because "I won't do
anything stupid" since everyone else who perished thought the same thing.

Last month, I invited a friend to fly to Moose Creek to go fishing. He
asked if flying in the Helio was "safe". I said: "Not really, we will be
flying a single engine airplane over mountains with nowhere to land if the
engine quits. We would probably survive the crash since the airplane is so
slow. Do you want to go or not?" He showed up at the hanger with camping
gear for a week which was an appropriate thing to do.

Mike
MU-2