On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:33:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike Rapoport" writes:

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot
tricks"
you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of
the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
hour' accident of [that should have been 'or'] fatality rate?



Per accident, but the rate for most of the others is less than 1% too.


The point I was trying to make was, that comparing an aircraft that
carries hundreds of passengers thousands of miles with a single
landing per trip against one that carries an average of two passengers
a hundred miles or so per trip unreasonably skews the 'per passenger
mile' accident rate to the point of irrelevance.