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