What are you saying? Are you going to start tracking how many times you
have flown, and when you reach the "magic number" you'll stop?

I don't think so.

I think the statistics you have posted provide much more information than
what is typically deduced on face value.

GA IS STATISTICALLY LESS SAFE THAN OTHER COMMON FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.

Yes, but why is that?

The evidence would seem to be that the aviation industry, as compared with
the automotive industry, has drastically failed at its job of improving and
innovating with respect to flight safety in General Aviation. I think the
reason is because the FAA - the very body of Government that was
instantiated to promote safety in aviation - has left the GA industry in
the dust. Instead of working cooperatively with small airplane
manufacturers to promote safety through improved technology and innovation,
they have made it increasingly difficult to certify innovation and
technology. In fact, I suspect that most GA aircraft that are built today
are no safer than their counterparts from 50 years ago, about the same time
that the FAA came into existence. Most improvements have been in Avionics,
not in safety. The only discernable difference between a 1960s Beech
Bonanza and a 2006 model is the G1000 "Glass Cockpit". Woo hoo...

Think about, on the other hand, what the government, in cooperation with
automakers, has done to improve the Auto Accident statistics over the last
50 years. Fatalities in auto accidents have plummetted so far that auto
insurance companies are complaining that it costs them too much because
most people DON'T die in a car accidents - they were saved by a seatbelt,
airbag, or crumple zone. Improvements and enhancements are added to cars
every year, and while I suspect that overall accident rates haven't been
substantially reduced, most accidents that used to be fatal 50 years ago
are now survived.

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years is the
Cirrus Parachute, which has had questions surrounding it since its
inception. And if I wanted to retrofit my non-cirrus aircraft to include
one, I would have to go through so much red tape with the FAA to do it
legally, I would be substantially safer, but only because I wouldn't be
able to afford to fly anymore afterward.

So every time I look at those statistics, I don't get scared, I get
annoyed.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1145761631.226080.133800
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
try THIS:

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
52.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Automobile 0.130
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
7.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
581,395 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
163,934 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"