Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
What is your feeling about my disclosing the hazard statistic for VFR
into IMC for un-rated/not-current pilots?

I concur with Neil Gould's response to your question.

Their statistics look okay to me, though I'm not sure where they get
the 6%. From their two NTSB references, out of 34 accidents listed for
CFR 121 carriers, 3 had fatalities (~9%) and out of 1669 GA accidents,
321 had fatalities (~19%). Averaging over the last several N years may
yield ~6%. Maybe they did that.

The point I was attempting to make, was that during the sample period
cited airline travel was diminished by the 9/11 influence, and that as
a result, it is reasonable to expect the number of airline fatalities
to be less than it was during a period of higher airline travel rates.
Am I mission your point?

I think my fundamental point is that their statistics are already
normalized (that is, made insensitive to the changes in amount of traffic
post-9/11.). So your original statement "...that statistic may be
misleading," isn't necessarily accurate.

However, it occurs to me the single biggest problem with their use of the
fatality rate statistic is that the normalization factor, the count of all
_reported_ accidents, probably isn't comparable for GA and airlines. There
may be reason to suspect that the count of non-fatal GA accidents is
underreported compared to airlines.

Furthermore, restraints systems in many small aircraft are already
superior to those found on airlines.

Ummm. I don't recall seeing any shoulder restraints on airline
seating.

Me neither. If the fatality rate on airlines is lower than smaller
aircraft, and those smaller aircraft already have superior restraints, then
agitating for improvements along these lines is pretty silly of them.