Much of the risk is controllable. Weather is never a
surprise anymore. modern weather satellites and automated
observations are not perfect, but some caution and honest
self-evaluation of a pilot's actual skill level could
eliminate ,any accidents.

JFK Jr. died because he did not have the skill to make the
flight under the conditions which existed at the time he
actually made the flight. The airplane was just fine, the
weather was OK for an IFR rated pilot or a VFR pilot who had
be taught properly how to use the equipment available. He
had lots of instruction, maybe too much instruction and not
enough developed judgment. Perhaps the instructors he had
used did not have "real" experience and thus failed to teach
the procedures that could have saved his plane and the
passengers.

Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI. But it appears they
simply flew into box without any proper planning. Slow
flight and steep turns, evaluation of the wind, knowing the
East River procedures would have saved his life. Using the
radio to get a clearance would have too. What will never be
known, were they looking at the GPS track or out the damn
windows at the river and shore line?

You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of the
allotted space. You can even learn when an airspace
violation is better than dying.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P






"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
| No matter how you present the statistics, GA flying has a
higher
| fatality rate than driving. But one has to look at all the
factors when
| evaluating a mode of transportation. Nothing beats walking
for safety,
| plus it is good for your health too. Yet many people take
the car for
| even short distances. While GA flying is more convenient,
faster and
| flexible compared to driving, and even compared to airline
travel, they
| come at a certain amount of risk. Some people choose to
accept that
| risk, and some won't. It is better to be aware of the
risks in flying
| rather than pretend they don't exist, or assume they don't
apply to
| you.
|
|
| RK Henry wrote:
| On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),

| (Dane Spearing) wrote:
|
| According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality
accident rate is:
| 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
| (see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
|
| According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation
fatality accident rate
| is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
| (see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
|
| In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously
need to assume an
| average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft.
If we assume an
| average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the
aviation accident statistic
| becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
|
| The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents,
fatal and
| non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours.
Applying the
| assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22
accidents becomes
| 41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.
|
| According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000
police-reported
| motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were
43,443
| fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion
miles traveled is
| where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100
million miles.
| Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965
billion miles gives
| an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million
miles traveled.
|
| It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more
likely to be
| involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a
General Aviation
| aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of
accident in order
| for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.
|
| The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you
do have an
| accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a
result, whether
| you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much
less
| crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what
the fatality
| rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised
at 150 mph,
| even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher
accident rate.
| Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in
places like
| Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is
commonplace, might
| be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents
were fatal
| while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal.
Airplanes don't crash
| as often, but when they do, it's bad.
|
| Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be
paid to making
| aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already
been done in this
| area, but it looks like there's much room for
improvement.
|
| RK Henry
|