uh-oh...

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that not-so-astute
observation...

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because
such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect
occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the
researchers wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that
not-so-astute observation...


Government grant?

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because
such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect
occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the
researchers wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that
not-so-astute observation...

On second thought, IIRC, the case that drove Cessna to stop production of
piston singles in the 80's was after a judgement against them for several
$$$millions to the familiy of a man who flew a 172 (?) into a shear rock
wall. Their argument was that better seatbelts would have saved his life.

So, maybe the funding was from the Trial Lawyers Assn? Now that they only
have 18 years (imagine that in automobiles) they need something else to ream
the populace.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/s...ice/index.html

The Cost of Lawsuits: According to the Pacific Research Institutes new
study, Jackpot Justice, the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system is
$737.4 billion, which is equivalent to an eight-percent tax on consumption,
a 13-percent tax on wages. The annual price tag, or tort tax, for a family
of four in terms of costs and foregone benefits is $9,827. [Source:
insideronline.org]

On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message

...

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

The statistics are no surprise.
I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
professionally driven buses, too.

Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.

It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
get done with everything.

wrote in message
ps.com...


The statistics are no surprise.
I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
professionally driven buses, too.

Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.

It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
get done with everything.


Agreed.

I think I saw a couple of points that defeated the purpose of the artical to
me. She stated the statistics were comparable to riding a motorcycle which
doesn't seem to send her running off to save the bike shops, when it seems
to me a lot more people consider them well worth the risk. And she doesn't
mention what an large part of GA accidents are attributed to fuel starvation
and weather. If you are a fair weather pilot like me, and always asure you
have quality fuel and extra reserves, it seems to speak very well for GA to
me.

I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel stavation
and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

"Maxwell" wrote:
I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18%[*] of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

(Should be required reading for pilots, IMHO.)
[*] 82.9% * (8.3% + 13.6%) = 18.2%

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:41:29 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

"Maxwell" wrote:
I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18%[*] of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

I did my own study of Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2004 (excluding
training accidents)... a bit over 1,000 accidents. Some highlights of my
results:

General Pilot Error 52.5%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Fuel System 0.9%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
Carb Ice 1.2%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%

The "General Pilot Error" basically is the cases where the pilot lost control of
the aircraft (generally during takeoff and landing), misjudged the approach,
stall/spin, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

"Dan Luke" wrote:
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Here's the link to the original JAMA article (requires registration to read
the article - which I have not yet done myself):

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/297/14/1596

Some of the conclusions mentioned in the article that Dan linked to appear
to be inconsistent with the annual NALL reports; specifically "Not wearing
safety restraints, including lap belts and shoulder restraints, is another
risk factor for pilot death," and "The higher fatality rate for general
aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand
impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as
commercial aircraft are."

So far as I know, neither of the those two assertions appear to have any
validity. An implication in their claims is that commercial aviation and
general aviation both have a comparable number of accidents per flight hour
but that GA accidents have a higher probability of generating fatalities.
That runs dramatically contrary to statistics I've seen elsewhere.