Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been
correct. Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die
next Tuesday and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
DH


No you will be royally ****ed off if the numbers come up next Wednesday and
you didn't die on Tuesday. Assuming you plan to keep your plan to not buy a
ticket going.



I won't have to worry about that. If the number comes up next Wednesday
and we didn't play it on Tuesday based on what I told my wife 42 years
ago about statistics, I'll be dead by Thursday anyway :-)
DH

Gattman wrote:
wrote in message
...



If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.


The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
pilots.



Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
complicated than a bus with wings.

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:

One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
"Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
relevant "Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO. There
is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground outside of
a C-store.

It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of winning
the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically silly
nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings are
really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.

It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
bad a math.

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
relevant "Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO. There
is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground outside of
a C-store.

The probablility that you will find a ticket AND that the ticket is
a winner is so small that by buying a ticket you've increased your
odds by slightly less than infinity.

It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of winning
the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically silly
nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings are
really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.

A movie costs $12 and lasts about 90 minutes.

A lotto ticket costs $1 and I can daydream about the planes I'd buy
with $30,000.000 for days.

It's cheap entertainment.

It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
bad a math.

Well, I didn't get much beyond partial differential equations, so you
may have a point.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Newps wrote:

Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
complicated than a bus with wings.

Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
talent to fly on occasion.
In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
every year just to tell him that :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
relevant "Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO.
There is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground
outside of a C-store.

It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of
winning the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically
silly nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings
are really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.

It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
bad a math.

Gee, I'm the only one in my circle of friends that HASN'T won the lottery.
None of them minded paying the tax!

Gattman writes:

MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all pilots carry
passengers.

"Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along in the
last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or crop-dusting operation.

The public that you ridicule might just pull your license to fly any day, if
it doesn't like the numbers that it sees.

Dudley Henriques writes:

Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
talent to fly on occasion.

On increasingly rare occasions. Commercial pilots in the U.S. train a great
deal for events that are more and more unlikely to happen. I'm not saying
that's a bad idea, but from an economic standpoint it means that, to an ever
increasing extent, the bulk of their skills aren't really required to do the
job. On a typical, normal, flight, it would be possible for pilots with far
less training to do the work--which in turn means that the job is worth less
money.

Even if the U.S. has not compromised on the standards it imposes for
commercial pilots, other nations are not so strict.

In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
every year just to tell him that :-))

The exception does not invalidate the rule.

writes:

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number of car
trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much more careless
yourself.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as you
criticize the news media for citing statistics.