Flying - third most dangerous occupation

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article 3hxjb.572390$cF.246908@rwcrnsc53,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

In any case, the pilot database at landings.com lists 11,179 Alaskan
pilots
with current medical certificates. That's 1 in 57 Alaskans. Just out of
curiosity, what made you think it was 1 in 4?

Not from browsing statistical databases, that's for sure.

It's just something I was told when in Alaska, talking with Alaskan
pilots and those who rely on their services.

They do tend to use airplanes there much the same way we use pickup
trucks here in Texas. Not all of our pickups are licensed and on the
farm, many of the drivers are years from license age.

Ok, but you did say originally that 1 in 4 Alaskans is a *licensed* pilot.
Still, in order for the illegal ones to bring the total up to 1 in 4 instead
of 1 in 57, it would have to be the case that 93% of Alaskan pilots are
underage or otherwise unlicensed. Moreover, despite that and despite flying
in unusually dangerous conditions, they'd have to have a fatality rate six
times *lower* than the US average. (Even if every licensed and unlicensed
Alaskan pilot flies *perfectly*--even if no Alaskan pilot ever makes a
single error of judgement or skill in his or her entire life--that *still*
wouldn't bring their fatality rate down to one sixth the US average, because
more than 1/6 of fatal aviation accidents are caused by factors other than
pilot error, according to the Nall Report.)

I think your Alaskan acquaintences may have been pulling your leg. :-)

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

I think your Alaskan acquaintences may have been pulling your leg. :-)

That is of course possible just as it is possible that you may be
pulling my leg with your numbers.

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

I think your Alaskan acquaintances may have been pulling your leg. :-)

That is of course possible just as it is possible that you may be
pulling my leg with your numbers.

That's why I provided the sources of my numbers, rather than expecting
anyone to accept my word. It takes just a couple of minutes to verify the
accuracy of what I said.

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps. But then your acquaintance's source of information differs by *one
or two orders of magnitude* from what can be calculated from the FAA
database's actual count of pilots, or the NTSB database's actual count of
fatal accidents, or the Alaskan state government's estimate of Alaska's
population. How reliable, then, do you think your acquaintance's
unspecified source can be? At some point, doesn't the evidence force you to
conclude either that your acquaintance must have been mistaken (perhaps he
was passing along an undocumented rumor someone had conveyed to him, just as
you are doing), or that there was a mistake in your understanding or
recollection of what he told you?

By the way, even with just 1 pilot for every 57 persons, Alaska has a per
capita pilot population 8 times higher than the US overall--pretty
impressive.

--Gary


--
Ron

Ron Parsons wrote:

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote:

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.


That may well be true. A visit there is a step back in time to when we
were a more cooperative and less litigious society.

--
Ron

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Ron Parsons wrote:

As best as I recall though, I got my information from someone who
insured them and enterprises which used their services. Perhaps his
actuaries had a different source than you.

Perhaps most Alaskans are running uninsured.

How would that bear on the current question though? If the source of the
(mis)information were actuarial as Ron speculated, it could still take
account of all pilots--insurance actuaries don't just look at the data for
the insured. Moreover, if the 1-in-4 figure *didn't* count uninsured
pilots, then even *more* than 1 in 4 Alaskans would be a pilot! But the 1
in 4 figure is already exaggerated by a factor of 16.

--Gary

George Patterson

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

If the source of the
(mis)information were actuarial as Ron speculated, it could still take
account of all pilots--insurance actuaries don't just look at the data for
the insured.

Yes, they do. The only thing that matters to an insurance company is the amount
of claims per pilot. If you don't carry insurance, you are off their radar.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.