How safe is it, really?

Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the type
of flying that you do?

I'll take that bate. Yes, it is one component of the statistic. The
1.3/100K is an aggregate of all types of GA flying. Divide that into
different categories of flight (mountain flying, bush flying, IMC, Night,
etc: of course being careful that categories don't share population like my
examples...) and it is very reasonable to hypothesize that the statistics
across types could be very different.

Carl

"Slip'er" wrote in message
news:Kpdrd.190624$hj.182656@fed1read07...

Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the
type
of flying that you do?

I'll take that bate. Yes, it is one component of the statistic. The
1.3/100K is an aggregate of all types of GA flying. Divide that into
different categories of flight (mountain flying, bush flying, IMC, Night,
etc: of course being careful that categories don't share population like
my
examples...) and it is very reasonable to hypothesize that the statistics
across types could be very different.

Carl

Exactly. My reason for asking is that pilots seem to think that the
1.3/100K rate represents what they think of as "GA" but it encompasses a lot
of hours of bizjet flying which have a accident rate about 3% of the light
GA rate so the light GA rate is actually much higher. If you then separate
light GA into catagoies you find that personal flying is 50% greater than
the average light GA rate (Nall Report). So personal flying across all
risks (including "stupid pilot tricks") has about twice the fatal accident
rate as the often quoted 1.3/100K.

Mike
MU-2