How safe is it, really?

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" writes:

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks"
you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.

Mike
MU-2

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" writes:

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks"
you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
hour' accident of fatality rate?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" writes:

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot
tricks"
you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of
the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
hour' accident of fatality rate?

Per accident, but the rate for most of the others is less than 1% too.

Mike
MU-2
Helio Courier

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:33:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike Rapoport" writes:

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot
tricks"
you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of
the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
hour' accident of [that should have been 'or'] fatality rate?



Per accident, but the rate for most of the others is less than 1% too.


The point I was trying to make was, that comparing an aircraft that
carries hundreds of passengers thousands of miles with a single
landing per trip against one that carries an average of two passengers
a hundred miles or so per trip unreasonably skews the 'per passenger
mile' accident rate to the point of irrelevance.