![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... In article , wrote: I think the implication, with all due respect, in the way you worded your post, is that the probability is increasing as you flying time is increasing. It depends on what you mean by "the probability". There are two different probabilities being discussed: there is the probability of a failure on any particular flight, which doesn't change, and there is the cumulative probability of experiencing failure on some flight, which does change (it increases with each flight). This is clearly not the case, as I think we all now agree. There is also the probability (that Peter (I think) proposed) stated as a cumulative probability in terms of an arbitrary large number of trials (flights, or hours, or whatever). If you convert this to a probability of occcurence with a lower number of trials (flights, or hours, or whatever) that probability will be lower. Looked at it this way, if the probability of an 'occurrence sometime in (the remainder of )one's career is known, then as the career progresses, the probability of 'an occurrence sometime (in the remainder of) one's career diminishes from that value. This is a direct consequence of 1) the premises (accepted by all here, apparently) that - the probability for any given trial (hour, flight, or whatever) is assumed to be independent of any other given trial (hour, flight or whatever) and - the probability is assumed to be the same for each such trial, and 2) the assertion that the probability of an occurrence over n trials is (1-(1-p)^n, where p is the probability of occurence in a single such trial. Its the same problem worked back to front (or front to back, depending on your point of view): i.e.: Let p2 be the probability of an occurence in n2 trials, and let p1 be the probability of an occurence in n1 trials, if n1 n2, then p1 p2. If you *start* with p1, as you consider an increased number of trials the probability will increase, if you *start* with p2 and consider a decreased number of trials, the probability will decrease. Your statement is ambiguous because you don't say which probability you're referring to. Yes. The logical conclusion is determined from the premises used. You only get out of it what you put in. Every day is a new day, and N gets reset to zero. Not quite. Every day is indeed a new day, but with every flight N is incremented by one. It depends on upon from which premise you started. If you're considering your probability in terms of occurences per N trials, you might change N if you start out with it being 'the number of trials in my entire career', but the probability of an occurence 'in the next N trials' otherwise doesn't need any change in N from day to day. But 'the number of trials in my career' is moot in the first place, and I'd argue that arbitrarily specifiying the number of trials that are 'going to occur' in your career is equally problematic, as is coming up with such a probability in the first place. The best you can get out this argument, I think, starting out with a guess for the cumulative probability of the 'entire carreer', is a qualitative 'probability is decreasing' as the career progresses, and you can't really ever quantitatively say how much. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article P68Ud.515993$8l.368458@pd7tw1no,
"Ron McKinnon" wrote: as the career progresses, the probability of 'an occurrence sometime (in the remainder of) one's career diminishes from that value. Yes, but only because N is lower. Whatever N is, after every flight N is 1 less than it was before. But 'the number of trials in my career' is moot in the first place, That is arguable. As a precise number you're probably right. But in broad brushstrokes you can decide, e.g. never to try something, to try something once and then never again, to try something a dozen times in your lifetime, to do something once a month, once a week, once a day, or multiple times a day. Each of these choices entails a monotonically increasing risk of encountering certain kinds of disasters over your lifetime. My personal risk tolerance works out something like this: Things I'm not willing to try even once: heroin, motorcycle racing Things I'm willing to try once in my lifetime and never again: going into space (assuming I ever have the opportunity) Things I'll do a dozen times: aerobatics Once a month (on average): skiing Once a week: Flying GA aircraft Once a day: getting out of bed in the morning :-) Multiple times a day: driving on the freeway, eating sushi :-) rg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Night Flying Tips | BoDEAN | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 04 03:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Products | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |