GA _is_ safer than some modes of transport. Was: Tragedy

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

"Skylune" wrote:

Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22


Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB


But if you remove the those classes of accidents from flying then you
need to make the same changes to the other modes of travel and I think
you find that just removing the achohol related accidents from driving
brings the numbers down more then they will for flying poorly since the
% of achohol related airplane accidents is much lower then for cars/bikes

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with
"VFR into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support
stupidity as the cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is
iffy.

As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily
chalk up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".


I would't mind seeing adjusted statistics eliminating night flight from
the equation as well. I don't put night flight in the "stupid"
catagory, but it certainly has risks that "day VFR" fights do not.



--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Paul Stuart" wrote in
ups.com:

Jim

Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to
see a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.



HA!

ANYONE who reffers to themselves in the third person should go directly
to the kill file....


--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Idiot. Your nonsense is "easily refuted."
In fact, the graph you attached from BTS compares apples and oranges. I
suggest a Stat 101 course from your local community college. Studies that
adjust usage rates using the same denominator (i.e. passenger miles, hours
travelled, etc.) all conclude that GA is the most dangerous form of
transportation. Here is one example:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Also, you may want to check the BLS studies of most dangerous occupations,
which can also serve as a proxy. Aircraft associated professions have the
highest mortality rates in the US, behind only lumbering.

Or, the common sense test. You suggest that Bicyclists and pedestrians
are at greater risk by "some measures." That may be true. "Some
measures" indeed.

Unreal. So obviously and patently dishonest to use "vehicle miles (or
KM)." The AOPA could use someone with your statistical abilities.

More on "some measures."

From the AOPA's 2004 Nall report:
1 out of 413 pilots involved in an accident in 2003.
1 out of 2009 active pilots involved in a fatal accident.

Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents would
be in the MILLIONS.

Still not convinced because of "some measures" that suggest GA flying is
safer than walking, here's an excerpt from your very own Phillip
Greenspun.

"How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours
of general aviation. It is fairly safe to assume that when a plane crashes
and someone dies, everyone on board dies. By contrast, the death rate for
automobile driving is roughly 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles.
Car crashes don't always kill everyone in the car so let's use this
statistic as provided, which is for an individual traveling in a car
rather than for the entire car. So considering that the average airplane
accomplishes a groundspeed of at least 100 miles per hour, those million
hours of flight push the occupants of the plane over more than 100 million
miles of terrain. Comparing 16 fatal accidents to the 1.7 rate for driving,
we find that flying is no more than 10 times as dangerous per mile of
travel. And since most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, a modern
fast light airplane traveling a longish distance might be comparable in
safety to a car.

We can also look at safety per hour. This makes sense for recreational
pilots who have the alternative of spending a few hours flying around or
spending those hours taking a scenic drive. If the average speed of car
travel is 50 miles per hour, those 1.7 deaths occur in 2 million hours of
driving. This makes general aviation, with 16 deaths per 1 million hours,
roughly 20 times as dangerous per hour than driving."

Unfortunately, he didn't compare GA flying to walking around.

Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for statistical
comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest form of
transportation. Right Jim?

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents
would
be in the MILLIONS.

No, you're exaggerating by an order of magnitude. Do the arithmetic.

--Gary

When motorcyclists and private pilots (and bicycle riders too) decide to
conjugate pleasure with necessity, and use their vehicle to get where they're
going, they impose "get there" pressures that increase risk. They ride or fly
in conditions that would normally have kept them grounded.

Which is why business flying (not the kind with a professional crew,
but the kind where someone flies himself to a meeting or some such) is
so much more dangerous than private, recreational flying.

There's only one problem with this statement - the statistics (google
Nall Report) show exactly the opposite is true.

Michael

OK. I concede that one. It wouldn't be in the millions. But I would
venture, without looking into it, that far less than 1 of 2009 drivers is
involved in a fatal accident each year.