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

Stefan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

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:

Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
mile is sheer nonsense.

Maybe - can you explain why it is nonsense?

Compare it by the hour and it looks a lot differently.

Okay - compare Table 4, column 2 (fatalities/100 million passenger
kilometres) with Table 4, column 5 (fatalities/million passenger hours)
in http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx

In column 2, the rate is ~2.5 times greater for pedestrians while in
column 5, the rate is ~2 times greater for GA. Looks different, as you
say.

But: the inversion that occurs when comparing the two metrics, and the
less than one order of magnitude difference, suggests that the difference
in risks between GA and walking may be inconsequential. Why? Because no
inversion of risk exists between GA and _any other of the other transport
modes_ when going from column 2 to column 5. GA is either always more
dangerous to a greater or lessor degree, or always less dangerous (in the
case of motorcycling).

You can bias the results at your will by defining what
you compare. (I'm working enough with statistics to know how to treat
the results.)

Sure, you can change the magnitudes, but you can't always change the
comparative ordering. I also think it is a stretch to say you can bias at
will. For example, just how would you go about biasing the fatality rates
for "High Capacity RPT" in the ATSB study? They are all zero!

Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Sure, you can change the magnitudes, but you can't always change the
comparative ordering. I also think it is a stretch to say you can bias at
will.

It's not only the way to look at the results which matters. The crucial
(and most difficult) point is to ask the right questions and choose the
right methods to get meaningful data in the first place.

Example: You want to compare the danger between car and GA. Ok. So you
must ask yourself:

- Compare by mile per vehicule, mile per passenger, respective hours or
even by the number of license holders?
- How do you define danger? Only fatalities? Or the injuries, too? And
if yes, which injuries? All accidents?
- How do you treat third party injuries vs. pax injuries vs.
pilot/driver injuries?
- Do you just count the bodies? Or count the vehicules with at least one
body/injury? Bot approaches may make sense.

And so on. See my point? Each approach will yield completely different
results. And it doesn't stop the You must differ

- local flying vs. cross country
- recreational flying vs. professional GA
- self flying vs. transport by a hired pilot
- light singles vs. business jets
- day VFR vs. IFR
- you should take account of the reasons for the accidents, too

and the same for the ground vehicules to be compared, of course.

Sounds complex? Well, it *is* complex. And each approach will yield a
different result. But without this differentiation, such comparisons are
completely meaningless.

Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

Imagine a young student pilot who, from day one, is always told that the
most dangerous part of aviation is driving to the airport. Which
attitude will he develop? The truth is: Aviation is damned dangerous and
if you're not absolutely serious about it, it will bite you.

Stefan

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Stefan wrote:
Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

Ok, I'll argue that one. Pilots who underestimate the risk of GA
(especially compared to the risk of automobiles) are indeed being
unrealistic. But, at least in my anecdotal experience, such pilots are still
as meticulous as others about the various safety procedures we're all
trained to carry out. I see no evidence that they take greater risks than
the rest of us.

--Gary