12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

by Michael 182 Feb 6, 2006
at 09:13 AM



When all of this is done, I'm willing to be next in line for adding
more regulation to general aviation.

You'd be acting in your own self interest if you do. See below, esp. p. 6
and 8.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0001.pdf

Interesting statistics, but as I'm sure you know, 73.8% of published
statistics are incorrect.

They are talking about pilots and navigators as an occupation. They also
show 90 deaths in 2002 and claim that represents 69.8 deaths per 100,000
employed. That yields 128,940 employed in the field.

Another page from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 106,000 employed as
pilots or flight engineers.

Looking through the NTSB site, I only found 48 fatalities in 28 accidents
looking at part 121 (scheduled airlines - 0 fatal) part 135 (non-scheduled
air taxi - 36) part 133 (three fatal) and part 137 (agriculture - 9 fatal).
That only accounts for 48 deaths, not 90. It's still a pretty high number.

The other point is that although on the chart you pointed out Pilots and
Navgators had the highest percentage of fatalaties per 100,000 employed,
they also had the lowest number of deaths.

How much effort should go into saving these 90 people when 2667 people died
in the nine occupations with higher numbers of deaths?


"Skylune" wrote in message


You'd be acting in your own self interest if you do. See below, esp. p. 6
and 8.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0001.pdf

by "Steve Foley" Feb 6, 2006 at 07:29 PM


Interesting statistics, but as I'm sure you know, 73.8% of published
statistics are incorrect.

They are talking about pilots and navigators as an occupation. They also
show 90 deaths in 2002 and claim that represents 69.8 deaths per 100,000
employed. That yields 128,940 employed in the field.

Another page from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 106,000 employed
as
pilots or flight engineers.

Looking through the NTSB site, I only found 48 fatalities in 28 accidents
looking at part 121 (scheduled airlines - 0 fatal) part 135
(non-scheduled
air taxi - 36) part 133 (three fatal) and part 137 (agriculture - 9
fatal).
That only accounts for 48 deaths, not 90. It's still a pretty high
number.

The other point is that although on the chart you pointed out Pilots and
Navgators had the highest percentage of fatalaties per 100,000 employed,
they also had the lowest number of deaths.

How much effort should go into saving these 90 people when 2667 people
died
in the nine occupations with higher numbers of deaths?

Interesting: I don't know where BLS gets its statistics. One would think
directly from employers, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find out.

The question still stands.

How much effort should be made to prevent these 90 deaths, when the top nine
hazardous occupations account for 2667 deaths?

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...


Interesting: I don't know where BLS gets its statistics. One would think
directly from employers, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find out.

"Steve Foley" posted the exciting message
news
The question still stands.

How much effort should be made to prevent these 90 deaths, when the
top nine hazardous occupations account for 2667 deaths?

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com..
.


Interesting: I don't know where BLS gets its statistics. One would
think directly from employers, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find
out.





Personally, I think there are too many humans on the planet anyway. I'll
just be careful and we'll let Darwin work his magic. Why shouldn't we enjoy
things that may be risky?

by "Steve Foley" Feb 7, 2006 at 01:03 AM


The question still stands.

Uh, uh, uh.......... I plead the Fifth!

Actually, I think standards should be improved and proficiency better
tested. More than just the semi annuals should be required. Many pilots
agree that there are unsafe fliers. Can they ever be totally eliminated
based on regulations? No. But there can be improvement.

"Skylune" wrote:

by "Steve Foley" Feb 7, 2006 at 01:03 AM


The question still stands.

Uh, uh, uh.......... I plead the Fifth!

Actually, I think standards should be improved and proficiency better
tested. More than just the semi annuals should be required.
What semi annuals? Just because lots of people call biennials
"biannuals" doesn't make them so!

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

by alexy Feb 7, 2006 at 08:34 AM


"Skylune" wrote:

by "Steve Foley" Feb 7, 2006 at 01:03 AM


The question still stands.

Uh, uh, uh.......... I plead the Fifth!

Actually, I think standards should be improved and proficiency better
tested. More than just the semi annuals should be required.
What semi annuals? Just because lots of people call biennials
"biannuals" doesn't make them so!


;-). ok. biennials. not semi-annuals. I think there should be more
than biennials....
--

Many pilots agree that there are unsafe fliers. Can they ever be totally eliminated
based on regulations? No. But there can be improvement.

Until you get those pilots to admit that they are unsafe and take
action to correct their "problems" they will continue to die and kill
others. Personally I don't want shotgun approaches that impact me
that are designed to catch the few.

Ron Lee

by (Ron Lee) Feb 7, 2006 at 01:47 PM


Many pilots agree that there are unsafe fliers. Can they ever be
totally
eliminated
based on regulations? No. But there can be improvement.

Until you get those pilots to admit that they are unsafe and take
action to correct their "problems" they will continue to die and kill
others. Personally I don't want shotgun approaches that impact me
that are designed to catch the few.

Ron Lee

Isn't this what the biennials are supposed to do? What would be wrong
with making the tests more stringent and more frequent? What would be
wrong with getting the bad apples out of the sky? Wouldn't that benefit
the GA community?

What would be wrong with mandating better security at GA airports?

What would be wrong with enforcing noise abatement?

What would be wrong with charging people for the services they use?