A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

12 dead this weekend from GA crashes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 06, 05:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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










  #2  
Old February 6th 06, 07:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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




  #3  
Old February 6th 06, 08:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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.







  #4  
Old February 7th 06, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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.




  #5  
Old February 7th 06, 04:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

"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?
  #6  
Old February 7th 06, 01:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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.


  #7  
Old February 7th 06, 01:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

"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.
  #8  
Old February 7th 06, 01:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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....
--

  #9  
Old February 7th 06, 01:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Announcement: M-ASA Weekend Open (USA East Coast) Chris OCallaghan Soaring 1 June 29th 04 06:30 PM
Should Memorial Day and America's War Dead be commercialized? Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 May 24th 04 02:29 AM
Should Memorial Day and America's War Dead be commercialized? Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 May 24th 04 02:29 AM
The War's Lost Weekend WalterM140 Military Aviation 32 May 18th 04 07:42 AM
Military jet crashes near Marine base in Miramar; 4 feared dead Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 March 11th 04 09:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.