Better drivers?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

None of which supports your orginal thesis or even validates your
approach.

What approach?

Your approach of trying to make a claim/proof/whatever about pilots as
drivers based on aircraft accident rates without any basis for a relationship
between the two.


You and Jose seem to be under the misimpression that I'm trying to prove
something here.

You attempted to make *something*.

You attack my statements on that basis

No. I disagreed with your argument based on its flaws. Not on you
or your intent.

, when in fact you
are completely wrong about my intent. Your argumentative replies are
irrelevant.

your intent is irrelevant. My intent is irrelevant.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Your approach of trying to make a claim/proof/whatever about pilots as
drivers based on aircraft accident rates without any basis for a
relationship
between the two.

If the fact that a person is a pilot is relevant to whether they are a good
driver or not, surely the question of whether they are a *good* pilot is
also relevant.

Conversely, if it's your claim that their abilities as a pilot are
irrelevant to their abilities as a driver, then the only logical conclusion
is that the question of whether they are a pilot at all is also irrelevant.

Which is what I originally said in the first place.

[...]
You attack my statements on that basis

No. I disagreed with your argument based on its flaws. Not on you
or your intent.

When you say that my proof is invalid, you necessarily make the assumption
(ie the basis for your comments) that I am trying to prove something. Given
that I'm not trying to prove anything, your claim that my proof is faulty is
irrelevant.

Pete

You and Jose seem to be under the misimpression that I'm trying to prove
something here. You attack my statements on that basis, when in fact you
are completely wrong about my intent.

What is your intent? We only "attack" your statements because we
believe they are invalid - that is, an inaccurate representation of
reality. I'm not asking for proof, just pointing out what I believe to
be a significant error in reasonsing.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.com...
What is your intent? We only "attack" your statements because we believe
they are invalid - that is, an inaccurate representation of reality. I'm
not asking for proof, just pointing out what I believe to be a significant
error in reasonsing.

Your only proposed counter-argument (so far, anyway) to what I wrote is that
"flying is just more dangerous". While it's true that statistically
speaking, it seems more dangerous than driving, there's no reason to believe
that's inherent in flying. Between the *excellent* safety record of the
airlines, and the fact that the vast majority of accidents with known causes
are due to an error in pilot judgment, not some mysterious "more
dangerous-making" factor, I see no reason to think that flying is inherently
more dangerous than driving.

There are certain aspects of flying that make it less forgiving, but I'm not
talking about injury or fatality rates here. I'm just talking about
accidents. Per accident, injuries and fatalities are higher in aviation, as
would be expected given the generally higher energies involved in accidents.
But other than that, if pilots were generally "better", the overall accident
rate should be significantly lower. I've seen no data to suggest that it
is.

I find *your* suggestion that flying is inherently more dangerous to be a
significant error in reasoning. There's no question that some kinds of
flying is inherently dangerous, but that's not what we're talking about, and
there are kinds of driving that is also inherently dangerous. That
proposition cuts both ways. Flying an airplane is only somewhat more
difficult than driving a car, and this is mitigated somewhat by the fact
that most of the time, one need not be *nearly* as precise in an airplane as
is required in a car, and is mitigated greatly by the significant increase
in training required to obtain flight privileges. And again, this is
reinforced by the fact that pilot skills are rarely the actual cause of an
accident; pilot judgment is most often the cause.

The best you might argue is that skills in driving are not transferable to
skills in flying, and thus there should be no correlation between driving
statistics and flying statistics. But once you do that, you have assumed
the original question to be answered in the negative, which was my point in
the first place.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

If anything, they wreck planes more often relatively speaking than drivers wreck autos,
but for sure they wreck them at least as often.

Is this one of those things that writers leave in to check if their
readers are paying attention or do you really mean it? Pilots wreck
planes more often than drivers wreck autos? Unless the
"relatively speaking" bit means something that I don't yet know...

Ramapriya