Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:05:55 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Below is a first draft of my critique of this report. Any
suggestions, error corrections, or other critique is welcome.

Discussion of these two points might allow for a more succint
reply than a point-by-point discussion of the numerous flaws
in the "research"

It is interesting to note that the very type of pilot and flying these
"researchers" are "studying" has been promoted by the FAA and
industry. Specifically, the Recreational Pilot.

True, but not to negate your valid point, I can see the JHU
researchers dismissing the FAA's GA promotional efforts as unwarranted
and inappropriate.

It seems to me, that the impetus for JHU researchers report was a
medically oriented concern for the safety of medical personnel who
through necessity or choice participate in GA operations.

Another problem with this "research" is that it doesn't address
what would be an acceptable level of risk. It paints GA as unsafe
because it's not as safe as airline flying, which is basically one
of the safest modes of transportation. What IS safe enough?

This is a vary valid point. I will incorporate it into my work.

Thank you for your insight and help? Please feel free to comment on
anything else you think might be useful.