Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

wrote in message
...


If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.

The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
pilots.

-c

I guess we went to different marketing schools :-))
If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
wrote in message
...


If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.

The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
pilots.

-c




--
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I guess we went to different marketing schools :-)
If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.

Yeah, you definately need to spin your statistics depending on the target.
(As virtually all businesses do.)

IE, firefighting, cropdusting, flight instruction, test piloting etc are
extremely dangerous but the airlines are safe. Similarly, cruise ships and
passenger ferryboat operations are statistically nowhere near as dangerous
as operating a fishing boat, but they all have a skipper.

I saw the report that this is about when it aired on TV. We paused report
(gotta love DVRs) and viewed it again just because I couldn't believe my
eyes. Let's see...it's more dangerous than firefighting, law enforcement,
kick boxing; naturally, though the statistic was backed by nothing
substantial.

-c

Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I guess we went to different marketing schools :-)
If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.

Yeah, you definately need to spin your statistics depending on the target.
(As virtually all businesses do.)

IE, firefighting, cropdusting, flight instruction, test piloting etc are
extremely dangerous but the airlines are safe. Similarly, cruise ships and
passenger ferryboat operations are statistically nowhere near as dangerous
as operating a fishing boat, but they all have a skipper.

I saw the report that this is about when it aired on TV. We paused report
(gotta love DVRs) and viewed it again just because I couldn't believe my
eyes. Let's see...it's more dangerous than firefighting, law enforcement,
kick boxing; naturally, though the statistic was backed by nothing
substantial.

-c




--
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

On Aug 13, 1:48 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques



One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g

Doug Semler wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:48 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques



One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g


I agree with you. There is always the chance of a win. What we have done
is just as you have said; play the potential gain of money saved against
the possibility of money won. The "stats" were deemed so slim that
playing was never an option.
I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been correct.
Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die next Tuesday
and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
DH

Dudley Henriques wrote:
I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been
correct. Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die
next Tuesday and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
DH


No you will be royally ****ed off if the numbers come up next Wednesday and
you didn't die on Tuesday. Assuming you plan to keep your plan to not buy a
ticket going.

Doug Semler wrote:

One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
"Statistically".

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:

One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
"Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques

I wish I had been such a visionary in the 70's when I hit the legal
age to buy beer. I could be very well off by now IF I had just
IMAGINED drinking each of those beers for the last 33 years. :-))