Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
fisherman is in first place).

Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
years CNN article.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2...jobs/index.htm

So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
make up your mind.

KAE wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
fisherman is in first place).

Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
years CNN article.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2...jobs/index.htm

So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
make up your mind.

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

By far the "most dangerous" occupation by industry is construction,
but if you break it down to specific occupations such as brick layer,
electrician, etc. you find the specific rates aren't that high.

It is the same for aviation.

When you lump all commercial pilots together, the rate is high.

The BLS just breaks pilots down to two sub-groups; airline pilots,
which has a low rate, and all other commercial pilots, which has
a rate about three times higher.

Of course, all other commercial pilots includes crop dusters, Alaska
bush pilots, aerial fire fighters and other such high risk stuff
as well as the commuter stuff, so one would expect the rate to be
higher.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

When you get down to the detail, life is actually pretty safe no
matter what you do for a living, at least as a civilian.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 13, 1:05 pm, wrote:
KAE wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
fisherman is in first place).
Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
years CNN article.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2...jobs/index.htm
So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
make up your mind.

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

By far the "most dangerous" occupation by industry is construction,
but if you break it down to specific occupations such as brick layer,
electrician, etc. you find the specific rates aren't that high.

It is the same for aviation.

When you lump all commercial pilots together, the rate is high.

The BLS just breaks pilots down to two sub-groups; airline pilots,
which has a low rate, and all other commercial pilots, which has
a rate about three times higher.

Of course, all other commercial pilots includes crop dusters, Alaska
bush pilots, aerial fire fighters and other such high risk stuff
as well as the commuter stuff, so one would expect the rate to be
higher.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

When you get down to the detail, life is actually pretty safe no
matter what you do for a living, at least as a civilian.

There's one other thing that the whole thing glosses over; that is the
definition of "dangerous". Fishermen and pilots may have a higher
incidence of fatality when becoming involved in an "accident," but
that in itself is only a (IMO) partial component of the measurement of
"danger" of an occupation. Other professions are less prone to
fatatlity either by proximity to medical facilities (such as in the
case of deep sea fishermen - being so far out from shore) or by the
less severe nature of an accident (sudden deceleration syndrome in the
case of pilots). Highway construction workers, police officers, and
firefighters, to me, are in much more "dangerous" professions than
pilots, mainly due to the risk exposure inherent to the professions.
In other words, to me, the only thing these statistics really help to
indicate is degree of survivability when involved in an injury
generating situation. (Caveat: I don't have any OSHA data on hand
which includes work related injuries; and even then, I believe that it
would be "lost work time" type data, including "taking the day off
because I sprained my foot stepping on the gas pedal of the hi-lo").

Doug Semler wrote:

snip

There's one other thing that the whole thing glosses over; that is the
definition of "dangerous". Fishermen and pilots may have a higher
incidence of fatality when becoming involved in an "accident," but
that in itself is only a (IMO) partial component of the measurement of
"danger" of an occupation. Other professions are less prone to
fatatlity either by proximity to medical facilities (such as in the
case of deep sea fishermen - being so far out from shore) or by the
less severe nature of an accident (sudden deceleration syndrome in the
case of pilots). Highway construction workers, police officers, and
firefighters, to me, are in much more "dangerous" professions than
pilots, mainly due to the risk exposure inherent to the professions.
In other words, to me, the only thing these statistics really help to
indicate is degree of survivability when involved in an injury
generating situation. (Caveat: I don't have any OSHA data on hand
which includes work related injuries; and even then, I believe that it
would be "lost work time" type data, including "taking the day off
because I sprained my foot stepping on the gas pedal of the hi-lo").

There is also the issue that the BLS dosn't keep much data on
nonfatal injuries.

A death usually gets reported to the world, while injury may or may
not be reported to anybody and the reporting of such things depends
on a whole slew of factors.

If you go to:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1607.txt

You will find what the BLS has for nonfatal injury and illness.

In it you find the "worst" rate is Beet sugar manufacturing.

Now, is this because of some "problem" in that industry, or is it
just highly regulated and has to report every time someone stubs
their toe?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number of car
trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much more careless
yourself.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as you
criticize the news media for citing statistics.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

You don't "see" much of anything that I can tell.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number of car
trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much more careless
yourself.

Ignorant slut, read it again, this time for comprehension.

5,702 is the total number of people that died on the job in the US
in a year. All jobs. All occupations.

The last word of the sentence was a typo, it should have "on the job".

If you were able to comprehend English, you would have noticed that.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as you
criticize the news media for citing statistics.

Yeah, a hat called the US Census Bureau, the Bueau of Labor Statistics,
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

And you are twisting words again.

I have no problem with media for citing statistics, though the statistics
are seldom in context, I have a problem with media editorializing on
statistics with no analysis.

But since you have reading comprehension problems with English, it is
no surprise you came to that conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number
of car trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much
more careless yourself.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as
you criticize the news media for citing statistics.




Bwawhawhahwhhahwhahwhahhwha!

You pull everythign out of your ass, bankruptcy boi

Bertie