Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

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").

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

"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"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



IIRC, whatever happened to Tower Rigging--which I heard was a long term
shoo-in for win, place, or show in the dangerous occupation derby. Or was
this such a generalized report that dangerous specilties were omitted?

Peter

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

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.

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".

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.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

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

Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as
the pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers,

MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all pilots carry
passengers.

"Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along in the
last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or crop-dusting operation.

-c

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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).


Good thing it is just a hobby for me then, guess I am completely safe.

----------------------------------------
DW

It just means that, if "something unfortunate was to happen to you", then
the statistic would be counted against your day job.

Peter