If all midair collisions were eliminated...

On Feb 9, 11:55*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

You can do the research...

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

You can select on Injury Severity and Category (Glider, etc.). Play
with trying "collision" etc. in the event details box (but obviously
you need to check the results/misses).

Darryl

According to my hand count of accidents in the database, over the past
10 years there have been 60 fatal glider accidents in the US with 68
total fatalities. Three of the accidents and 9 of the fatalities were
due to mid-air collisions, so the numbers are higher for gliders - 5%
of the accidents and 15% of the fatalities. Still, you are 20 times
more likely to die in a single glider crash than a midair - if that is
any consolation.

It is worthwhile looking at the reports as a reminder for extra care
in certain areas. Lots of accidents were on approach (maybe half),
either coming up short or a stall/spin turning base or final. The
next biggest cause was collision with terrain during flight (not
always possible to determine controlled versus uncontrolled). Next
came loss of control/structural failure in flight. There were also a
number of cases of assembly errors, control problems on takeoff and
several where pilot incapacitation was suspected. The rank ordering of
causes is my rough impression.

Unfortunately, too many on the list were friends or people I'd met
along the way. Too many.

Fly safe.

9B

"Matt Herron Jr." wrote in message
...
I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be
the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess
is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check?

Matt

Whereas I don't see any position in this thread that is inherently better or
worse to place this comment, I have chosen this one on the basis that no
trimming is necessary or usefull.

I really see 2 points that need to be made:

1) Any time that a major factor is eliminated from a statistic, the
proportions will increase for the previously minor factors. Simply by
talking about glider operations, we have eliminated either all or most cases
of fuel eshaustion/mismanagement, crashes during instrument approaches,
collisions with approach light supports, and a lot of other causes when
aircraft are used for training and/or transportation.

2) Any life lost is NOT 1 too many!

In the United States alone, about 4 million people have to die--simply due
to the statistics of human lifespans.

The remark that 27 people would still be alive is simply an assertion that
it is somehow better to die by wasting away in a hospital or hospice than in
the course of doing something productive, entertaining, or even (horrors)
courageous.

We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our
play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify
our actions to anyone who chooses to experience only simulaton and then
chooses to criticize those who take real action.

There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls:
ignore them or push back HARD!

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote

We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our
play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify
our actions to anyone who chooses to experience only simulaton and then
chooses to criticize those who take real action.

There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls:
ignore them or push back HARD!

Peter;
While I agree, most whole-heartably with your well thought out and written
post, I disagree with your last 4 words.

Past experience with this particular troll is that he is a somewhat rare
species. Not human, if you get my drift. Pushing hard is not effective, up
until you push hard enough to make him physically unable to operate a
computer.

That leaves ONLY ignoring.

Everyone read that again. Here, I'll make it easy for you: That leaves
only ignoring.

It is the only logical and effective solution to this problem.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
would still happen.

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
the loss of life that they entail?

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

We have apparently decided NOT.

Brian W

In article , betwys1
@sbcglobal.net says...

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

We have apparently decided NOT.




Keywords in your sentences are 'perhaps' and 'apparently'.
You might even claim all roadkills would be saved if US road speed were
to reduced to zero.

In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, in neighbouring
Belgium the max speed is 120 kph. However in Germany there are less than
half as many killed per 1000 km of highway than in Belgium.

Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.



Tom De Moor

"Tom De Moor" wrote in message
.be...
In article , betwys1
@sbcglobal.net says...

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

We have apparently decided NOT.




Keywords in your sentences are 'perhaps' and 'apparently'.
You might even claim all roadkills would be saved if US road speed were
to reduced to zero.

In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, in neighbouring
Belgium the max speed is 120 kph. However in Germany there are less than
half as many killed per 1000 km of highway than in Belgium.

Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.

Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops.

Try Inattention and intoxication first.

Matt

In article ,
says...

Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.

Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops.

Try Inattention and intoxication first.




Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.

http://www.katchuptv.com/?video=4781

The video shows what happens if a driver gets knocked inconscious at 250
kph.

Tom De Moor

On Feb 10, 1:35*pm, Tom De Moor
wrote:
snip
In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited,
snip

Quite a lot of the autobahn does have speed limits, and some of them
are not particularly fast either.

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps 30,000
lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

Your "perhaps" is bogus.

Since the speed limit was raised to from 65 to 70/75, fatalities went DOWN.

Same thing when it went from 55 to 65.


We have apparently decided NOT.

Considering that about 2/3rds of the annual fatalities (43K annually) are at
intersections, not on highways/freeways, you'll have to come up with a
better scenario.

Matt

brian whatcott writes:

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

If speed killed, nobody would ever survive an auto race.

What kills is speed that is excessive for a given set of circumstances, and
that cannot easily be addressed by posted speed limits alone. Some
jurisdictions with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws recognize this.