GA _is_ safer than some modes of transport. Was: Tragedy

In article . com,
says...


Jim

Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to see
a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

Snowmobiles are very dangerous too. The big problem, common to GA and to
motorcycles, comes with the word "transportation". When it's horses,
snowmobiles, etc, people ride for leisure, and do not have to get anywhere.
When motorcyclists and private pilots (and bicycle riders too) decide to
conjugate pleasure with necessity, and use their vehicle to get where they're
going, they impose "get there" pressures that increase risk. They ride or fly
in conditions that would normally have kept them grounded. Continued VFR into
IMC, though not "inevitable", becomes much more probable when a pilot is a
thousand miles from home, and has to be back for work, or get the plane back,
or whatever. If you'er going to fly to get places, then sooner or later the
weather will catch up with you. If you are not IR rated, sharp and proficient
the day that happens, you have taken an ill-considered risk.


And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

Ah, but there's method to his madness.
He's there to irk private pilots, and knows enough about the subject to do so.
It must be fun for him, sitting back and watching knees jerk!

G Faris

When motorcyclists and private pilots (and bicycle riders too) decide to
conjugate pleasure with necessity, and use their vehicle to get where they're
going, they impose "get there" pressures that increase risk. They ride or fly
in conditions that would normally have kept them grounded.

Which is why business flying (not the kind with a professional crew,
but the kind where someone flies himself to a meeting or some such) is
so much more dangerous than private, recreational flying.

There's only one problem with this statement - the statistics (google
Nall Report) show exactly the opposite is true.

Michael

"Greg Farris" wrote

Ah, but there's method to his madness.
He's (skylune) there to irk private pilots, and knows enough about the
subject to do so.
It must be fun for him, sitting back and watching knees jerk!

Exactly! I have quit playing his game, and no longer read any of his posts.
If everyone did that, he would go away.
--
Jim in NC

"Paul Stuart" wrote

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

He's only here to push buttons and further his own agenda. You can bet that
some of the postings from this group will be used in town meetings as
evidence of how dangerous that airport that is near his house is so he can
gain ground to shut it down. All this just because he thinks his rights
supercede the rights of anyone else. The only way to get rid of this moron
is to stop validating his posts by responding to them.

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

"Paul Stuart" wrote

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

He's only here to push buttons and further his own agenda. You can bet
that
some of the postings from this group will be used in town meetings as
evidence of how dangerous that airport that is near his house is so he can
gain ground to shut it down. All this just because he thinks his rights
supercede the rights of anyone else. The only way to get rid of this
moron
is to stop validating his posts by responding to them.

To buy into this, you first have to believe that he/she is actually an adult
property owner...

Me, I'm not so sure...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

"Paul Stuart" wrote in
ups.com:

Jim

Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport. I'd be interested to
see a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.



HA!

ANYONE who reffers to themselves in the third person should go directly
to the kill file....


--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Paul Stuart" wrote:
Thanks for the interesting statistics that compare GA favorably to
other "recreational" type modes of transport.

You're welcome.

I'd be interested to
see a comparison with horse riding, which I suspect has actually got a
pretty bad accident rate, although not many people would think of it
that way.

I'd like to see numbers on recreational boating included. According to the
ATSB, "The ATSB intends to update and augment this paper (eg to include
marine and the results of comments on this paper) as future data becomes
available." ( http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx )

So maybe some day they'll include more transport modes.

And, although I've not been posting to this group long, I've learned
enouigh already to observe that you have no hope of elucidating any
kind of "reasonable debate" from Skylune.

My intent of posting was to bring what I thought was fascinating
information to newsgroup readers - debating Skylune was accidental. When
Skylune posted his assertion, I was actually expecting to find out he was
correct - the notion that GA is more dangerous than automobile and
commercial airline travel is well known. But I had a hunch that
recreational boating might be almost as dangerous as GA, so I went
searching for that. Haven't found any stats on boating, but did stumble
across the motorcycling angle and went looking for that and eventually
found the cross modal studies.

Jim Logajan wrote:

What is fascinating about the Australian study are some of the normalized
numbers in Appendix A showing that even bicyclists and pedestrians are
are greater risk by some measures than GA flyers:

Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
mile is sheer nonsense. Compare it by the hour and it looks a lot
differently. You can bias the results at your will by defining what you
compare. (I'm working enough with statistics to know how to treat the
results.)

Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
mile is sheer nonsense.

I disagree. I see your underlying point: that no one chooses between walking
and flying as a means of getting to a particular destination. But people
often do have a choice between walking and driving, or between driving and
flying, so it makes sense to compare the per-mile fatality rates for those
pairs. And if you're going to do that, then it's not unreasonable to also
consider how all three compare on the same scale.

--Gary

Stefan wrote:

Comparing aviation and pedestrians by looking at the accident rate per
mile is sheer nonsense.

Why? The idea is to compare accidents to the value accrued from the travel.
Ignoring "fun" (as it's tough to quantity whether we're speaking of flying,
biking, etc.), why isn't "distance" a good metric for value?

- Andrew