State of GA safety (2005 Nall Report)

by Jose Mar 9, 2006 at 09:40 PM




I haven't read the study so I can't really comment on it intelligently.
But like the difference between precision and accuracy, there is a
difference between pro-rated costs and marginal costs which needs to be
taken into account. One must also consider who benefits - it's not just
the immediate users.

And even if xxx were subsidized, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Jose



True. Not NECESSARILY a bad thing. I agree. That means the subsidies
must stand up to the political/budgetary debate about why they are
desirable, in the context of competing budgetary demands.

I disagree with those who claim there are no subsidies -- the data, even
if imperfect, makes this plain. See the BTS and FAA websites that track
amount of moneys deposited into the Aviation Trust Fund by source- you
will see that AV gas taxes are a tiny, tiny percentage.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Clustering can reduce the rate for one year and elevate it for another
year. However, the report shows that accident rates have been declining
for the past 10 years, which is a significant point.


Jose wrote:
I read on AvWeb today the '05 Nall Report is out, and apparently 2004
was a historic low for aviation accidents. This led me to question what
next year's report will look like after considering the spate of GA
accidents that we've all read about in the last year or so. Maybe it's
just a question of perception? Or, are pilots just getting too
complacent when they strap into their aircraft?

Or maybe it's just a statistical artifact. Shift a few accidents from
December to January, and shift a few others from next January to this
December, and you have a banner year for airplane crashes caused simply
by the artificial boundaries of the sample set.

"Shift" as in reporting a December accident as if it occured in January?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Dylan wrote:
One or two a week? There are almost always at least a dozen GA accidents
a week.

I realize this, I guess I was just referring to the accidents that got
local or national attention.

Setting aside the smart ass mode for a moment or so. I think what hapens is
"event A" gets wide spread attention (for whatever reason) so, when similar
event B occurs, it gets attention since A was obviously newsworthy, then C
and D get noticed and the whole thing snowballs.

You're probably only percieving a cluster because they have been talked
about more, but really - the accidents that have been talked about here

recently are not out of the ordinary (sadly).

Yeah, I mentioned it probably being a question of my own perception
because of the ongoing discussion on this forum of recent accidents.
And yes, it is sad.


Indeed.

And, there are times it bothers me to be working for a car company. I
suspect that the automobile has turned out to be the deadliest weapon ever
invented by man - in spite of how hard we try to make it othewise...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

"Shift" as in reporting a December accident as if it occured in January?

No, shift as having an accident in December instead of January.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.