Accidents - correlation and causation?

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation

IMHO that's not even close.

With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.

An airplane does not have any of those features.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Exactly, not to mention other activities such as fishing, skiing and taking
friends with to socialize while partaking of wine and cheese. Our boat was
in a slip in a busy harbor and we could spend all weekend socializing
without ever leaving the slip. There were also a number of planned
activities.

At most airports one would die of loneliness.

On 22 Mar 2006 05:37:38 -0800, "Denny" wrote in
.com::


The other issue to think about is that it seems that huge numbers of
people millions can find the money in the household budget for
boats... And if you think that flying bends the budget, hang around
the local marina and go to a few boat shows... The crowds slobbering
over $15,000 dingies and $1,500,000 Hatteras, is mind boggling...
In considering this fact it occurs to me that the crucial difference
between flying and boating is the intrusion of federal regulation into
flying which forms the almost insurmountable barrier to entry, not the
price of admission... Officious little people with the power to harass
and attack you over minor issues ramp check anyone!, ATC recording
every turn on the radar track and every transmission, reams of
regulations, recurrent training, licensing actually certification...

To be fair, you must consider the potential consequences to those over
whom we travel; there is no comparable public peril in personal
boating.

How would you characterize the civil responsibility required of an
airman to that of the typical weekend boater? There's another salient
difference.

long_story
Once I was sleeping on the beach at the harbor on Anacapa Island off
the California coast, and I found that, if I left the Coleman lantern
lit, it kept the scurrying creatures at bay. Around 3am I was
awakened to the sound of a small power boat and its occupants landing
on the beach. "Thank God you had that lantern lit," they said; they'd
found themselves disoriented at sea, low on fuel, and didn't know what
to do, so they headed toward the only light they could see.

These would not be the sort of folks with whom I'd feel comfortable
sharing the sky.
/long_story

With regard to ramp checks, recently I had a new acquaintance confess
to me, that he and a partner purchased a C-182, and proceeded to fly
it from their ranch without benefit of airman certificates nor
instruction. With so few FAA Inspectors, their chance of being
charged with a criminal offence, let alone even being found were/are
minimal.

Personally, I am happy uniform, worldwide flight regulations exist.
Officious little people can usually be used against themselves, and
really don't often pose a significant threat.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
To be fair, you must consider the potential consequences to those over
whom we travel; there is no comparable public peril in personal
boating.

Huh?

A light airplane is likely to kill, at most, a couple of people on the
ground in a single accident. A really rare conjunction of unusual
circumstances might get half a dozen or so. Most light aviation accidents
hurt no one other than those in the aircraft.

Likewise, boaters endanger plenty of people around them. They operate near
shorelines, especially beaches where large numbers of people cluster. A
boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those on
another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is frequently
of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.

I see very little difference in the potential of harm between the two
activities.

How would you characterize the civil responsibility required of an
airman to that of the typical weekend boater? There's another salient
difference.

Why would the civil responsibility be any different between the two? Each
individual, airman or boater, is a citizen with identical rights and
responsibilities. They each have similar moral obligations to not harm
others. And yet, the boater is not subjected to anywhere NEAR the same
level of regulation and training requirements that the airman is.

Now, that said, I feel that the appropriate level of training and regulation
is a lot closer to that which the airman already experiences, than to that
which the boater does. For some reason, boaters are given practically carte
blanche in their operation, in spite of the similar harm they can (and do)
do to others.

long_story
[...]
These would not be the sort of folks with whom I'd feel comfortable
sharing the sky.
/long_story

They are not the sort of folks with whom I'm comfortable sharing a waterway
either.

That said, plenty of pilots get lost too.

Pete

A
boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those on
another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is frequently
of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.

Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation. Those
on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
hurting shore people. One would have to be reckless, such as
powerboating into a beach. In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the
ground. In a boat I think this is much less likely.

That said, dead is dead no matter how it occurs.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
A boating accident can easily kill innocent bystanders, either those
on another boat (especially when one notes that boating traffic is
frequently of MUCH higher density than air traffic) or on the shore.


Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation. Those
on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
hurting shore people. One would have to be reckless, such as
powerboating into a beach. In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the
ground. In a boat I think this is much less likely.

That said, dead is dead no matter how it occurs.

Jose
I don't think that just being on the boat, properly navigating it, is
any more "guilty" then placing yourself in a position to have a airplane
fall on you. In both cases you are not doing anything wrong or
dangerous. I would also be curious to see the number of people killed
on the ground by aircraft as opposed to those killed by boats while not
on another boat*.

* Dismissing acts of of commission such as driving a vehicle into a
building or structure.

I don't think that just being on the boat, properly navigating it, is any more "guilty" then placing yourself in a position to have a airplane fall on you.

It is difficult to put oneself in a position where an airplane =cannot=
fall on you.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Those on another boat are not "innocent" - they are guilty of boating,
that is to say, of accepting the risk of waterborne navigation.

What a bizarre interpretation of the situation. I suppose then, that if you
are driving downtown, and are killed by a rogue driver who causes an
accident, that you are guilty of putting yourself in harm's way. Whereas, a
pedestrian who is walking right next to your car who is also killed is the
innocent victim?

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm. How
others may be exposed to harm by that person is irrelevant in my opinion.
The issue is proper training of the person who may harm, period.

Ironically, the FAA takes an even more relaxed view of the hazard to
innocents. They allow solo flight by student pilots, with every bit of
endangerment to people on the ground, if not more, that a fully certificated
pilot presents, but protect potential passengers by prohibiting their
presence.

Those on the shore are innocent, but I do not see as great a potential for
hurting shore people.

There is every bit as great a potential for harm to them as there is for
people on the ground.

One would have to be reckless, such as powerboating into a beach.

Happens a lot more often than you apparently think.

In an aircraft, "oops" can kill those on the ground. In a boat I think
this is much less likely.

You think wrong. Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
boats.

In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

Pete

I suppose then, that if you
are driving downtown, and are killed by a rogue driver who causes an
accident, that you are guilty of putting yourself in harm's way.

Yes... moreso than the person who is sitting in their front yard and
gets run over by a rogue driver. If you are driving downtown, you have
accepted certain risks of driving (including rogue drivers) that the guy
in his front yard has not.

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

Justice is not involved.

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

Of course. But participating in a risky activity (such as hunting) is a
tacit acceptance of possible harm (such as being shot) whereas while
strolling in the park, one has not accepted that risk (real though it
may be).

Ironically, the FAA takes an even more relaxed view of the hazard to
innocents. They allow solo flight by student pilots, with every bit of
endangerment to people on the ground, if not more, that a fully certificated
pilot presents, but protect potential passengers by prohibiting their
presence.

They don't allow solo flight until the student has demonstrated
sufficient ability, and the risk to persons on the ground is less than
the risk to passengers in the plane.

Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
boats.

Perhaps. I have no statistics to back me up. I would be interested in
them if anybody does have them available.

In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

There is always risk to innocents, even flying a kite is dangerous to
some extent. Not to consider the extent of risk is ludicrous.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Yes... moreso than the person who is sitting in their front yard and gets
run over by a rogue driver. If you are driving downtown, you have
accepted certain risks of driving (including rogue drivers) that the guy
in his front yard has not.

I'm not talking about "the guy in his front yard". I'm talking about the
pedestrian "walking right next to your car".

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

Justice is not involved.

Of course it is. Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of
"innocent".

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

Of course. But participating in a risky activity (such as hunting) is a
tacit acceptance of possible harm (such as being shot) whereas while
strolling in the park, one has not accepted that risk (real though it may
be).

A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of being
shot. Heck, you don't even need to go out of your house to run the risk of
being shot.

They don't allow solo flight until the student has demonstrated sufficient
ability, and the risk to persons on the ground is less than the risk to
passengers in the plane.

Of course it is. But according to you, the people on the ground are
innocent while the passengers in the plane are not. And according to you,
they should thus be granted more protection.

In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
degree of protection.

Perhaps. I have no statistics to back me up. I would be interested in
them if anybody does have them available.

I suspect that even if you count only the handful of large vessels (ferries
seem to be a common type) that plow into a pier killing a dozen or so people
at a time, that number alone still exceeds the people on the ground killed
by aviation accidents.

There is always risk to innocents, even flying a kite is dangerous to some
extent. Not to consider the extent of risk is ludicrous.

"Fighting" kites notwithstanding, flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.
It seems to me that, if a person is going to do something that has a genuine
risk of killing someone -- anyone, whether they are a participant or not --
then that person should be required to undergo proper training and
certification.

Now, I will grant that boating isn't close to being the only example of this
not being the reality. There's not even a legal requirement for proper
training to own a gun, never mind for other hazardous activities such as
using a chainsaw, riding a Segway, or operating a bulldozer. But at least
in the case of boating, the activity is VERY comparable to flying in a
number of ways, including the risk exposure to the general public (which is
relatively small in both activities).

Pete

I'm not talking about "the guy in his front yard". I'm talking about the
pedestrian "walking right next to your car".

Nothing is black and white. The guy =at= the airport, who has no
intention of flying but is just there to pick Sam up would be more like
the pedestrian on the side of the road. But I'm talking about the
schoolyard that has an airplane fall on it.

Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of
"innocent".

"Innocent" means "didn't do it". The "it" that he didn't do needn't be
a Bad Thing. In this context, I use "innocent" to mean "didn't
deliberately put himself in harm's way", where flying an airplane is a
case of deliberately putting oneself in harm's way. You are taking a
chance. Ditto driving a car (each WRT their respective hazards)

A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of being
shot.

There is always risk, but when you =contribute= to that risk (by going
hunting, for example) you are no longer "innocent" in the sense that the
picknicker is.

But according to you, the people on the ground are
innocent while the passengers in the plane are not. And according to you,
they should thus be granted more protection.

Yes, they should... by the pilot.

In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
degree of protection.

The passengers are at greater risk to begin with.

I suspect that even if you count only the handful of large vessels (ferries
seem to be a common type) that plow into a pier killing a dozen or so people
at a time, that number alone still exceeds the people on the ground killed
by aviation accidents.

One suspicion vs another. You may be right, I don't know. But I
suspect not.

flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.

The risk is small, but nonzero. Now we're discussing degree, which is
what I was saying all along. LIttle league pitchers aren't certified,
but there have been fatal pitching accidents too.

But at least
in the case of boating, the activity is VERY comparable to flying in a
number of ways, including the risk exposure to the general public (which is
relatively small in both activities).

We disagree, but I'm open to being swayed by actual data. (and if you
include big boats, you have to include big planes too)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.