Safety, yet again...

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Why would you want to? You would then present a false picture of GA,
deliberately skewed to make it appear safer and more responsible than it
truly is.

How about sifting out the idiot teenager driver, the old geezer that fell
asleep at the wheel and ran over another car...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
try THIS:

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
52.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Automobile 0.130
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
7.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
581,395 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
163,934 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Since most automobile trips probably are the 10 mile, 35 MPH variety, the
comparison is hard to draw. Hell, what's the rate for auto trips versus
walking to the store? :~)

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Hell, what's the rate for auto trips versus walking to the store? :~)


A fatality to that one person in America, who still walks to the store,
would skew the numbers as dramatically as the one fatal accident in the
super-safe Concorde program.

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
The web page is titled "Accident" .....(singular).


Montblack

Since I haven't been up in the air for over a year now and driving much
much more, does this mean that I've ACTUALLY been taking more risk than
before? :-)

The Monk

Jay Honeck wrote:
Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
try THIS:

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
52.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Automobile 0.130
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
7.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
581,395 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
163,934 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What are you saying? Are you going to start tracking how many times you
have flown, and when you reach the "magic number" you'll stop?

I don't think so.

I think the statistics you have posted provide much more information than
what is typically deduced on face value.

GA IS STATISTICALLY LESS SAFE THAN OTHER COMMON FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.

Yes, but why is that?

The evidence would seem to be that the aviation industry, as compared with
the automotive industry, has drastically failed at its job of improving and
innovating with respect to flight safety in General Aviation. I think the
reason is because the FAA - the very body of Government that was
instantiated to promote safety in aviation - has left the GA industry in
the dust. Instead of working cooperatively with small airplane
manufacturers to promote safety through improved technology and innovation,
they have made it increasingly difficult to certify innovation and
technology. In fact, I suspect that most GA aircraft that are built today
are no safer than their counterparts from 50 years ago, about the same time
that the FAA came into existence. Most improvements have been in Avionics,
not in safety. The only discernable difference between a 1960s Beech
Bonanza and a 2006 model is the G1000 "Glass Cockpit". Woo hoo...

Think about, on the other hand, what the government, in cooperation with
automakers, has done to improve the Auto Accident statistics over the last
50 years. Fatalities in auto accidents have plummetted so far that auto
insurance companies are complaining that it costs them too much because
most people DON'T die in a car accidents - they were saved by a seatbelt,
airbag, or crumple zone. Improvements and enhancements are added to cars
every year, and while I suspect that overall accident rates haven't been
substantially reduced, most accidents that used to be fatal 50 years ago
are now survived.

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years is the
Cirrus Parachute, which has had questions surrounding it since its
inception. And if I wanted to retrofit my non-cirrus aircraft to include
one, I would have to go through so much red tape with the FAA to do it
legally, I would be substantially safer, but only because I wouldn't be
able to afford to fly anymore afterward.

So every time I look at those statistics, I don't get scared, I get
annoyed.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1145761631.226080.133800
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
try THIS:

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
52.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Automobile 0.130
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
7.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
581,395 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
163,934 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
Judah wrote:

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years is the
Cirrus Parachute,

It is not a CIRRUS parachute, it is a Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS)
parachute. BRS has parachutes already designed and certified for
different makes/models of certified aircraft.

john smith wrote in
news:jsmith-D8F282.18555023042006@network-065-024-007-
027.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
Judah wrote:

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years
is the Cirrus Parachute,

It is not a CIRRUS parachute, it is a Ballistic Recovery Systems(BRS)
parachute. BRS has parachutes already designed and certified for
different makes/models of certified aircraft.

True, but let's look deeper...

If you want to buy a BRS Parachute System for an Ultralight Aircraft,
thereby not requiring certification or FAA approval, you can buy one
for
as little as $2,200. As you watch the price increase, the price
difference from a 600lb model to an 1800lb model is about equal to
(just
slightly higher than) the increase in weight - about 300%.

Now go from that to the Cessna models, which run $16k and $17k...

2250lbs / 600lbs = 375%, but $15,995 / $2,495 = 640%!
3100lbs / 1050lbs = 295%, but $16,995 / $3,495 = 486%!
3100lbs / 1600lbs = 194%, but $16,995 / $4,095 = 415%!

Basically, the ratios are nearly double for certified systems.

Now why do you think that is? Do you think it's because the systems are
safer when they are put on a Cessna, or do you think it's because of
the
cost of all the red tape required to get the thing certified by the
FAA?


Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
there, and it's obvious why...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
there, and it's obvious why...

One has to wonder if perhaps it would be cheaper to just supply all of the
occupants in the aircraft with a parachute... Quick Google search brough up
prices anywhere from $900-$3000... Maybe for skydivers, the $3000 one might
give them a certain advantage, but I suspect the $900 one would be perfectly
good for getting your butt to the ground with minimal injuries... I'm just
not so sure about whether I can get out of the plane, deploy the chute and
survive from the 300 ft that the BRS chute claims is their minimum
activation altitude...

Jay,

The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
(stupid driver tricks)? Surely you must realize that many auto
fatalities are the result of sdt's (eating/talking on phone/driving
with not enough sleep/drinking/etc...) - acts that you undoubtably
avoid just as you avoid spt's. Are you simply trying to comfort
yourself in the feeling that GA flying is safer than it really is?

Note - I am not discounting the higher probability of someone else's
sdt killing you while you drive, while it's likely that you would only
die from your own spt while flying.

-CK

The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
(stupid driver tricks)?

It's not that I don't want to compare them -- I do, if only for the
purposes of comparison. Removing stupid tricks from both figures would
be okay by me.

Really, though, I don't care about the risks of driving. I *do* care
about the risks of flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"