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

"Skylune" wrote:
Idiot.

Ad hominem.

Your nonsense is "easily refuted."

My counter-arguments to your refutations follow:

In fact, the graph you attached from BTS compares apples and oranges.

I converted from hours flown to miles flown by assuming a certain average
airspeed. This provides a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate. As it
happens, the ATSB estimate for Australian GA (17.5 fatalities/100 million
kilometers - 28 fatalities/100 million miles) is very close to my
converted value for U.S. GA (20 fatalities/100 million miles).

The remarkably close correspondence indicates an apples-to-apples
comparison.

I suggest a Stat 101 course from your local community college.

More ad hominem.

Studies that adjust usage rates using the same denominator (i.e.
passenger miles, hours travelled, etc.) all conclude that GA is the
most dangerous form of transportation.

The ATSB begs to differ:

"These comparisons, summarised in table 1, find:
....
c. Motorcycling is the least safe form of transport."

(From: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx )

Here is one example:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The reference you cite does not include motorcycling, recreational
boating, or bicycling, among other modes of transport. So it does not
contradict the references I cited, which did show motorcycling to have a
higher fatality rate than fixed wing general aviation.

Also, you may want to check the BLS studies of most dangerous
occupations, which can also serve as a proxy. Aircraft associated
professions have the highest mortality rates in the US, behind only
lumbering.

You may also want to check historical BLS studies, since some of them
don't support your "proxy" method. In 1997 water transportation
occupations had more fatalities per worker than aircraft pilots:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/Jan/wk1/art01.htm

Or, the common sense test. You suggest that Bicyclists and
pedestrians are at greater risk by "some measures." That may be true.

Quite. You wrote: "Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all forms
of transportation."

Now you know it isn't.

"Skylune" wrote:
Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for
statistical comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest
form of transportation. Right Jim?

Well, let's see, first we have to find the miles traveled. I found this
site with some totals:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches..._sidebar2.html

They say:

"Fleet Total: 354,775,865 miles (567,641,384 kilometers)."

Space fatalities (and many other space stats) found he
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/...pacestats.html

14 fatalities.

So the rate for the Space Shuttle fleet works out to:

~3.9 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.

By comparison, according to http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ the U.S. rate
for motor vehicle accidents is:

~1.7 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.

CONCLUSION 1: On a per mile basis, auto travel is safer than space shuttle
travel. So it isn't the safest form of transportation even by that generous
measure.

CONCLUSION 2: You don't actually research anything yourself, thus getting
yourself into trouble by making assertions you haven't checked. You could
have found the space shuttle stats yourself with some trivially obvious
search keywords.

Skylune opined

Hey. By using vehicle miles as the standardization factor for statistical
comparisons, the Space Shuttle should be by far the safest form of
transportation. Right Jim?

When making comparisions, there are 3 metrics. Per hour, per mile, and per
trip. The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile, iffy per hour and
terrible per trip.

What metric you use depends on why you are using a particular vehicle.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
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?

In that case, we should all get the fastest plane we can, because that way
we can cover more miles per hour, and be safer.

Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
--
Jim in NC

The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile

Oh, I don't know. The trips were only about three thousand miles apiece.

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

Where did that number come from?

According to the Nall Report, the actual number is 11 or 12 fatal
accidents per million hours of GA flights (averaging just under two deaths
per fatal accident).

Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?

If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
(above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

According to the Nall Report, the actual number is 11 or 12 fatal
accidents per million hours of GA flights (averaging just under two deaths
per fatal accident).


Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?

If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
(above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

Without scouring the Nall Report for details, and using round numbers of
10 fatal accidents per million hours, that's one per 100,000 hours.
That comes to 4/100 of a fatal accident per 4000 hours. The numbers are
small enough so that a linear approximation will come close enough -
it's a 4% chance of being involved in a fatal accident.

General Aviation covers a broad range of activities, some inherently
more risky than others, and some carrying more passengers than others.
It is more likely that a hundred-passenger plane that crashes would
generate a fatailty than that a two passenger plane does, just because
more passengers have the opportunity to die. However it's probably not
unreasonable to use the overall figures and figure 4% chance of being
involved in a fatal. But I suspect that 2 passengers is fairly average
for a general aviation flight, and not too far off from your flying.
Based on that, I'd say that if you are involved in a fatal accident,
you'd have a good chance of not being one that survives.

Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?

No. You might be able to factor them out, but you would no longer have
a reasonable calculation. People rarely crash due to intentional fuel
starvation, or intentional VFR in IMC. It just creeps up on them
unexpectedly, as does nightfall. This is why they are called "accidents".

You could reasonably exclude IFR flying, but you should not exclude IMC.
It is unreasonable to exclude night flight, even if you never intend
to fly at night. If you never fly at night, it just means that when
nightfall =does= sneak up on you, you will be unprepared for it. And in
4000 hours, one day nightfall =will= sneak up on you. And it will be
the day you were in a hurry to make it before dark, the fuel pumps
rejected your credit card, and you still had mostly full tanks and a
good shot at making it. And you would have made it too, if the wing
wasn't just a little bit tilted when you dipped the tank. There were
some clouds in the way but you climbed over them... at Vx - full power,
full rich, and they were higher than you thought. Oh, a new moon.

Dang - where'd the lights go all of a sudden?

Don't say you won't be there. 4000 hours is a lot of hours. You =will=
make mistakes.

Four percent if the source numbers are accurate. No fudging.

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

Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?

If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
(above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

1 in 25



Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?

Greatly improved.
But - against that, hoteliers are high risk!

In England, hoteliers pay a LOT more for car insurance
(in the same class as bartenders and waiters) because they have a lot
more accidents.
Does this translate across to pilots? I don't know.
It isn't just about alcohol consumption - it is also about working long
stressful hours and then driving (flying?) tired.
So there is the factor that I don't really know how to factor in.

As a matter of interest - do hoteliers in the USA pay higher aircraft
liability insurance?
Do they even have to declare their profession?

Tony (who used to be a hotelier - in England)

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Jose opined

The shuttle is (I suspect) pretty good per mile

Oh, I don't know. The trips were only about three thousand miles apiece.

Many were were about 5 miles. I guess that makes the shuttle worse than
private GA.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?