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

"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

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:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

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:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message


If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk
goes down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and
low altitude maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies
and flying is notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

While I generally agree with your statement, I take slight issue with "VFR
into IMC" being the result of stupidity. I might support stupidity as the
cause of "*continued* VFR into IMC", but even that is iffy.

As support for my argument, I offer night flight. It is very easy to
penetrate a cloud on a moonless night - especially if there is a high
overcast. I'd agree a pilot in this condition should try to extricate
themselves as expiditiously as safety allows, I wouldn't necessarily chalk
up the scenario to "pilot stupidity".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous
than
GA by several common measures.

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:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres

------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"

http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low
altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.

KB

Other modes of transportation have as much if not more "stupid" factor. If
you back it out for one mode you need to be consistent and back it out for
others. All of which is impossible so just stick with the raw numbers for
any kind of meaningful comparison.

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.


Jim Logajan wrote:
"Skylune" wrote:
Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all
forms of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this
point.

Reasonable debate!? You obviously haven't seen _any_ debate, reasonable
or otherwise, to spout such sweeping and easily refuted nonsense.

According to cross modal studies in the U.S.[1] _and_ Australia[2],
motorcycling is, by distance traveled measures, more dangerous than GA:

In the U.S. in 2000, according to reference 1, there were ~27 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles for motorcyclists. In that same year there
were ~2 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown for GA. Assuming a modest
average airspeed of ~100 mph and only 1 person in each aircraft, that
works out to ~20 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for aircraft.

In Australia in 1999, one study (table 3 in reference 2) showed there
were ~17.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometers for
motorcyclists. In that same year there were ~8.5 fatalities per 100
million vehicle kilometers for aircraft.

In fact the Australian study shows motorcycling to be more hazardous than
GA by several common measures.

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:

Table 5:
Fatalities/100,000 vehicle hours travelled
------------------------------------------
Bicyclists 5.27
General Aviation (fixed wing) 5.15

Fatalities/100 million passenger kilometres
------------------------------------------
Pedestrians 15.36
General Aviation (fixed wing) 6.22

Is it safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

If you are willing to risk walking across a road, you should have no
qualms about taking a general aviation flight.


[1] "Fatality Rates for Selected Modes"
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...re_01_145.html

[2] "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rese...ross_modal.cfm

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

Kyle Boatright wrote:
If you eliminate the *stupid* fatalities in GA, my guess is the risk goes
down by 1/2. Stupid includes VFR into IMC, Fuel Starvation, and low altitude
maneuvering. Stupid pilots are their own worst enemies and flying is
notoriously unforgiving of stupidity.


I'd have to disagree with you on your last statement, Kyle. I've done many
stupid things in airplanes over the years and gotten away with them. God grants
a special dispensation for newbies and morons. I'd like to think I was just new
at it, but I still catch myself doing dumb things from time to time. The major
difference now is that I'm better able to deal with the consequences.

Frankly, every pilot with less than 200 hours is an accident waiting to happen.
However, that special dispensation I mentioned allows the vast majority of them
to transition without incident.

I will say that if you think you don't make mistakes then you're incapable of
learning ("you" being used in the general sense).

Flying is actually very forgiving of stupidity. It's when things start piling
up that accidents happen. You can only deal with so much at one time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

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

"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.

"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