uh-oh...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:57:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:21:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:01:23 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

no e-mail address was provided for the author of the article.

But you can submit a response to this e-mail address:



You can send your comments on this "research" directly to the Johns
Hopkins University researchers:

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH:
Susan P. Baker, MPH:

=============================================== =


I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
original article available in its entirety at:
http://download3-5.files-upload.com/...l_Aviation.pdf



Dear Mr. Dighera, Thank you for writing to us. It appears that your
anger is based on reading the news report rather than what we wrote in
the commentary. Attached for your information is the commentary we
published in JAMA. Your points are well taken if used for explaining
why GA has a much higher crash rate than airlines. Please feel free
to contact us should you have any comment or question after reading
our commentary.

Sincerely,

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH
Professor and Director of Research
Department of Emergency Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
5801 Smith Avenue
Davis Building, Suite 3220
Baltimore, MD 21209





Larry Dighera 4/12/2007 6:07 PM


Dear Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, and Susan P. Baker, MPH:

I read with interest this Reuters summary of your research:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
10 Apr 2007 20:00:21 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - Private U.S. flights, usually
involving small airplanes, are 82 times more likely to be involved
in a fatal crash than major airlines, researchers said on Tuesday.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said these
non-commercial flights account for most U.S. aviation crashes,
injuries and deaths.

They called these so-called general aviation flights a public
safety problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and
the National Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve
safety of small airplanes.

The general aviation rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight
hours is 82 times greater than for major airlines, said the
researchers, who analyzed government statistics...

The above conclusion drawn by the Johns Hopkins University researchers
clearly shows their lack of comprehension of GA vs Airline flight
missions and which flight operations constitute the greatest hazards.
Airline flights:

* Long distance legs require lots of hours but only one takeoff
and one landing
* Two professional pilots at the controls
* An FAA certificated Dispatcher on the ground influencing flight
decisions.
* Able to fly above the weather
* ...


General Aviation flights:

* Short distance legs mean many more landings and takeoffs are
performed per hour than on airline routes.
* Usually a single pilot at the controls
* Often the pilot holds only a student certificate.
* During training flights, which constitute a large percentage of
GA flight hours, the corners of the flight envelope are
routinely explored.
* Flights conducted entirely within the Troposphere where weather
exists.
* ...

Questions:
Is it reasonable to expect the fatal crash rate per 100,000 flight
hours of short training flights conducted by single, often student,
pilots with an emphasis on landing and takeoff operations to compare
favorably to long duration flights conducted by usually three FAA
certified professional personnel with only a single takeoff and
landing?

Should the Johns Hopkins University researchers be chastised and
dismissed for their fundamental errors leading to their faulty
analysis of a subject of which they obviously possess little knowledge
and understanding, yet proffer themselves as experts?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
original article available in its entirety at:
http://download3-5.files-upload.com/...General_Aviati
on.pdf

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later."

Anyone able to post it?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:29:45 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I received the reply below in reply to my rebuke from one of the Johns
Hopkins University researchers. You will find the researchers'
original article available in its entirety at:
http://download3-5.files-upload.com/...l_Aviation.pdf

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later."

That's strange. It works for me.
This is the first time I've used files-upload.com. Perhaps there's a
better place to host/post the article?

Anyone able to post it?

I'm happy to e-mail the article to anyone who wants it.

On 2007-04-11 18:09:27 -0700, "Dan Luke" said:

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

They called these so-called general aviation flights a public safety
problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and the National
Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve safety of small
airplanes.

Okay. "So-called general aviation?" Obviously we are hiding something here.

They missed the main factor in GA accidents -- pilot error. Airlines
don't buzz the house of the pilot's girlfriend. They don't chase cows.
They don't drop notes to the pretty girls on the beach. They don't fly
up box canyons to look at the view. They don't fly VFR into IMC. They
don't do aerobatics at 1500 feet. They don't load up the front seat
with camera equipment so that you can't see out and then try to fly
from the back seat. They take care of their airplanes. They don't fly
airplanes with known maintenance problems. They don't use automobile
parts to fix their airplanes. They know how much fuel they need. They
pay attention to weight and balance. They don't fly single engine IFR
over the mountains at night. They don't fly at 16,000 feet without
oxygen. They fly above the weather, not through it. They don't take off
with the wrong mixture setting. They pay attention to density altitude.
They don't fall asleep at the controls (well, not as often, anyway).
They don't get drunk as often. They don't fly with just one pilot. They
don't shoot the wing off the plane with an automatic shotgun while
hunting coyotes in Montana. If they botch a landing, they go around
instead of trying to save it. They figure out their route and flight
plan before they depart. In sum, they look professional, think
professional, and act professional.

GA pilots don't fly like airline pilots and have the accident record to
prove it. You can stuff all the airbags in the world into your seatbelt
and it will not save you from stupidity.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

What's with it with medical journals these days? First, it
was "The Lancet" with the (now discredited) claim of a
supposed 600,000 deaths in Iraq. Now it's the JAMA
publishing what appears to be something better suited to
the Scandinavian Journal of Statistics on a dull Sunday. Is
the medical research field so sparse these days that they
have to muscle in on other scientists' territory?

And what's with physicians who think that their medical
qualifications make them experts in Aviation Safety, anyway?

This is just a couple of folks at Johns Hopkins that need a publication or
two in a "professional" journal to put on their annual job appraisal.
Without it they have no chance of getting a pay raise. With it, they might
make the cut, at the expense of GA. Neither author has especially
impressive credentials in medicine and no credibility or credentials in
aviation safety. It just looks very unprofessional. JH and JAMA editors
are not doing their jobs. I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.

John Severyn

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ps.com...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

And what's with physicians who think that their medical
qualifications make them experts in Aviation Safety, anyway?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:29:45 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

http://download3-5.files-upload.com/...l_Aviation.pdf

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later."

I get the same error, with both Firefox 1.5 and wget. Digging around in
the "Files catalogue - Documents" link from their home page will lead
you to it, eventually.

1. Go to
http://files-upload.com/files/166280...l_Aviation.pdf

2. If your browser asks, let the site set cookies. You won't be able
to download the file if you don't.

3. Wait for the little countdown timer (left side of the page, towards
the bottom) to get to zero.

4. Click on the underlined "Download link".

The link it gives you in step 4 _is_ the link that Larry posted, but the
site disallows direct downloads - you have to go through the steps as
above.

This is the first time I've used files-upload.com. Perhaps there's a
better place to host/post the article?

You appear to be posting through AT&T Worldnet; they give you a certain
amount of "personal" web space with each email address. At one time it
was 10 megs but it may be more now.

In general, ISP-provided web space is good for things like this. Once
you outgrow that space, it's probably a good idea to spend maybe $5 a
month on an entry-level hosting plan; it's a lot easier for people to
use and you don't generally have to put up with ads, silly download
restrictions, etc.

Matt Roberds

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:38 -0700, "J. Severyn"
wrote in
:

This is just a couple of folks at Johns Hopkins that need a publication or
two in a "professional" journal to put on their annual job appraisal.

That was my thought too.

Without it they have no chance of getting a pay raise.

Perhaps the people JH people responsible for job appraisals should get
a copy of our critique too.

With it, they might make the cut, at the expense of GA.

Apparently at the expense of taxpayers too:

This work was funded in part by grants R01AA09963
and R01AG13642 from the National Institutes of Health and grant
CCR302486 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding agencies had no role in the
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

I wonder who would appropriate to contact at the above institutions?

Neither author has especially
impressive credentials in medicine and no credibility or credentials in
aviation safety.

You will find references to several previously published reports
authored by Mr. Li in the article's bibliography! Given the quality
of this one, I can imagine the quality of all his other aviation
related reports.

It just looks very unprofessional. JH and JAMA editors
are not doing their jobs. I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.

John Severyn

Good. Give me the e-mail addresses of the JH and JAMA editors, and
I'll do the same.

"J. Severyn" wrote in message news:
...

I've emailed the JAMA editors and the authors and
stated their paper belongs next to the checkout stand in the supermarket.

I'd be very interested if you post any response you get
here, relevant to aviation of not!

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:38 -0700, "J. Severyn"
wrote in
:

snip

This work was funded in part by grants R01AA09963
and R01AG13642 from the National Institutes of Health and grant
CCR302486 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding agencies had no role in the
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

I wonder who would appropriate to contact at the above institutions?

I do not know. But I believe NIH is in WashDC and CDC is in Atlanta.


Good. Give me the e-mail addresses of the JH and JAMA editors, and
I'll do the same.

Well here is where I gave feedback to JAMA:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/feedback
using the cite info:
COMMENTS:
Crash Risk in General Aviation
Guohua Li, MD, DrPH; Susan P. Baker, MPH
JAMA. 2007;297:1596-1598.

I just clicked the "General Editorial Question" as I figured that had the
best chance of getting to one of the JAMA editors. A recognition email was
returned immediately (I asked for a copy to be returned). I was amused that
the return email included my IP address.

I do not know the JH editors, but I sent the same note directly to the
authors at:
Guohua Li, MD, DrPH:
Susan P. Baker, MPH:
which you found earlier too.

John Severyn