JFK Jr.'s mean ol wife

Dan Luke wrote:

"Ace Pilot" wrote:
The lack of good judgment in this
accident is what drew the condemnation of the aviation community, in
my opinion.

Uh, that was my point: there was a chorus of pilots howling about what a
stupid decision JFK made, as if they would NEVER do such a thing. One
frequently sees that type of rationalization in these newsgroups. Most
pilots believe that their judgement is vastly superior to that of the
average pilot. Apparently the mathematical absurdity of this idea escapes
them. This enables them to believe that they are safer flying than driving.
That self delusion is what ultimately leads to most "pilot error" accidents,
IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

The "chorus of pilots howling" is a good thing, because it reinforces
how bad the judgment JFK exhibited was and that, in turn, reduces the
likelihood that they'll do the same thing. I made an error in judgment
once - thinking "I can do that" after Flight Watch told me "VFR not
recommended." About a third of a second later the little check pilot
in the back of my head started screaming at me. I had *just passed*
a nice runway so I turned back and landed. This was triggered in part
by a briefing by the CAP about finding the confetti shreds of an
airplane that flew into a thunderstorm (I originally typed "flew through,"
but he didn't make it, did he?)

And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.

-- Marten Kemp, PP-ASEL&S

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Actually, the chance per unit time of a fatal collision with other
traffic
is roughly similar whether you're flying GA or driving. But with
flying,
you get *additional* risks that are so massive by comparison that
they dwarf the risk from collision. That doesn't make the collision
risk any smaller, though.

Yep, but the relative percentages are much different. 13% of the fatal
auto
crashes are multi-vehicle as compared to only about 1 % for fatal midairs.

Right, that was my point. With GA flying, the risk of fatal traffic
collision--although comparable to the risk of fatal traffic collision while
driving--is dwarfed by the other fatal risks. Therefore, the percentage of
GA fatalities attributable to collisions is miniscule--not because fatal
collisions are less likely than when driving, but rather because *other* GA
dangers are so much *more* likely than any risks faced while driving.

--Gary

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.

You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
something you might want to think about a little more?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , Marten Kemp
writes:

You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
something you might want to think about a little more?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
Citations, websites, etc?

-- Marten Kemp



The annual numbers I saw once were something along the order of:

500-600 deaths from aviation
5000-6000 deaths of pedestrians
50000+ deaths from auto accidents

When those numbers are translated to deaths per mile traveled, which was a WAG
to begin with it showed that aviation was several times more likely to result
in a death per mile than was driving. This was all based on WAG's of the GA
miles flown per year and the driving miles per year.

What was not included in the figures was a comparison of serious injuries. I
suspect that if you included the serious debilitating injuries the numbers
would look much better for the aviation side.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

CurlyNJudd wrote:

"Marten Kemp" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
And yes, flying is safer than driving becasue there's a *lot* smaller
probability that somebody will blow through a red light and nail you.

You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is
700%
higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
something you might want to think about a little more?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
Citations, websites, etc?

He must mean that there are 7x more accidents while flying airplanes, than
while driving them. I know, for example, that when I see a Skylane or a
Bonanza on the road, I give it a wide berth.

Hitting the gear lever could also have some, ah, unfortunate consequences.
It's something of which someone with "C172RG" in his .sig should be aware.

-- Marten Kemp

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:33:00 -0500, "Highfllyer" wrote:

He got in trouble because he was flying using tried and proven VFR
techniques on a legally VFR night when VFR techniques would not work. That
can happen ANYTIME at night, even on a clear night. It is all a matter of
visual reference.

It can happen in the daytime also. It's happened to me turning downwind to
base over water with limited (although legal VFR) visibility and no visual
references in my field of view.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Dan,

I agree that the attitude of "I'm a great pilot so nothing bad can
happen to me" is likely to lead to trouble. Bad things can and do
happen while flying, but preflight planning, proper training and good
judgment are needed to deal with them. But are you going even further
and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
decision as stupid as the one JFK made? If I honestly believed that I
was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
sound judgment.

I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
ability is better than the average pilot.

Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
in an airplane and taking that risk? [That comes across as rather
critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
view risks.]

Ace

"Dan Luke" wrote:
"Ace Pilot" wrote:
The lack of good judgment in this
accident is what drew the condemnation of the aviation community, in
my opinion.

Uh, that was my point: there was a chorus of pilots howling about what a
stupid decision JFK made, as if they would NEVER do such a thing. One
frequently sees that type of rationalization in these newsgroups. Most
pilots believe that their judgement is vastly superior to that of the
average pilot. Apparently the mathematical absurdity of this idea escapes
them. This enables them to believe that they are safer flying than driving.
That self delusion is what ultimately leads to most "pilot error" accidents,
IMO.

"Marten Kemp" wrote in message ...

Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
Citations, websites, etc?

Sure, go to NHTSA.GOV for the highway fatality rate and
the AOPA/ASF site for the GA rates. 700% is a conservative
number. It's more like 10x (depending on whether you are talking
about per mile or per hour).

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...

Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
in an airplane and taking that risk?

As the root cause of this crossposted thread, may I butt in?

The answer to the first part of your question is 'of course.' Failure to
acknowledge this simple fact would place myself and others in far greater
danger than my acceptance of my potential to cause merry mayhem in the air
and (eventually) on the ground. Hopefully, genuine fear of ever realising
this nightmare will prevent me from reaching the front pages of your local
newspaper or tv screen.

Once you get used to it, flying is no different from any of life's
challenging activities. As you grow in experience, you grow in confidence.
And, as you grow in confidence... It's no surprise that the danger points
for flying and other similar activities are the 100 hr mark (when you
*think* you're experienced) and the 1000 hr point (when you *are*
experienced).

How do I justify the risks? That's easy. It won't happen to me. If it
does, I'll get away with it :-)


Roger.

In article ,
Marten Kemp wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is 700%
higher for personal flying than for driving? Doesn't that seem like
something you might want to think about a little more?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
Citations, websites, etc?

The statistics aren't easy to compare. But ...

From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's report,
"2001 Annunal Assessment Of Motor Vehicle Crashes", which can be found
at the following URL:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...2/Assess01.pdf

If you look at page 30, you can see a summary (based on year) of the
fatalities per 100 million vehicular miles travelled (VMT). For the
year 2001, passenger cars have 1.28 fatalities per 100M VMT, and
motorcycles have 33.38 fatalities per 100M VMT.

Now, the wrinkle here is that while automotive statistics are reported
in miles travelled, general aviation statistics are reported in hours
flown. For our 2001 aviation statistics, you can view them in the
Nall Report, a copy of which you can find at the following URL:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf

Page 1 shows for 2001, there were 298 fatal accidents and 535 fatalities
for 26.2 million hours flown. The highway data is based on fatalities,
not fatal accidents, so let's use the latter figure, which gives us
2.042 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown.

So, how do we compare the two sets of data? One very simplistic way is
to pretend that everyone drives at 55 MPH, which would make automotive
statistics 1.28 fatalities per 1.82 million hours driven, or .703
fatalities per million hours driven. If you assume a slower driving
speed, the fatality rate per hour goes down, and if you assume a faster
one, it goes up. If you stick with 55 MPH, then you end up with a 29x
more times of being involved in a fatal accident with flying versus
driving.

If you compare motorcycles to aviation, 55 MPH gives you 18.3 fatalities
per million hours driven, and 1.83 fatalities per 100,000 hours drive,
which is relatively close to the statistics for aviation fatalities.

This is, of course, a very simplistic view of the accident data, and
there are lots of questions about how total hours are estimated, the
data is collected, etc etc. And I would advise anyone who was curious
about this to examine the reports themselves and draw their own
conclusions. (And it would be prudent to bring up the old Mark Twain
quote about liars, damned liars, and statisticians). But this can give
you an idea where the often-quoted statistics about GA being more
dangerous than driving, and approximately as dangerous as riding a
motorcycle, come from.

Personally, I believe that GA is definately more dangerous than
driving, but that the majority of the risk factors in GA are under the
control of the pilot. Thus, a knowledgable pilot who makes good
decisions is probably safer than the average person in a car, since in
a car (and especially in a motorcycle) you're more at the mercy of
other people. But even though every pilot receives a ton more training
than the average driver, flying is still in general more dangerous than
driving, which tells me it's important to never forget the importance
of good judgement.

--Ken