Jim Logajan wrote:

Sure, you can change the magnitudes, but you can't always change the
comparative ordering. I also think it is a stretch to say you can bias at
will.

It's not only the way to look at the results which matters. The crucial
(and most difficult) point is to ask the right questions and choose the
right methods to get meaningful data in the first place.

Example: You want to compare the danger between car and GA. Ok. So you
must ask yourself:

- Compare by mile per vehicule, mile per passenger, respective hours or
even by the number of license holders?
- How do you define danger? Only fatalities? Or the injuries, too? And
if yes, which injuries? All accidents?
- How do you treat third party injuries vs. pax injuries vs.
pilot/driver injuries?
- Do you just count the bodies? Or count the vehicules with at least one
body/injury? Bot approaches may make sense.

And so on. See my point? Each approach will yield completely different
results. And it doesn't stop the You must differ

- local flying vs. cross country
- recreational flying vs. professional GA
- self flying vs. transport by a hired pilot
- light singles vs. business jets
- day VFR vs. IFR
- you should take account of the reasons for the accidents, too

and the same for the ground vehicules to be compared, of course.

Sounds complex? Well, it *is* complex. And each approach will yield a
different result. But without this differentiation, such comparisons are
completely meaningless.

Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

Imagine a young student pilot who, from day one, is always told that the
most dangerous part of aviation is driving to the airport. Which
attitude will he develop? The truth is: Aviation is damned dangerous and
if you're not absolutely serious about it, it will bite you.

Stefan