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

"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

Stefan wrote:
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.

Maybe - can you explain why it is nonsense?

Compare it by the hour and it looks a lot differently.

Okay - compare Table 4, column 2 (fatalities/100 million passenger
kilometres) with Table 4, column 5 (fatalities/million passenger hours)
in http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/statistics/cross_modal.aspx

In column 2, the rate is ~2.5 times greater for pedestrians while in
column 5, the rate is ~2 times greater for GA. Looks different, as you
say.

But: the inversion that occurs when comparing the two metrics, and the
less than one order of magnitude difference, suggests that the difference
in risks between GA and walking may be inconsequential. Why? Because no
inversion of risk exists between GA and _any other of the other transport
modes_ when going from column 2 to column 5. GA is either always more
dangerous to a greater or lessor degree, or always less dangerous (in the
case of motorcycling).

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.)

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. For example, just how would you go about biasing the fatality rates
for "High Capacity RPT" in the ATSB study? They are all zero!

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

No argument.

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

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Stefan wrote:
Actually, the most dangerous thing in aviation is the attitude of some
pilots that aviation is not dangerous.

No argument.

Ok, I'll argue that one. Pilots who underestimate the risk of GA
(especially compared to the risk of automobiles) are indeed being
unrealistic. But, at least in my anecdotal experience, such pilots are still
as meticulous as others about the various safety procedures we're all
trained to carry out. I see no evidence that they take greater risks than
the rest of us.

--Gary

Idiot. Your nonsense is "easily refuted."
In fact, the graph you attached from BTS compares apples and oranges. I
suggest a Stat 101 course from your local community college. 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. Here is one example:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

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.

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

"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.

Unreal. So obviously and patently dishonest to use "vehicle miles (or
KM)." The AOPA could use someone with your statistical abilities.

More on "some measures."

From the AOPA's 2004 Nall report:
1 out of 413 pilots involved in an accident in 2003.
1 out of 2009 active pilots involved in a fatal accident.

Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents would
be in the MILLIONS.

Still not convinced because of "some measures" that suggest GA flying is
safer than walking, here's an excerpt from your very own Phillip
Greenspun.

"How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours
of general aviation. It is fairly safe to assume that when a plane crashes
and someone dies, everyone on board dies. By contrast, the death rate for
automobile driving is roughly 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles.
Car crashes don't always kill everyone in the car so let's use this
statistic as provided, which is for an individual traveling in a car
rather than for the entire car. So considering that the average airplane
accomplishes a groundspeed of at least 100 miles per hour, those million
hours of flight push the occupants of the plane over more than 100 million
miles of terrain. Comparing 16 fatal accidents to the 1.7 rate for driving,
we find that flying is no more than 10 times as dangerous per mile of
travel. And since most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, a modern
fast light airplane traveling a longish distance might be comparable in
safety to a car.

We can also look at safety per hour. This makes sense for recreational
pilots who have the alternative of spending a few hours flying around or
spending those hours taking a scenic drive. If the average speed of car
travel is 50 miles per hour, those 1.7 deaths occur in 2 million hours of
driving. This makes general aviation, with 16 deaths per 1 million hours,
roughly 20 times as dangerous per hour than driving."

Unfortunately, he didn't compare GA flying to walking around.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Now, try to follow along here Jim. If 1 out of 2009 active drivers in the
USA were involved in a fatal accident, the carnage from car accidents
would
be in the MILLIONS.

No, you're exaggerating by an order of magnitude. Do the arithmetic.

--Gary

OK. I concede that one. It wouldn't be in the millions. But I would
venture, without looking into it, that far less than 1 of 2009 drivers is
involved in a fatal accident each year.