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

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

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-18FE4D.23023319102005@shawnews...
Okay, you statistic gurus, figure this out for me, please?

If, say, I end up flying 4000 hours in my flying life, using your figures
(above), what are my odd of dying in a fatal crash?

1 in 25

Is it possible for you to factor out accidents caused by fuel starvation,
flying into IMC, and flying at night? If so, what are my odds then?

Greatly improved.

I don't think so. Fuel starvation and weather account for only a small
percentage of GA fatalities. Night flying has about half again the fatality
rate of day flying, but less GA flying is done at night than during the day,
so the overall GA fatality rate (used for the above calculation) already
partly discounts the night-flying rate. So even if we were to ignore Jose's
reasonable caveat against excluding the types of accident we don't intend to
have, the odds of a fatality would not be lowered greatly.

Also, if you're going to fine-tune the figures, you have to consider that
personal flying has twice the fatality rate of GA overall. So that would
boost the odds to 8%, or perhaps 6 or 7% if we consider the mitigating
factors too.

On the other hand, that's only if you have 4000 flight hours *remaining*.
Your hours already flown do not count toward the risk (assuming you're still
alive when you read this).

--Gary

In England, hoteliers pay a LOT more for car insurance

???

Now *that* is bizarre!

As a matter of interest - do hoteliers in the USA pay higher aircraft
liability insurance?

Nope.

Do they even have to declare their profession?

Nope.

I've worked in many far more stressful jobs than my current one. In fact,
running a boutique hotel (that's the new "buzz phrase" for what we are -- I
like it!) is like falling off a log compared to working for and with daily
newspapers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

1 in 25

Only if those 4000 hours are all ahead of him. If he already has 2000,
those are in the past, and can no longer kill them, so his odds go to 1
in 50. This is without getting into Killing Zone issues, which is a
whole other controversy...

So, if i toss a coin five times, and each time it comes up heads, on the
sixth toss my odds will much better than 50% that the toss will come up
tails. OK.

Here's an article that I was searching for, written by a pilot. I assume
he must be a Troll Pilot, as he discusses the myths about GA as a
convenient transportation alternative as well as what he calls "The Big
Lie."

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/184109-1.html

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

1 in 25

Only if those 4000 hours are all ahead of him. If he already has 2000,
those are in the past, and can no longer kill them, so his odds go to 1
in 50.

So, if i toss a coin five times, and each time it comes up heads, on the
sixth toss my odds will much better than 50% that the toss will come up
tails. OK.

No, Mike had it exactly right (which would be more evident if you'd quoted
him in your reply; I've restored the quote for you).

Your coin fallacy in no way follows from what Mike said. He's addressing the
odds of an improbable event happening at least once in a long string of
trials; that probability is indeed (to a first-order approximation)
proportionate to the number of trials remaining (hence, if you halve the
number of trials, you halve the probability, just as Mike said). Your coin
fallacy talks instead about the odds on a *single* subsequent trial, which
of course is independent of the number of preceding trials.

--Gary

In any randomized event, preceding events do not effect future
probabilities. If the risks of crashing a plane are 1 out of 10,000
flights, you are not risk free on the 10,001st flight.

The honest way to measure safety across various modes of transporation is
not to use the miles travelled metric, as this is hopelessly skewed. It
should be per trip.

What I think you all should be advocating in adjusting the statistics is
to remove acrobatic flying, which has a higher accident rate than GA and
makes GA look more dangerous than it actually is.

http://www.maplewoodlodge.com/stunts/danger.htm

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...




What I think you all should be advocating in adjusting the statistics is
to remove acrobatic flying, which has a higher accident rate than GA and
makes GA look more dangerous than it actually is.

Oh crap I think my computer is going to explode. Skylune is right about
something. Must be a mistake on his part.

It's not like they count NASCAR accidents in the auto accident stats.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
In any randomized event, preceding events do not effect future
probabilities. If the risks of crashing a plane are 1 out of 10,000
flights, you are not risk free on the 10,001st flight.

Of course. And that's completely consistent with what Mike and I said.
You're misunderstanding a very fundamental aspect of probability.

--Gary