Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Gender equality does not rule in private flying. While a male driver > is only about twice as likely as a female driver to get into a fatal > car accident, a male private pilot is eight times more likely as a > female private pilot to get into a fatal plane accident. That > suggests that you're safer per mile flying in a small plane with a > female private pilot than you are driving in a car with a man. Well not really, because the right way (IMHO) to measure safety is in terms of "safe trips" or "safe hours", not miles. You cover miles a lot faster in an airplane (usually). The commonly used "per mile" stats are suspect becuase it is a completely different kind of travel in most cases. For example even the whole car thing gets thrown off more when you consider that most fatal car accidents happen in intersections and on two lane roads where limited access highway travel probably racks up the most miles traveled. > just to be the young-buck thing. My guess is that (on average) men > just have a harder time admitting they're wrong than women do. Fatal > plane accidents can happen gradually, as the result of a long chain of > bad decisions and other problems -- there are often many points where > the pilot could have saved him or herself by turning back, waiting a > couple of hours for better weather, choosing a different altitude or > route, making an extra fuel stop, etc. Maybe women as a group are > just better at doing that kind of thing. > Gender based stats can be tricky, especially when there's a great imbalance in the number of participants (most pilots are men still). It could be that women have a strong survival instinct and probably won't do something like fly into 600ft ceilings at dusk into busy airspace in a single prop airplane, because it just doesn't make sense if survivability is more strongly valued than say making it to a meeting or getting home tonight. Perhaps to a woman, the more important statistic might be the frequency of fatalities under different weather conditions! But, more than likely the real reason is just that women more readily ask for directions and then actually listen and follow them. :-) BTW, Congratulations on hitting 200h! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:36:13 -0400, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > > To take a different example, if I could show that more people die > > > every year from falling off chairs than from high-altitude > > > mountain climbing without oxygen, would that prove that sitting > > > on a chair is more dangerous? > > > > ..reminds me of the safest mode of human transportation counting > > passenger mileage: babies crawling on the floor is a close 2'nd, > > _despite_ the Hindenburg. ;-) > > Even though this is off-topic, I'll continue just a bit further with > some fun but totally unconfirmed numbers I've heard, since they're > probably of general interest. > > First, while flying on a scheduled air carrier is much safer than > driving per passenger mile, flying with a private pilot is seven times > more dangerous than driving -- in other words, it's roughly comparable > to riding a motorcycle. ..huh? Considering the risks involved in pushing a system made for man-and-horse traffic into todays roads, with _all_ that _wide_ open space up there? > Gender equality does not rule in private flying. While a male driver > is only about twice as likely as a female driver to get into a fatal > car accident, a male private pilot is eight times more likely as a > female private pilot to get into a fatal plane accident. That > suggests that you're safer per mile flying in a small plane with a > female private pilot than you are driving in a car with a man. ..that, I can believe. > It also suggests that flying accidents are much more under the pilot's > control than driving accidents, since the gender gap is so much > larger. ..the ladies tend to close that gap on the seriousness on themselves, the tend to get more seriously hurt _when_ they get hurt, the belief is the females are less selfish and more caring about other people. > Some day I'll do the proper research to see if the numbers I've heard > are accurate. We know that it's young male drivers who cause the most > car accidents, but many private pilots are older, so it's unlikely > just to be the young-buck thing. My guess is that (on average) men > just have a harder time admitting they're wrong than women do. Fatal > plane accidents can happen gradually, as the result of a long chain of > bad decisions and other problems -- there are often many points where > the pilot could have saved him or herself by turning back, waiting a > couple of hours for better weather, choosing a different altitude or > route, making an extra fuel stop, etc. Maybe women as a group are > just better at doing that kind of thing. ..yeah, I learned to respect those snowed over triangular signs in Sweden, a _vastly_ different traffic culture, tradition and policy from Norway. On entering Sweden, I was lulled into the belief "Bah, they're paranoid.", as "nothing ever happened" on the signs I saw and read and not. So I the 900 hour driver, _relaxed_. ;-) ..ever seen those rally cross drivers do turns on TV? Mix in the Quake-III feeling and you appreciate how I got past that snow clearing truck that took up 3/4 of that wee railroad crossing bridge I was _kicked_ over. ..the second time was easy, the road just fell off down to the left, where some Swedes filled up the bend trying to help another idiot: "hummm, lessee, braking was useless, climb up the bank, bleed off the speed, then drop back down.". My GF was _not_ amused. ;-) ..we do support emergency landings outside runways? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
Arnt Karlsen writes: > > To take a different example, if I could show that more people die > > every year from falling off chairs than from high-altitude mountain > > climbing without oxygen, would that prove that sitting on a chair is > > more dangerous? > > ..reminds me of the safest mode of human transportation counting > passenger mileage: babies crawling on the floor is a close 2'nd, > _despite_ the Hindenburg. ;-) Even though this is off-topic, I'll continue just a bit further with some fun but totally unconfirmed numbers I've heard, since they're probably of general interest. First, while flying on a scheduled air carrier is much safer than driving per passenger mile, flying with a private pilot is seven times more dangerous than driving -- in other words, it's roughly comparable to riding a motorcycle. Gender equality does not rule in private flying. While a male driver is only about twice as likely as a female driver to get into a fatal car accident, a male private pilot is eight times more likely as a female private pilot to get into a fatal plane accident. That suggests that you're safer per mile flying in a small plane with a female private pilot than you are driving in a car with a man. It also suggests that flying accidents are much more under the pilot's control than driving accidents, since the gender gap is so much larger. Some day I'll do the proper research to see if the numbers I've heard are accurate. We know that it's young male drivers who cause the most car accidents, but many private pilots are older, so it's unlikely just to be the young-buck thing. My guess is that (on average) men just have a harder time admitting they're wrong than women do. Fatal plane accidents can happen gradually, as the result of a long chain of bad decisions and other problems -- there are often many points where the pilot could have saved him or herself by turning back, waiting a couple of hours for better weather, choosing a different altitude or route, making an extra fuel stop, etc. Maybe women as a group are just better at doing that kind of thing. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:23:19 -0400, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > > however, since the FAA does not release statistics about the > > > number of pilots and hours flown at different experience levels, > > > his numbers are meaningless. > > > > ..huh??? Why the hell not??? > > They indicate nothing about what level of experience is really the > most dangerous: the real killing zone could be at 100 hours, or 900, > but we cannot tell. ..true, my impression is the problem is they never tried qualify these hours, 200 hours as a PPIC and 200 military hours as PIC is _way_ different, and your FG experience and instrument rating, sort of puts you in a 3'rd corner. ...which might have its own hazards. ;-) > To take a different example, if I could show that more people die > every year from falling off chairs than from high-altitude mountain > climbing without oxygen, would that prove that sitting on a chair is > more dangerous? ..reminds me of the safest mode of human transportation counting passenger mileage: babies crawling on the floor is a close 2'nd, _despite_ the Hindenburg. ;-) > > That's no reason to let those _same_ accidents repeat themselves > > over and over again. > > I agree absolutely -- it is absolutely critical for everyone, pilots, > car drivers, joggers, cyclists, etc. -- to know what the dangers are. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
Arnt Karlsen writes: > > however, since the FAA does not release statistics about the > > number of pilots and hours flown at different experience levels, > > his numbers are meaningless. > > ..huh??? Why the hell not??? They indicate nothing about what level of experience is really the most dangerous: the real killing zone could be at 100 hours, or 900, but we cannot tell. To take a different example, if I could show that more people die every year from falling off chairs than from high-altitude mountain climbing without oxygen, would that prove that sitting on a chair is more dangerous? > That's no reason to let those _same_ accidents repeat themselves > over and over again. I agree absolutely -- it is absolutely critical for everyone, pilots, car drivers, joggers, cyclists, etc. -- to know what the dangers are. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:21:46 -0400, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > .."the 200'th hour" is also the most dangerous period for average > > pilots according to the stats, these usually _assume_ things > > instead of _preparing_ for them, because their 200 hour experience > > may be construed to have taught them "this is allways ok to do". > > That might be a bogus statistic. One of the most popular sources of > it is a book called THE KILLING ZONE, by Paul Craig. He uses NTSB > statistics to show that pilots with 50-300 hours of experience (his > "killing zone") account for many more fatal accidents than any other > group; however, since the FAA does not release statistics about the > number of pilots and hours flown at different experience levels, his > numbers are meaningless. ..huh??? Why the hell not??? > For example, private and student pilots with 100-149 hours accounted > for 309 fatal aircraft accidents in the U.S. from 1983 to 2000, while > private and student pilots with 350-399 hours accounted for 109 > accidents. Who's more dangerous? It depends on how many pilots there > were in each category and how much they flew. If there were three > times as many pilots with 100-149 hours as 350-399 hours -- or, more > importantly, if pilots in the 350-399 hour category flew three times > as many hours as the less experienced pilots -- then the fatal > accident rate for the more experienced pilots was actually higher. ..true, and "an hour is not like another hour", but even if the statistics is good enough to make id'ing the dead easy, that's no reason to let those _same_ accidents repeat themselves over and over again. ..case in point: miscalculating the fuel; In Norway and the UK, I'm aware of 3 cases of Gimli Gliding into terrain, and watch autorities encourage lawyers advice pilots to come up with white lies to avoid losing a living, license or just avoid getting a fine. "Heia Norge." ..I mean, that eerie silence intro to a Gimli Glide, _is_ a good lesson, and one that _should_ be shared. .."--Gimli-Glide-calc" _is_ something we could do in FG. ;-) > That's not to say that such a blip doesn't exist, and that 200 hours > isn't a dangerous place -- I worry a lot about how easy it is to get > in over my head fast now, especially with a new instrument rating and > the confidence boost from passing the IFR flight test and flying in > the system with the big airliners. As a result, I second-guess myself > too much before every flight and get quite nervous and even nauseous > (until I start the engine, and a calm focus settles over me). Taking > off after dusk right into gloomy, low, grey cloud is much different > psychologically from taking off in the morning into a clear, blue sky. ..the idea is keep you fliers safely high up on yer toes. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Killing Zone (was OT: 200 hours)
David Megginson writes: > For example, private and student pilots with 100-149 hours accounted > for 309 fatal aircraft accidents in the U.S. from 1983 to 2000, while > private and student pilots with 350-399 hours accounted for 109 > accidents. Who's more dangerous? It depends on how many pilots there > were in each category and how much they flew. If there were three > times as many pilots with 100-149 hours as 350-399 hours -- or, more > importantly, if pilots in the 350-399 hour category flew three times > as many hours as the less experienced pilots -- then the fatal > accident rate for the more experienced pilots was actually higher. OK, I'm obviously sleepy today after my flight last night. Everywhere I wrote "three times", replace with "a third", and the math might actually make sense. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
