More Flying vs Driving (split topic from carb ice)

[Bill Venohr]

The interesting thing about statistics is you can manipulate the numbers to make them say what you want. You have to really nail down the reference you want to use, such as: accidents/mileage traveled or deaths/miles or whatever. One good reference you can look at for airplane accident statistics is the Nall report from AOPA (I believe you can look at it on-line).

Yesterday's newspaper ran an article that said 2002 closed out the third year in the past ten in the U.S. where there were no commercial airline fatalities (last year was the worst, obviously).

Finally, although the potential for death/injury from a collsion is much greater in an airplane than a car, I always thought the one dimensional requirements of driving were much less forgiving than the normally three dimensions of flying. Everyday we have probably trillions of instances where two vehicles going opposite directions pass within a couple feet of each other at a high rate of speed--the inattention of either driver for just a second could result in a tremendous crash. Think about it--how many times when flying have you looked down at a chart or some cockpit chore only to look back up and find you are in a 20 degree bank and 30 degrees off course? Do you think you would still be on the road in your car? Maybe my trust is misplaced, but I feel much more secure in the air--I also trust my fellow pilots and their flying practices much more than I trust the other drivers on the road.

[GAHorn]

(The following comments were made by me inside a msg regarding carb ice which was originally posted in the Hangar. I deleted them from the original msg, and reposted them here because they more properly pertain to this split discussion thread. Therefore, they do not appear in proper chronological order and may appear slightly out of context, as they were originally in response to an earlier N1478D posting.)

Joe, I'm going to have to confront you on this issue. Every study ever done on travel safety disagrees with your statement. The NTSB (which is responsible for accident data and investigation for all modes of travel-air, train, ship, automobile, bus, etc.) disagrees with you.
The safest form of public travel is by scheduled-airline, followed closely by non-sched's, private aircraft (operated by professional flight crews), and then by charter and private aircraft. You are way out there on a limb with that incorrect statement. In fact, student pilot fatal accidents are less common than deaths by bathtub falls.
I also subscribe to the ALPA and AOPA theories that "pilot error" is an incorrect and misleading catch-all for unsolved accidents. It's similar to the "guns cause deaths" argument. No pilot without a mental health problem has ever deliberately gone out and caused an accident. There was some form of misleading/incorrectly perceived information or circumstance that led to the accident. The question that is not being asked in such cases is Why that pilot was mislead or confused. That is the root cause of the accident.

[GAHorn]

Ha, George you are entertaining. You can pull more numbers together faster than a news reporter can become an expert on whatever he/she are reporting on, or a FAA person can write an article to score points.

Small numbers are not wrong, just by being small. The science of Industrial Engineering teaches how to do sampling of data. All kinds of errors are probable and likely depending on what the need was at the time of the studies you referenced. Do your own sudy - you know people both in the auto world and the airplane world. Admit it, personally you know more people who have died from airplane accidents than auto accidents don't you? The NTSB doesn't have a clue as to how many airplane miles are flown. Nor, does anyone know how many auto miles are driven. All of us that are non-commercial pilots drive many more miles than we fly. Don't get scared if you come to the conclusion that my argument is correct. Flying and driving are both dangerous. The next time you are flying over a crowded interstate, look down at the hundreds of cars you can count from your one airplane. The miles those folks are racking up 24 hours a day vs the miles you are racking up in your one airplane ( look around, no other airplanes ) are so far apart in numbers that your argument is falling apart. If an airliner with 200 people flies 1000 miles is that counted as 1000 miles or 200000? If a car with a family of 5 are on a 2000 mile cross country trip, is that counted as 2000 or 10000 miles? In other words, an accurate study has never been done. I witnessed a fatal accident, a tractor trailer rig didn't want to wait for the person in front of him to make a left hand turn so he pulled in to my lane and hit the car in front of me head on, each going 60 miles per hour. I didn't know the young bride who died other than I was the first one there and the only person to offer her comfort till the ambulance arrived. And, a distant relative was killed in a car accident when I was a child. Other than those two, that's it. It is a larger number than two pilots who are dead now due to aircraft accidents that I have known. When I add up all of the driving miles vs flying miles in peoples lives that I've known, there are lightyear more driving miles. So, in my personal study, driving is safer than flying, and I live in the DFW area, home of the worst drivers in the USA.

That's the problem with this discussion thread, Joe. "Do your own study" is not applicable to the real world. If your "own study" were to be considered valid then the Title of the Study would have to be something like "Joe's Acquaintances Twice as Likely to Die in Airplanes than those who stay unknown to him!"
I hope this doesn't seem antagonistic, because you know how much I truly like you. But I'm puzzled over your belief that your small view of the world establishes axioms that must hold true for everyone else. By that logic, everyone in the world is a violent criminal who believes himself to be wrongly convicted, and the theory is proven by the kinds of people known to the Warden in Huntsville, Tx.

By making strong statements you try to impart legitimacy to your incorrect argument. Example: "The NTSB doesn't have a clue as to how many airplane miles are flown." Reality: The NTSB study relates to certificated air carriers who are required by law to report not only the number of miles flown, but also the number of passengers flown, and in greater detail than you apparently choose to acknowlege.
The data is further dissected into "passenger-miles" which address the safety issue in real comparative terms. The fog that surrounds this discussion is promulgated by a lack of information and understanding of the data being spewed out in a bunch of confusing verbiage. The amount of time spent in various modes of travel is related to the safety issue only in the sense that more time spent doing dangerous things equals more time spent dangerously. If you take the number of hours spent in autos and compare that to auto deaths, and take the number of hours spent in airplanes and compare that to airplane deaths,...the result is exactly as the NTSB, AOPA, FAA, BTS, and all the other authorities have concluded.... you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile than in an airplane, and the reason that is so is because the exposure to unregulated dangers is more predominant in autos than airplanes.
Flying is a vocation that minimizes and regulates the exposure to dangerous circumstances far more than driving does. Result: Flying is a safer activity than driving.

Your own statement --"The next time you are flying over a crowded interstate, look down at the hundreds of cars you can count from your one airplane. The miles those folks are racking up 24 hours a day vs the miles you are racking up in your one airplane ( look around, no other airplanes ) are so far apart in numbers that your argument is falling apart."--is the epitome of argument against yourself. That statement alone is sufficient to confirm the increased level of danger on the interstate as opposed to looking "down" from an airplane. The only problem with using your own argument to defeat your position is that it's purely anecdotal....it has no validity! (That's a shame, too. I would have enjoyed such a fun way to the conclusion.)
I hate to confuse you with facts, but the statistics of the Highway Dept's, NTSB, FAA, BTS, and virtually all other agencies qualified to comment on this subject are far more reliable than the small sample of people you happen to know. (Although for your personal survival, perhaps the people you know that seem intent on killing themselves in airplanes are a cadre of ineptitudes from which you might consider distancing yourself.)
As for me, I am far more confident in the results obtained in the statistical analysis of those expert agencies than I am in the comparison of dead people you know.

[N1478D]

Ha, George you are entertaining. You can pull more numbers together faster than a news reporter can become an expert on whatever he/she are reporting on, or a FAA person can write an article to score points.

Small numbers are not wrong, just by being small. The science of Industrial Engineering teaches how to do sampling of data. All kinds of errors are probable and likely depending on what the need was at the time of the studies you referenced. Do your own sudy - you know people both in the auto world and the airplane world. Admit it, personally you know more people who have died from airplane accidents than auto accidents don't you? The NTSB doesn't have a clue as to how many airplane miles are flown. Nor, does anyone know how many auto miles are driven. All of us that are non-commercial pilots drive many more miles than we fly. Don't get scared if you come to the conclusion that my argument is correct. Flying and driving are both dangerous. The next time you are flying over a crowded interstate, look down at the hundreds of cars you can count from your one airplane. The miles those folks are racking up 24 hours a day vs the miles you are racking up in your one airplane ( look around, no other airplanes ) are so far apart in numbers that your argument is falling apart. If an airliner with 200 people flies 1000 miles is that counted as 1000 miles or 200000? If a car with a family of 5 are on a 2000 mile cross country trip, is that counted as 2000 or 10000 miles? In other words, an accurate study has never been done. I witnessed a fatal accident, a tractor trailer rig didn't want to wait for the person in front of him to make a left hand turn so he pulled in to my lane and hit the car in front of me head on, each going 60 miles per hour. I didn't know the young bride who died other than I was the first one there and the only person to offer her comfort till the ambulance arrived. And, a distant relative was killed in a car accident when I was a child. Other than those two, that's it. It is a larger number than two pilots who are dead now due to aircraft accidents that I have known. When I add up all of the driving miles vs flying miles in peoples lives that I've known, there are lightyear more driving miles. So, in my personal study, driving is safer than flying, and I live in the DFW area, home of the worst drivers in the USA.

That's the problem with this discussion thread, Joe. "Do your own study" is not applicable to the real world. If your "own study" were to be considered valid then the Title of the Study would have to be something like "Joe's Acquaintances Twice as Likely to Die in Airplanes than those who stay unknown to him!"
I hope this doesn't seem antagonistic, because you know how much I truly like you. But I'm puzzled over your belief that your small view of the world establishes axioms that must hold true for everyone else. By that logic, everyone in the world is a violent criminal who believes himself to be wrongly convicted, and the theory is proven by the kinds of people known to the Warden in Huntsville, Tx.

By making strong statements you try to impart legitimacy to your incorrect argument. Example: "The NTSB doesn't have a clue as to how many airplane miles are flown." Reality: The NTSB study relates to certificated air carriers who are required by law to report not only the number of miles flown, but also the number of passengers flown, and in greater detail than you apparently choose to acknowlege.
The data is further dissected into "passenger-miles" which address the safety issue in real comparative terms. The fog that surrounds this discussion is promulgated by a lack of information and understanding of the data being spewed out in a bunch of confusing verbiage. The amount of time spent in various modes of travel is related to the safety issue only in the sense that more time spent doing dangerous things equals more time spent dangerously. If you take the number of hours spent in autos and compare that to auto deaths, and take the number of hours spent in airplanes and compare that to airplane deaths,...the result is exactly as the NTSB, AOPA, FAA, BTS, and all the other authorities have concluded.... you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile than in an airplane, and the reason that is so is because the exposure to unregulated dangers is more predominant in autos than airplanes.
Flying is a vocation that minimizes and regulates the exposure to dangerous circumstances far more than driving does. Result: Flying is a safer activity than driving.

Your own statement --"The next time you are flying over a crowded interstate, look down at the hundreds of cars you can count from your one airplane. The miles those folks are racking up 24 hours a day vs the miles you are racking up in your one airplane ( look around, no other airplanes ) are so far apart in numbers that your argument is falling apart."--is the epitome of argument against yourself. That statement alone is sufficient to confirm the increased level of danger on the interstate as opposed to looking "down" from an airplane. The only problem with using your own argument to defeat your position is that it's purely anecdotal....it has no validity! (That's a shame, too. I would have enjoyed such a fun way to the conclusion.)
I hate to confuse you with facts, but the statistics of the Highway Dept's, NTSB, FAA, BTS, and virtually all other agencies qualified to comment on this subject are far more reliable than the small sample of people you happen to know. (Although for your personal survival, perhaps the people you know that seem intent on killing themselves in airplanes are a cadre of ineptitudes from which you might consider distancing yourself.)
As for me, I am far more confident in the results obtained in the statistical analysis of those expert agencies than I am in the comparison of dead people you know.

George, first off, a discussion of this nature is not an influence on our friendship, no matter what our opinions on the subject are.

Second, the NTSB DOES NOT have a clue about how many miles are flown! Are you thinking that they track people flying their 170's here and there? They guestamate their numbers.

Third, your emotional outburst on this subject lends evidence that you are so trapped in your paradigm, that it hurts you to even think that the professionals might have come up with the wrong conclusions or numbers. For instance, when I pointed to an article written by an FAA person about carb ice, you pretty much said that the majority of them did not know what they were writing about. Now, when the numbers relate to your life/work experiences, you have flipflopped 180 degrees, their numbers are perfect.

Fourth, my goal here is not one of making anybody else believe my position. It is more like push ups and sittups being good for the body, a healthy discussion is good too for the mind. Especially, a safety related discussion.

Fifth, there is no right or wrong answer on this subject unless you had well defined parameters such as comparing driving from Grand Prairie to Austin vs flying from Grand Prairie to Austin with specific models of autos and planes defined, along with the abilities of the drivers and pilots defined, etc, etc, etc.

And, if just one person, because of this discussion, improved a safety habit, don't you think the discussion has been worthwhile? Looking at reports and numbers grouped as statistics in a different viewpoint is not blasphemy!

And George, you blew right past a certain important point. I asked that each person look at their own situation, you call it "my personal study", count the numbers, AND THEN, ASK THEIR FRIENDS, to do the same So, it would be a bigger world that just a one person study. If you want to stay stuck in your paradigm, do it. If you don't, here is another way to look at the numbers and come up with whatever conclusion you might.

Personaly, I don't believe a lot of the numbers in the NTSB reports. Unless it states that they are estimated. Again, they just don't have a way of knowing how many miles all of us are flying.

[GAHorn]

Well, clearly this has gone beyond that intended if anyone feels I've become "emotional" about this.
With regard to the NTSB tracking 170 hours flown, then I will certainly agree that they probably don't specifically track that model aircraft. But I didn't know we were talking about Flying 170s's vs Driving. When it comes to evaluating the entire field of transportation safety however, I believe an outfit called the National Transportation Safety Board is probably better positioned to derive a valid conclusion than individuals looking down on interstates.
As for the "flipflopped"...if we are discussing issues about which an agency specializes (such as aviation safety) then the FAA is a valuable resource. I wouldn't take an individual FAA employee's opinion on the topic and consider him the all-knowing expert, however. (Especially if he likely has little experience on that specific topic.) Once again, that suggestion would be taking a small portion (and only an opinion at that) of the available information and lending wide-ranging credence to it. (Sort of like looking down on the interstate and making an industry-wide safety report.)
This was a general discussion of safety relative to flying vs driving (not limited to specific routing) that you started by offering an opinion I thought incorrect and unsupported by available data. It was not an outburst on my part, but an effort to inspire pursuit of better information on the subject. If I was too spirited in that pursuit, I apologize.
As for the relative safety of the Grand Prarie to Austin route, I would agree with you. Clearly it's a dangerous place to fly since you and I are likely to be found on that route. It'd be better to drive.

As for me....
all interest in this subject is fleeting......

[N1478D]

Ha Ha! So, are you coming up here for breakfast or lunch this weekend?

And, according to the NTSB, most fatal midairs happen when a faster aircraft overtakes a slower 170B model. Nope, not going to say that!

Certainly didn't want to write anything that would make you feel the need to apoligize. I've enjoyed the spirited discussion.

[flyer170]

My aunt and uncle were killed in a car accident a decade ago.
Our neighbor lost his daughter and grandson in a car accident 6 months ago.
Two years ago I had a friend die when he stalled his Champ to close to the ground.
On Dec 26th 2002 a close friend of mine was killed when he fell off of a ladder.
My brothers father inlaw killed himself with a pistol.
My brother in-law killed himself with booze.
I do think cars kill lots of people though.
Crank up the statistics
Bob

[GAHorn]

Here's a bit of useful info for you: The most likely cause of your death between the ages of 16 and 70 are an auto accident. A little known bargain in insurance policies is the "auto death benefit", an add-on to your current auto insurance that will buy you $10,000 worth of life insurance for only $3 or $4. Adding a spouse or family member is another buck or so. It is the cheapest life insurance you can probably buy. (At least it will pay for the funeral.)

[zero.one.victor]

Joe,did you just recently learn the word "paradigm"? You're using it a lot lately. I just looked it up in my old Webster's Dictionary,& I still don't know what it means. Please explain it to me. I think it's one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean at the time.
There was a good one in the latest Flypaper:"definitions--roger:used when you're not sure what else to say."

Eric

[N1478D]

Joe,did you just recently learn the word "paradigm"? You're using it a lot lately. I just looked it up in my old Webster's Dictionary,& I still don't know what it means. Please explain it to me. I think it's one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean at the time.
There was a good one in the latest Flypaper:"definitions--roger:used when you're not sure what else to say."

Eric

Paradigm was used a lot back in the 80's when American manufacturing was trying to catch up with the Japanese. Back then I was an Industrial/Manufacturing Engineer.

It is easier to give an example of a paradigm than to define it. You will see in the examples how George refuses to see any logic that differs from his own, ha!

1.) For many decades the Swiss were without doubt the world's best watch and clock makers. Just before the World Clock Show, one of thier young clock makers showed them his new way of making a watch. The head clock makers looked at it, grinned, said that is not the way we do it. The best clock makers in the world have never done it like that, and they know what they are doing. But, you can display it at the show. The young clock maker displayed his clock, the Japanese walked by and took a look at it. From then on, the Japanese were considered the worlds best clock makers - it was a quartz clock. Because the Swiss had never had to look at the way they did things in a different view, because everybody agreed they knew the best and only way to build the best clocks, they were locked in their paradigm.

2.) People started taking note of that form of human nature and started doing studies. One of the studies done was to take people who played cards. In other words, these people knew that a 9 of hearts was red, etc. The scientist made a black 9 of hearts as an example and replaced the correct 9 of hearts with the black one. As they showed the cards to the test subjects, when they got to the black 9 of hearts, the people saw a RED 9 of hearts. Their paradigm told them that all 9 of hearts are red, so that is the signal that went to their brain, even though they were staring at a black 9 of hearts. A paradigm is what makes it so hard for us to see outside of our boxes, or our world as we expect it to be.

If a person believes over a long period of time that a set of reports are accurate, it is nearly impossible to change that persons mind. It is the way we are made.

[N1478D]

Here's a bit of useful info for you: The most likely cause of your death between the ages of 16 and 70 are an auto accident. A little known bargain in insurance policies is the "auto death benefit", an add-on to your current auto insurance that will buy you $10,000 worth of life insurance for only $3 or $4. Adding a spouse or family member is another buck or so. It is the cheapest life insurance you can probably buy. (At least it will pay for the funeral.)

George, stop and think about the group of people that profit from that piece of info. There just isn't anybody that would profit by proving it is wrong, so it is published and used to market their insurance.

[GAHorn]

Actually, Joe, it's not pushed or aggressively marketed at all. In fact, your insurance agent has probably never mentioned it to you or anyone else. It's not a big profit item for them, and I know of no underwriter who even mentions it in any advertisement. You'll likely have to bring it up yourself with your agent if you're interested in it.

[flyer170]

Paradigm is actually two digm's
Like para ducks.

[4-Shipp]

Para Ducks reminded me of an old "Arkansas Eye Test" I saw once:

M R DUCKS

M R NOT

M R 2

C DEM E D B D FEET?

Happy new year everybody!

When is the next North Texas fly in? I think I might be able to make one soon! Also looking forward to Gastons...flying and fishing is tough to beat!

Bruce

[N1478D]

8:30 in the morning at LNC, hope you can make it. Tomorrow being Sunday.