Hmmmmm........ A new soap opera: As the Thread Turns
Brent's view of statistics (the plural of statistic) is from an
engineer's perspective. Lorn didn't go far enough. Terrence used
20 year old information and threw in some strongly held personal views.
Others have sought to explain certain sub-sets of the universe of air
accidents by comparing dissimilar groupings.
If you have gotten to this paragraph perhaps you will
continue. Note that statistic is defined in an online dictionary as
follows:
- A numerical datum.
- A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that
characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived.
While it took me eleven years to get a simple BS (yes, that is the
correct expression) in Math, the middle years (1960's) were devoted to
computers, with some time spent writing programs on vacuum tube and
transistor computers to turn vast quantities of #1 into a wide variety of #2
(yes, #2). Interestingly, statistics alone should not be our real
concern.
LML contributors so far have tried to perform the function of the
insurance companies (Lorn, jump in any time). To wit, assigning a
probability to an event which causes the death of an aircraft occupant when
the reported statistic is grossly limited to gigantic subpopulations such as
GA and Commercial Aviation. There are mathematical methods to determine
the probability of heads on the next coin toss and even more complex event
outcomes based on intervening conditions. I wonder if this is where
Brent meant a lower branch of math? After all, a form of this math is
applied to "theoretical" physics (Lorn, hit'm with the random nature of #1
above) to help explain various natural wonderments. I gave up on
studying probability theory when the conditions got too complex.
The insurance companies have not given up on conditional probabilities
(this must be what they call actuarial science). Their motive is
straight forward - What premium should be charged to some population so that
when certain covered events occur, less is paid out than taken
in. When a person obtains insurance coverage for an air event that
leads to death and destruction (crash among others), the company tries to
limit the population so that their motive is met. For example, a
transitionally trained pilot with a minimum number of hours in similar type
that is retrained each year and is young enough without too many
DUI's can get such protection while someone falling outside that
population is eliminated or must fit into a population where higher premiums
are paid.
If you are still with this piece, please note that the probability
of your immediate demise is far more complex than using
general aviation population statistics combined with the wing design of
the airplane flown. There are so many ways to go. For example, in
the greater population, the category "home accidents" is a killer, but since
you built your plane and still have all your fingers and toes the chances are
you won't perish that way (Hmmmm, an opinion, not a statistic).
Now, to get personal I must describe the subpopulation I
exist in - I drive a performance car without side airbags and use speed to get
out of dicey situations, I frequently travel expressways in excess of 75 mph
(65 Kts) on a motorcycle, I am overweight, I eat and drink almost anything in
moderation, I operate dangerous home garden manicure equipment, I fly a hi
performance airplane that I built in my garage and I don't challenge Mother
Nature too much. I also avoid flying commercial airlines, especially
those that keep turning up with drunk pilots or are based in certain
exotic locations. Oh, I clean my own guns and I don't allow terrorists
to board my aircraft either.
So, is the probability less or greater that I will perish in my
Lancair or of that because I am a member of the GA population?
I don't care because I am a special case. Besides the
advanced institutional care I receive and ever higher med doses, I
respect the flight characteristics of my airplane. And that
alone apparently puts me in a different population from those that think
they are still flying a Cessna whilst directing their hi-perf experimental
craft about the sky.
Risk analysis is different for the individual or the insurance company
because of very different interests. Statistics are useful to the
latter and not particularly useful to the former.
Scott
Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL
(KARR)
Abnegate Exigencies!