X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:17:25 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4071282 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:22:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.172; envelope-from=mdpilot982@gmail.com Received: by yxe2 with SMTP id 2so5885235yxe.7 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:21:56 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=nEkz20JeNd42+qUrp6OInqLMftymIQJYD+aeU+6UQlJ7asc5A+ATqUtJgFozPykcDZ 0Z8AQsBpkYORWwqXT8rI36gHlXuI/BoWADgex26mEOxWayXHL6jvYvsV9McAYwokFWOx zs1Mq5h4s4c7c9vJa0AIO7dKJlPRIQNv6dvTo= Received: by 10.150.42.1 with SMTP id p1mr4382930ybp.15.1263144116316; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:21:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from DRSMITH (c-75-72-249-193.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [75.72.249.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm1048109iwn.10.2010.01.10.09.21.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael D. Smith" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: Proof of Superiority X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:21:57 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <001b01ca9219$6a1fb120$3e5f1360$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA91E7.1F854120" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcqSGWlcBPquS6SDS2WZt5zEN/lqHQ== Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA91E7.1F854120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Listers, All this talk of LOBO and stuff. Gets a little old here. There is a pretty easy statistic to do on membership in one group or another having the upper hand on accident safety. IT is called the chi squared test. It would take about oh, maybe, 0.3 seconds of CPU time to determine since the data would be a categorical result- i.e. yes or no on the accident, yes or no on membership. There are two arms of the testing result- one would be the statistical significance, or p value being less than 0.05, the other is the so called non-inferiority test. The actual numbers of members in each group may not be high enough to be a valid study- the so called power of the test. Whether or not any of this matters hinges on the fact that the statistics can't measure whether there are changes in behavior and methodology of making in air decision that might affect the ultimate fate of the flight. For example, folks who put their seatbelt on are shown to be safer simply because of the fact they are reinforcing safety as part of the fabric of the flying experience. That act does not imply they are better pilots, but their actions at that time move the subsequent actions closer to a safer ideal behavior. Folks who join safety organizations like LOBO probably put their best foot forward from the git go, but that is not a comment on individual flying skills, perhaps a better mindset on safety. Michael Smith, LNC4 950TT ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA91E7.1F854120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Listers,

 

All this talk of LOBO and stuff.  Gets a = little old here.

 

There is a pretty easy statistic to do on = membership in one group or another having the upper hand on accident safety.  IT is = called the chi squared test.  It would take about oh, maybe, 0.3 seconds = of CPU time to determine since the data would be a categorical result- i.e. yes = or no on the accident, yes or no on membership.  There are two arms of = the testing result- one would be the statistical significance, or p value = being less than 0.05, the other is the so called non-inferiority test.  = The actual numbers of members in each group may not be high enough to be a valid = study- the so called power of the test.  Whether or not any of this = matters hinges on the fact that the statistics can’t measure whether there = are changes in behavior and methodology of making in air decision that might affect = the ultimate fate of the flight.  For example, folks who put their = seatbelt on are shown to be safer simply because of the fact they are reinforcing = safety as part of the fabric of the flying experience.  That act does not = imply they are better pilots, but their actions at that time move the subsequent = actions closer to a safer ideal behavior.  Folks who join safety = organizations like LOBO probably put their best foot forward from the git go, but that = is not a comment on individual flying skills, perhaps a better mindset on = safety.

 

Michael Smith,

LNC4 950TT

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA91E7.1F854120--