Re: Tom Knauff's newsletter

"Andy" <a.durbin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ac54e481-3cbc-4b9e-bbb0-4f59ab356e26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 4, 4:56 pm, Jim Logajan <Jam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

I think that for a meaningful risk analysis the number of fatalities
should be compared to either the hours of risk exposure, or the number
of risk exposure events.  This means either the number of flights, or
the number of flight hours, should be used rather than the number of
people qualified to participate.

FAA atempts to gather data on power pilots flight hours at every
medical exam.  That data is not collected for pilots with only a
glider rating.


Andy


Actually, I don't think there is any possibility of a meaningful risk 
analysis since the overwhelming determinant is pilot skill.   You can't 
simply lump all pilots in the same statistical pool and try to extract a 
"risk analysis" of soaring while ignoring the "800 pound gorilla in the 
room" which is pilot knowledge and skill.

The only meaningful analysis is the one an individual pilot makes when 
asking if todays flight consitiutes an acceptable risk.

Bill Daniels
"Soaring is very safe if you don't crash."