Originally Posted by
Hot and Hi
This is the most absurd perversion of common sense I have seen in a long time: That commercial work is inherently more dangerous than private piloting and that one therefore most expect a significantly higher rate of fatalities in commercial work - all other things, like type of helicopter, being equal - than in private flying.
If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.
You have the wrong end of the stick.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.
These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.
If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.