The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
OK yes I admit I missed that when you first posted it...however that it may have included GA was not my main point...
The point I was making...which you seemed to have completely ignored is that your deaths per passenger journey is misleading because it does not account for the fact that aircraft carry a lot more people than cars do.
These statistics do just that.
At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.
In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.
Is therefore completely wrong, using the assumption that your original 117 deaths per billion journeys is about 5 crashes (a very generous assumption since 117 could be just one crash) the true figures are:
200,000,000 journeys needed before I will be involved in a fatal aircraft accident.
Now if we make the assumption that your 40 deaths per billion journey in cars is about 20 crashes, I reasonable assumption since most cars travel with only one or two people in then:
50,000,000 journeys will be needed before being involved in a fatal accident.
Yes I agree per passenger journey air travel kills more people, but from an individual perspective, assessing my risk air travel is safer because those deaths are spread across a much lower number of accidents...