Hi Peter,
Is this another conclusion?
I do not share this login. Why do you ask?
And I think we can all see you don't have the stats you mentioned. So parking the (now answered) question as to whether you have the stats, I'll move on, in the hope that this brief exchange has helped at least some people avoid perpetuating your misinformation.
mikehallam,
You're probably right, but I'm one of life's perpetual optimists!!
Fuji
However as with any stats. a proper understanding can only follow from the ability to correctly interpret the data.
Thank god I'm not on my own!! Wise words .. however ..
so in terms of am I likely to die in that way, the answer is you are not.
Slight pedantry, but I think it's important.. I don't think that is necessarily the case. Statistics are incredibly easy to misinterpret, to which you've alluded. There are too many factors to make that statement. I think the statement you are taking a little out of context is "PILOTS don't very often die in that way". That doesn't mean YOU aren't likely to die that way. By extremely careful analysis of the stats, you MIGHT find that the majority of deaths have been a certain age range, PiC hours, or engine life span, or specific route, etc, etc, etc. If you personally fall into the high risk area, then you are possibly WAY more likely to die than "the rest". Similarly, you might fall into the low risk category and be almost inconceivably likely to die that way.
This is the important point of threads like this. I am extremely greatful for them, as they enable me to form a more rich picture of the risks, and how to mitigate them. GoldenEaglePilot puts this perfectly. Control the risks you can control, and decide whether you're willing to expose yourself to the risks you can't.
But you can only make that judgement based on a rich understanding of what can / does go wrong, and the successful / unsuccessful ways of dealing with them.
"The vast majority of accidents are down to human failure".
This is one we all hear a lot. Instinctively I would guess this is true, but I haven't seen any statistics to prove this. Is this something that someone spouted on a forum one day and we all took as being gospell? I genuinely don't know either way, so can't comment - and so wouldn't comment. I'd love to know for sure though.
but in both instance [twin/single] the risk is so small that some would argue it hardly warrants concern
Again, a very wise observation, and it might be that (to use statistitian speak) the sample is too small to draw any conclusions on whatsoever. So in which case, one would have to make up their own mind about what they GUESS, based on the vast web of knowledge and understanding that fills our minds when we immerse ourselves in a topic, like flying.
statistically there is a far greater chance that [cancer] will kill you.
really? you sure?
You are absolutely right, though, that most people's (probably all peoples to some extent) assessment of risk is more emotional rather than logical.
We also tend to perceive a risk as smaller the more we've taken it. First time you bungie jump or parachute jump, or take off, or run down the stairs, etc, etc we perceive the risk as lower. That's part of how our subconscious works, and is the same mechanism which drives out "instincts", as we consider past events as proof of what's likely to come.
I think this mechanism tends to lead some types of people to make sweeping statements, as they apply their historic personal experience to situations about which they do not have all the facts.. unable to accept that there could be circumstances which completely and totally change their viewpoint. These people tend to gravitate towards forums in my (vast) experience!