Flying is not safe

[brak]

According to this document: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Note that professional airline pilots have the 3rd highest rate of occupational fatality (after professional fishermen and loggers). This rate is more than 3 times higher than that for people involved in driving professionally (according to the same table).

Presumably behind most of these pilots there were some passengers as well.

Not really huge news, as numbers were like this for a while (in particular statistics of rates per billion journeys have almost the same ratio) but a reminder still.

[Bealzebub]

Which is kind of odd really, because I don't personally know any professional airline pilots who have been killed at work. There again I don't know any professional fishermen or loggers who have either. This is undoubtably one of those statisical / percentage distortions that fails to reflect the numbers involved. Even in the Uk which has a relatively large aviation industry within the European nations, you would have to try hard to remember many occupational fatalities over the last 3 decades. On the other hand fatalities caused by driving to work, natural causes, hobbies and sports, probably multiplies this tenfold or more, as it would in other occupations.

The title of your thread would therfore seem erroneous. Flying is certainly not fail safe, but it certainly is relatively safe. This weekend there was a fatality involving a coach and a car at Gatwick. Every year in the UK there are usually one or more accidents involving coach fatalities. Every year there are train fatalities. There are thousands of motoring fatalities. There are fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians.

You should also remember that accidents to pilots at work often have nothing to do with flying. For example there have been fatalities caused to pilots being hit by ground vehicles, or other machinery. Accidents whilst being transported by ground vehicles would constitute a work related accident. It may well be that these types of accidents make up the greater proportion of the relatively small numbers in any event. How would that justify your headline?

I think if your argument held any water, you would see an insurance surcharge added to the price of your ticket, that reflected the premium being charged for the properly assessed additional risk.

Beware statistics!

[rgbrock1]

There are big lies. There are small lies. And then there are statistics.

[Cyclone733]

Brak,

I'd imagine the term "Aircraft pilots and flight engineers" would include some of the more exotic and dangerous activities, including HEMS, crop spraying, off shore helicopters and fire fighting.

"professional airline pilots" are just a small part of the total group of pilots and flight engineers. Although they do tend to make the headlines when they take company with them on their way out of this life

Cyclone

[Capot]

From way down in the whole piece....

Four occupations with particularly high fatality rates in 2008 were fishers and related fishing workers with a fatality rate of 128.9 per 100,000 FTE’s, logging workers (115.7), aircraft pilots and flight engineers (72.4), and structural iron and steel workers (46.4).

and from your post....

professional airline pilots have the 3rd highest rate of occupational fatality

Why did you find it necessary to replace the word "aircraft" with "professional airline" I wonder?

And why not point out that the study only concerns the USA, with a higher proportion of aerial work pilots than any other country in the world, by far?

Because it made a better story for your post and gave you a headline that is totally untrue?

And what about all those amateur airline pilots? Are they 100% safe?

[RevMan2]

And now knowing that the statistic

a) is current (2008)
b) emanates from a reliable source (US DOL)
c) is limited to the USA and
d) covers fatal workplace injuries to all aircraft pilots and flight engineers

we could perhaps close this thread before it runs into 20 pages of nonsense.

Please?

[Pax Vobiscum]

The professionals (actuaries) typically don't levy additional charges on life assurance for civilian flight crew (in the UK, anyway). Military aircrew are likely to attract a small 'extra' charge (unless under orders to proceed to a combat zone, which may render them temporarily uninsurable).

Of 'normal' occupations (leaving aside lion tamers and similar), publican is much the most dangerous due to high levels of suicide and alcoholism :eek:

[cdtaylor_nats]

According to the survey there were 7 fatalities in the Computing and Mathematical industries ! How?

[Bealzebub]

If safety is a big plus, maybe the big + fell on them?
All other things being =

[tigger2k8]

i feel safer travelling on an aircraft than i do driving to and from work... :ok:

[rgbrock1]

@tigger28k,

I second that. Here in the great American state of Connecticrap drivers haven't a clue how to, well, drive. Traveling to and from work here each day one takes ones life in their hands. But the way I see it, the airlines staff the flight deck with professionals who certainly know what they're doing. Vehicle drivers here in Connecticrap, on the other hand, are manned predominately by morons who are anything but professional and definitely do not know what they are doing. (Aside from reading a newspaper propped up on the steering wheel, talking on the cell even though it is illegal, styling ones' hair, applying makeup, arguing with one another, etc.)

[Sober Lark]

"professional airline pilots have the 3rd highest rate of occupational fatality (after professional fishermen and loggers)."

This statement cannot be true so stop scaring yourself to death!

From an insurance perspective a professional pilot flying on a recognised public airline is insurable at standard rates. A fisherman would be acceptable but would have to pay an additional premium due to the attitional risk his / her occupation brings. A logger may be uninsurable by many.

[RevMan2]

"Professional airline pilots have the 3rd highest rate of occupational fatality (after professional fishermen and loggers)."

This statement cannot be true so stop scaring yourself to death!

Read the report.

90 fatalities equating to 72.4 per 100,000 FTEs

Average fatality rate of all workers is 3.6/100,000 FTE.

Go to the NTSB website (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp) and query their database.
It's all there and a quick validation looks as if they could support the DOL numbers

[Hunter58]

Brak is absolutely right. Flying is not safe, as a matter of fact it is extremely dangerous and will almost certanly end your life!

This is why you absolutely need a trained, professional crew to fly the aircraft and similarly trained professional individuals for maintenance, dispatch and similar activities in order to prepare and receive the aircraft.

Aircrew and Flight Engineers do include anybody with a commercial license doing something for money? First, what is the basis of the FTE? Second, 90 fatalities is well possible, but if the FTEs are incorrectly compiled it results in a seriously high accident rate.

The effective work time in anything that includes general aviation (which would be the case here) is merely an assumption done by the FAA since, unless I remember wrongly, there is NO central logging system in place to get actual working hours except for commercial airlines and charter companies that need to mandatorily report to the DoT. Flight schools, logging companies, firefighters (that is dangerous!), crop dusters and similar would not be in the reports to DoT and therefore their activities are extremely difficult to judge statistically.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Revman2, the report refers to "Aircraft pilots and flight engineers" to give the 72.4/100,000 figure quoted. I assume that (in the US) this includes everyone who is paid to fly - including firefighters, crop sprayers and bush pilots in Alaska. It would be interesting to see equivalent figures for "Professional Airline Pilots", I'm sure they would come pretty low down on any 'league table' of dangerous occupations.

[barit1]

Considering that for every professional airline pilot killed at work, there will almost certainly be an aircraft written off -

And airliner writeoffs, and hours flown, are well documented online -

It should be pretty easy to do a sanity check on that 72.4 number. :rolleyes:

[RevMan2]

@ Pax Vobiscum
This thread is the result of a brak brainfart i.e. claiming that the report refers to "professional airline pilots", which is clearly does not.
Yes, it would be interesting to have a figure for this group, yes, it will be extremely small, yes, we know this already from commercial airline fatality statistics
@barit1
The NTSB website has the information, a quick sanity check confirms that the numbers look plausible, have a look for yourself.
Clue: chopper pilots and topdressing folk (professional pilots all) are strongly represented.

Which shouldn't surprise anyone who uses their noggin.